Talk:Freedom Road Socialist Organization

After talking with some editors on the discord (I pinged all of them but only a few replied), we came to the conclusion that there was not enough evidence to decisively call FRSO revisionist or opportunist. I made a plan to reorder the page that was accepted:

I moved the uniform thing to an "activities" section (FRSO was right in this instance, I would have acted the same as them and so it's not really a controversy).

I renamed the controversy section to criticisms, as it's more faithful to what was actually being discussed. I kept the Brandon Johnson endorsement but noted FRSO's reasoning for it.

Finally, I removed all mentions of revisionism or opportunism as they could not be backed up.

I have to point out that while ProleWiki does not follow a "no POV" rule as strictly as Wikipedia does, there didn't seem to be any actual controversy regarding the two incidents. For a controversy to happen, it needs many people to call it out. In this case, we couldn't back it up with any notable outrage outside of our editorship here. When the claim comes from our editorship especially, it can make it seem like we are soapboxing.

When editing communist party pages, please remember to afford them good faith. While we should call out issues in parties, writing off a whole party as opportunist and revisionist based on two minor(ish) events is a very strong accusation that may turn potential editors away.

@Ledlecreeper27 what were your sources for the person saying it was a Nazi uniform? From the sources I gathered, including the video; I haven't heard of him saying that he was wearing a Nazi uniform. - Comrade Amicchan ^(talk) 19:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Both sources you added (the FRSO article and the video) refer to the uniform as a Nazi uniform and it said the student himself called it a Nazi uniform (he only said it was a GDR uniform when admins asked, but he told other students it was Nazi). Even if it wasn't actually Nazi, he seemed to think it was. Comrade Ledlecreeper27 ^(talk) 20:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, well then just specify that he claimed he was wearing a Nazi uniform. - Comrade Amicchan ^(talk) 20:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

EDIT: I don't see where the article said that he said that he himself was wearing a nazi uniform. - Comrade Amicchan ^(talk) 20:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

"david arrived to school wearing a costume reminiscent of a nazi uniform, telling other students he was “a german soldier from the 1940s”" Comrade Ledlecreeper27 ^(talk) 20:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I found the line in the Twitter post; but the FRSO article does not contain this line or even mention their name. - Comrade Amicchan ^(talk) 21:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Either way, It does not matter if the sources refer to the uniform as Nazi or not; materially, based on the video, it is a GDR uniform and the salute, regardless of intention, was not the roman salute, which the Nazis used. - Comrade Amicchan ^(talk) 00:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I've read the Fightback News article on this incident and I'm not sure there's much of a story there. Seems that FBN jumped a bit too fast on the story without having all the facts, because it's factually not a Nazi uniform.

On the other hand, if we decide to criticize FRSO for this -- and keep in mind what we write on pages is interpreted as prolewiki stance by readers like all of our articles -- I'm not sure what the angle would be. They thought it was a Nazi uniform, but it wasn't... and then there's nothing to criticize. The only criticism we could make is that they didn't do due diligence and investigated the case before writing their article and interviewing the students. Which to me isn't really a big issue and doesn't count as opportunism on their part.

Keep in mind the student in question definitely played up the ambiguity. He described his uniform as "a German soldier from the the 40s". He also performed a salute that wasn't the nazi salute, but also didn't seem to be the GDR salute. Hitler has also been photographed doing an extended arm salute at 45° (usual one is a bit higher), but with the fingers pointing straight out, and the student kept the angle but closed his fist. Again, super ambiguous and this doesn't happen by accident.

It's a whole lot of "yes that looked like a nazi thing, but actually if you look closely it wasn't!" to defend this student. If I'd been there and seeing this live, I would have first thought he was a fascist who didn't have enough courage to actually wear the right uniform.

The only criticism we could make is that they didn't do due diligence and investigated the case before writing their article and interviewing the students. Which to me isn't really a big issue and doesn't count as opportunism on their part.

— CriticalResist

The problem is that the students might not realize the uniform is not a Nazi one; leading to the reinforcement to the bourgeois conflation of Nazi Germany and Socialist Germany (under the totalitarianism nonsense). I do think they should correct themselves on this matter.

He also performed a salute that wasn't the nazi salute, but also didn't seem to be the GDR salute.

What does the GDR salute look like?

Hitler has also been photographed doing an extended arm salute at 45° (usual one is a bit higher), but with the fingers pointing straight out, and the student kept the angle but closed his fist.

Huh. That's gotta be real irritating to distinguish the regular military salute from the fascist one.

It's a whole lot of "yes that looked like a nazi thing, but actually if you look closely it wasn't!" to defend this student. If I'd been there and seeing this live, I would have first thought he was a fascist who didn't have enough courage to actually wear the right uniform.

I was thinking a similar thought; given that the dude apparently supported Blue Lives Matter. - Comrade Amicchan ^(talk) 00:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You're gonna have to teach me how to quote in talk pages haha

Regarding the salutes (and the goose stepping), I'm not a DDR historian but there are archive pictures online. Here is the NPA in a parade: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/PA03N7/parade-of-the-peoples-police-departments-volkspolizei-marx-engels-platz-east-berlin-germany-PA03N7.jpg, showing they did not perform the goose step on the regular (which is associated with nazi germany these days).

However, they did perform the goose step, there's two pictures on Getty: one described as a "tourist attraction", and the other during the changing of the guard at the anti-fascist memorial (also for tourists or public display?). Seems to me that goose stepping wasn't a common occurrence and reserved for specific ceremonies.

And here they are saluting: https://media.gettyimages.com/id/541073579/photo/german-democratic-republic-otto-grotewohl-11-03-1894-politician-spd-sed-gdr-first-prime.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=gi&k=20&c=Y2kirlNxWCwnFPMUDmOT_zUPIWXAPhODk6uVXhN_VIs=. Otherwise they also seemed to use the typical salute we associate with soldiers today, same one as above but with the palm facing down.

I haven't been able to find the salute the kid did and never saw it in my life before, which makes me wonder where he got it from.

Here's Hitler with an (almost) right angle salute: https://imagenes.diariodenavarra.es/files/image_477_265/uploads/2021/03/19/60ae33ce4702a.jpeg, which shows precedent.

It's unfortunately difficult to get this information regarding the NPA specifically in the DDR as most searches have an anti-communist bias equating the NPA to the Wehrmacht and of course most results are about the nazis as soon as you enter the word "german".

You're gonna have to teach me how to quote in talk pages haha

— CriticalResist

Oh, I use the {{quote}} template.

It's unfortunately difficult to get this information regarding the NPA specifically in the DDR as most searches have an anti-communist bias equating the NPA to the Wehrmacht…

And liberals call themselves "anti-fascist"…

---

I saw the pictures, so now I understand the salutes you're talking about. I guess I'll move that particular text out of the opportunism header; since that is the only mistake they seem to have made (relative to that event of course; they're still opportunist AF.)

And that's why metaphysics in the end is a reductive and reactionary philosophy. It essentializes events and objects as if they're merely just "BeInG tHeMsElVeS!" - Comrade Amicchan ^(talk) 03:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Did they "endorse" him? I read the link and it didn't sound like an endorsement. Also, even if they did, I don't think it's fair to dismiss the whole party as revisionist just because of one incident. CPUSA is more worthy of being called revisionist than FRSO.

— TheDaveMaybe

So, cheering on a Democrat, that conflated antizionism with antisemitism, as if he's going to support the Working class is apparently not opportunism? Literally, from the source text:

Chicago, IL - On Tuesday April 4, Brandon Johnson won 51.4% of vote in the Chicago mayoral runoff election. Johnson's victory is also a victory for working and oppressed people, as demonstrated by the range of organizations and individuals who celebrated with Johnson and his family at the Marriott Marquis on election night.

— https://www.fightbacknews.org/2023/4/6/brandon-johnson-elected-mayor-chicago

(Pro tip: You can't support the working class through bourgeois democracy.)

- Comrade Amicchan ^(talk) 07:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize, I didn't see that part that's bolded. I still think there should be a discussion before just flat-out calling the party revisionist. That's a loaded term.

> Okay, I apologize, I didn't see that part that's bolded.

Good. I probably should have added a discussion too.

Until a consensus is reached, I'll just go ahead and undo my edits

There is no consensus within prolewiki that determines whether FRSO is a revisionist (and opportunist) organisation. We did have controversy regarding two individuals claiming to be part of FRSO in the discord but that is not reflective on the organisation.

There is only one controversy issue here, and that must be counterbalanced from the fact that FRSO has programs mentioning the mass line: https://frso.org/main-documents/some-points-on-the-mass-line/ . Unless if we could provide more evidence of its opportunism and revisionism, this controversy issue is insufficient to determine FRSO as an opportunist or revisionist organisation. As Dave stated earlier, there is more evidence to suggest that CPUSA is revisionist, unlike FRSO.

I am not defending FRSO here, I am just upholding the goal that the FRSO article (like any other article) must impartial if possible, and I believe that the article should be reworded to be a Marxist-Leninist organisation unless there is sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise.

this controversy issue is insufficient to determine FRSO as an opportunist or revisionist organisation.

— Annamarx

So FRSO, cheering on a Democrat, that conflated antizionism with antisemitism, as if he's going to support the Working class is apparently not enough evidence?

What would count as enough evidence?

We did have controversy regarding two individuals claiming to be part of FRSO in the discord but that is not reflective on the organisation.

• What is the controversy
• How is that not reflective on the organization?

- Comrade Amicchan ^(talk) 15:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

> So FRSO, cheering on a Democrat, that conflated antizionism with antisemitism, as if he's going to support the Working class is apparently not enough evidence?

Yes. We need more evidence than that to deem FRSO as revisionist. Understanding FRSO, FRSO claims to be a revolutionary organisation. https://frso.org/main-documents/introduction-to-the-program-of-freedom-road-socialist-organization/ , in contrast CPUSA does not. FRSO also states that we cannot utilise reform. I do not believe FRSO sends out any communist candidates, so it is better to support progressive local politicians. Geoffrey Young is a democrat who is an anti-imperialist, as an example.

Also in terms of the controversy, there was one person who is part of FRSO but only stayed there to recruit people instead of contributing to the wiki. There was also another person, a former editor of prolewiki, who left the group because they deemed the wiki to be 'useless'. They do not reflect the whole organisation because they are members of one particular group. We need more people than that to determine the illegitimacy of Marxism-Leninism in the FRSO.

As I stated before, this is insufficient evidence as it is only one example. We can denote many examples of the lack of demcent in CPUSA, the reformist position of CPUSA, and how webbites (revisionists) have managed to infiltrate CPUSA and still remain a significant faction in CPUSA. When more evidence is gathered, we could deem FRSO as revisionist.

Yes. We need more evidence than that to deem FRSO as revisionist.

— Annamarx

So, what would count as "enough" evidence?

Understanding FRSO, FRSO claims to be a revolutionary organisation.

— Annamarx

Claiming to be Marxist does not automatically make them Marxist.

I do not believe FRSO sends out any communist candidates, so it is better to support progressive local politicians.

— Annamarx

"progressive" (liberal) local politicians that don't support even demsocism? Why can't they get off their asses and get communist politicians; like the now-FBI-infiltrated PCUSA supported a communist candidate https://www.facebook.com/149731459206598/posts/comrade-chris-helali-has-blown-the-bourgeois-candidates-out-of-the-water-and-is-/745237536322651/.

Also, where is your proof that Geoffrey Young is an anti-imperialist? The Democratic Party is pro-imperialist. and even if he is, how does that stop him from just turning pro-imperialist after elections?

There was also another person, a former editor of prolewiki, who left the group because they deemed the wiki to be 'useless'. They do not reflect the whole organisation because they are members of one particular group.

— Annamarx

They are one person; but they are still party of the group, so they do influence on the opinion.

And lone actions like these are influenced by the party and their indiciative of the party's real theory. Publishing a news article endorsing a democrat politician as if they are going to support the working class; given that they are implementing democratic centralism; is a very conscious action.

---

Also, no one tried to defend the PCUSA article when I edited it to state that they defended Patriotic Socialism and that they are therefore revisionist. Why do this for this particular article?

- Comrade Amicchan ^(talk) 17:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

> So, what would count as "enough" evidence?

The fact you want a precise number suggests that you know very little about evidence. Evidence can determine if an organisation is revisionist or not. The more evidence, the better. More evidence means there's a better idea to determine the organisation as revisionist. I'm not looking for a specific number. I don't care enough for a specific number. The more evidence, the better.

> Claiming to be Marxist does not automatically make them Marxist.

Yes. I never stated they were marxist based on a claim. I stated they were revolutionary.

> Why can't they get off their asses and get communist politicians;

FRSO does not believe in reform. FRSO believes in revolution. They employ grassroots actions, such as employing the mass line. They have an entire article dedicated to the mass line as I shown earlier.

> Also, where is your proof that Geoffrey Young is an anti-imperialist?

Geoffrey Young denounces the Ukraine war and claims the Democratic Party is fascist. https://twitter.com/GeoffYoung4KY/status/1605593373229711360 In regards to him turning pro-imperialist after elections, there is no evidence to suggest that will happen yet. He is only a local politician, not one that runs congress.

> The Democratic Party is pro-imperialist.

Yes? I'm not denying that. But keep in mind local democrat politicians are not the same as politicians in congress. Politicians in congress do not care about the proletariat, they are part of the duopoly to stop socialism from surging.

> And lone actions like these are influenced by the party and their indiciative of the party's real theory.

I doubt the person who joined the server and the former prolewiki editor are any indication of the party itself. Especially the former prolewiki editor, who just recently joined the FRSO.

> Also, no one tried to defend the PCUSA article when I edited it to state that they defended Patriotic Socialism and that they are therefore revisionist.

False equivalence. Patsocism is proven to be a tailist, reactionary ideology. PCUSA should be denounced in regards to supporting these measures. This is nowhere near the same as supporting a local democrat.

If you can provide more evidence which is more likely to suggest that FRSO is revisionist, then please do. I am not here to defend FRSO. If they are revisionist, then provide evidence for it.

The fact you want a precise number suggests that you know very little about evidence. Evidence can determine if an organisation is revisionist or not. The more evidence, the better. More evidence means there's a better idea to determine the organisation as revisionist. I'm not looking for a specific number. I don't care enough for a specific number. The more evidence, the better.

I asked for criteria; not an insult.

Also, you literally whined about me "NoT hAvInG enoUgH EViDenCE" so I asked you what would be enough evidence. Now you're moving the damn goalposts into "I Don'T wAnT a nUmBeR." No shit I wasn't just looking for a number; I was looking for criteria. So I don't know how to satisfy the request for "mOrE eViDenCE!"

Yes. I never stated they were marxist based on a claim. I stated they were revolutionary.

To be revolutionary in a bourgeois country is to be a marxist (a communist using marxism). This is fact.

Why isolate revolutionary from marxist as if they're two different things? This is silly metaphysics.

FRSO does not believe in reform. FRSO believes in revolution. They employ grassroots actions, such as employing the mass line. They have an entire article dedicated to the mass line as I shown earlier.

That doesn't answer the question: Why can't they get off their asses and get communist politicians? (as in, to use in elections so that the party can show the working class that bourgeois elections are farces.) The PCUSA literally endorsed communist candidates during 2020.

Geoffrey Young denounces the Ukraine war and claims the Democratic Party is fascist. https://twitter.com/GeoffYoung4KY/status/1605593373229711360

Ok. source found. Does he understand anti-imperialism, or is he just using it as a point to get into congress?

In regards to him turning pro-imperialist after elections, there is no evidence to suggest that will happen yet.

We can predict it though; by getting their economic data.

and why are you focusing so much on future evidence?

He is only a local politician, not one that runs congress.

Exactly; he's still going to turn into a pro-imperialist.

Why are you metaphysically isolating local and congress politicians as if they're different governments? They're interconnected.

Yes? I'm not denying that. But keep in mind local democrat politicians are not the same as politicians in congress.

Different in what sense?

Politicians in congress do not care about the proletariat, they are part of the duopoly to stop socialism from surging.

So are local bourgeois politicians.

I doubt the person who joined the server and the former prolewiki editor are any indication of the party itself. Especially the former prolewiki editor, who just recently joined the FRSO.

Well, it's still possible. Under historical materialism the group is a collection of individuals; therefore the individual can influence the collective and the collective can influence the individual.

and what are you basing that doubt on?

False equivalence. Patsocism is proven to be a tailist, reactionary ideology.

It's proven because the U.S is a settler colonial country.

Likewise, it is proven that endorsing bourgeois parties will not help the working class. FRSO endorsing a fucking democrat, without any explanation for why this is necessary is therefore proof of opportunism.

PCUSA should be denounced in regards to supporting these measures. This is nowhere near the same as supporting a local democrat.

Of course, it isn't the same; they're two different parties with two different ideologies. Doesn't stop me from proving that FRSO is opportunists.

If you can provide more evidence which is more likely to suggest that FRSO is revisionist, then please do. I am not here to defend FRSO. If they are revisionist, then provide evidence for it.

I already did; right fucking here: https://www.fightbacknews.org/2023/4/6/brandon-johnson-elected-mayor-chicago

---

Btw, I would love it you didn't chop up my quotes and bucher their context. - Comrade Amicchan ^(talk) 18:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

> Also, no one tried to defend the PCUSA article when I edited it to state that they defended Patriotic Socialism and that they are therefore revisionist.

I was in PCUSA and I left because of the patsocs, of course I didn't object to you saying they defended patriotic socialism. Also, a lot of people from CPI (Maupin's group) ended up joining the ranks of PCUSA later. I wasn't comfortable with it, so I left.

Sorry, I didn't mean to respond to you Dave. I was trying to respond to Annamarx.

The article as it is right now is sufficient for me. It reads:

>Opportunism

>On April 6, 2022, FRSO endorsed Brandon Johnson,[12] a Democrat who conflated anti-Zionism with antisemitism and supported Israel while denouncing Palestine.[13]

Maybe just add that Brandon was running as mayor of Chicago (from what I understand?). We could also make it clearer that like all Zionist politicians, Brandon understands anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, he just repeats Zionist propaganda to wilfully conflate the two (as the sentence reads right now, it implies he just made the mistake innocently once).

There's no reason to come out and say that FRSO is revisionist, in my opinion. At least not strictly over this. That endorsement stands well enough on its own that people can make their own takeaway from this, and choose to believe if FRSO is revisionist or not.

I realise that in other pages we have come out in support of one view or another but in regards to communist parties, we should be careful not to paint them with a broad brush.

Also, apparently FRSO supported the black students in this debacle, where some dude is wearing an GDR uniform and doing the GDR march. He got called a Nazi by the black students just because he did an East German salute.

The marching dude isn't a Nazi; he would be wearing all black with a Swastika if that were the case.

So the students whining about that are implicitly equating Nazi Germany with the GDR.

So, yeah, this is the first case of FRSO's opportunism: https://www.fightbacknews.org/2022/11/10/black-students-lead-fight-against-racism-cps

The zionist-supporting stuff is the second time. They really are opportunists, lmao.