Freedom Road Socialist Organization

[RadicalSalad]

Hey all...I am thinking of joining FRSO.

Context: I come from a green-anarchist tradition, but of course work on a lot of different issues, recognizing intersectionality and the need for a strong activist left on all fronts. I also consider myself a marxist. To me, successful left activism is much more important than theoretical dogma. For that reason, I want to be in this network of serious anti-capitalist activists. FRSO is the only real option for me at this point, since I live in the south. That being said, I obviously do come from a different theoretical place than the organization.

How important are my theoretical differences in considering whether or not to join?
What are some criticisms of FRSO from the left?

Forgive me if this is not in the right place, but it seemed similar to the PSL question.

[daft punk]

No, dont join, they sound awful.

The Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) — known in Spanish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language) as Organización Socialista del Camino para la Libertad (OSCL)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Road_Socialist_Organization#cite_note-0) — was formed in 1985 as many of the Maoist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoist)-oriented groups formed in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) New Communist Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Communist_Movement) of the 1970s were shrinking or collapsing. The FRSO/OSCL tried to solidify some of these groups into a single organization that would have some longevity.
The component groups of the FRSO saw ultraleftism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraleftism) as the main error of the New Communist Movement and attempted to reverse what they saw as that movement's excessive divisiveness and sectarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism). FRSO was founded by a merger of two organizations - the Proletarian Unity League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletarian_Unity_League) and the Revolutionary Workers Headquarters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Workers_Headquarters) in 1985, and then a subsequent fusing with the Organization for Revolutionary Unity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Revolutionary_Unity) in 1986. Freedom Road later absorbed other groups too, including the Amílcar Cabral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%ADlcar_Cabral)-Paul Robeson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robeson) Collective in 1988 and the Socialist Organizing Network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Organizing_Network) in 1994.
Freedom Road supports self-determination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination), up to and including independence, for African Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans) in the Black Belt Region (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Belt_Region) of the U.S. South and Chicanos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicanos) in the U.S. Southwest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Southwest). Much of the theory regarding this comes from the African American Communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist) Harry Haywood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Haywood), as laid out in resolutions at the Comintern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comintern) in 1928 and 1930. Freedom Road's position on the national question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_question) is a defining feature of its politics.
In 1999, FRSO split into two competing organizations, each retaining the organization's name. Each of these groups considers itself to be the only legitimate Freedom Road Socialist Organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Road_Socialist_Organization

Maoist? Black separatist? These things were discredited decades ago.

contact these instead

http://www.socialistalternative.org/

for a genuine green socialist organisation.

[humbabba]

FRSO is neither Maoist nor Black separatist. If you want to know the particulars of their stance on the national question you can check out the document "Statement on National Oppression, National Liberation and Socialist Revolution" that can be found at FRSO dot ORG -- I can't post links for some reason...

The short of it is that there is a black nation within the borders of the United States, and that nation has the right to self-determination. FRSO doesn't advocate that the black nation secede or something like that, but it argues that it has the right to do that if the people who make up that nation were to decide to do that.

I do not know how a nation's right to self-determination could be discredited, now or decades ago.

The other FRSO is not black separatist either, but I think some of them identify as Maoists.

[KurtFF8]

An important question that needs to be addressed: Which FRSO are you talking about?

[RadicalSalad]

An important question that needs to be addressed: Which FRSO are you talking about?

I'm not really familiar with the other one, but the statements that people were posting above are from the one I'm considering.

PS KurtFF8 I think you know the one.

[The Douche]

FRSO, supports China and North Korea. That should be enough for any communist (marxist or otherwise) to look for a different group of friends.

Why are you talking/concerned about "activism" if you're a "green anarchist"?

[Ocean Seal]

The FSRO is kind of similar to the PSL, except that they are a lot less subtle when it comes to supporting outright capitalist dictators. PSLites I know though are at least critical of the people who they broadly support.

[gorillafuck]

they are a party that non-ML's would describe as stalinist, and ML's would describe as super revisionist and "brezhnevite".

it would be very, very odd for an anarchist to do any sort of work with them (at least, you'd think it would be).

[KurtFF8]

I'm not really familiar with the other one, but the statements that people were posting above are from the one I'm considering.

PS KurtFF8 I think you know the one.

They both have the exact same name, and it seems you haven't referred to anything that distinguishes one from the other.

Both of them are active in the South (as well as most other Left groups) so that doesn't really indicate which you are referencing either in all honesty.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Joining an organization like this is usually a commitment. Therefore "theoretical" differences can become more important than you think at first.

[daft punk]

FRSO, supports China and North Korea. That should be enough for any communist (marxist or otherwise) to look for a different group of friends.

Why are you talking/concerned about "activism" if you're a "green anarchist"?

That is sectarian troll flaming. Give yourself an infraction.

[El Oso Rojo]

You should read there website instead of asking people, on here. No disrespect but most of the view here are going to be negative of them. http://frso.org/

[RadicalSalad]

Why are you talking/concerned about "activism" if you're a "green anarchist"?

Uh not sure what you mean.


They both have the exact same name, and it seems you haven't referred to anything that distinguishes one from the other.


Revleft won't let me post a link but it's frso dot org (http://www.frso.org)
Very silly to have two organizations with the same name...how do people normally distinguish?


they are a party that non-ML's would describe as stalinist, and ML's would describe as super revisionist and "brezhnevite".

it would be very, very odd for an anarchist to do any sort of work with them (at least, you'd think it would be).

Seeing as this is the learning board, could you elaborate on what brezhnevite connotes?

My politics are still in flux. I've been in to radical politics for about 3 years now but I'm still learning- I am probably a little more heavy on the practice than the theory. I am beginning to think that anarchism is an ideology of privilege- for those who don't feel the immediate necessity of an end to capitalism, and who aren't worried about feeding poor people. I am more concerned about building a revolutionary left movement in the U.S.

That is why I'm interested in joining a party. I feel like my efforts will be hugely amplified in my area if I am working in lock step with this network. And I guess that's where the crux of my decision lies- the importance of my ideological differences versus the benefits of being a part of the most active party in my area, and a party whom I really like the practical elements of, as well as the people in it. They are very focused on analyzing the success and effectiveness of action.

[RadicalSalad]

You should read there website instead of asking people, on here. No disrespect but most of the view here are going to be negative of them.

I've read their unity statement and a few other things from them, as well as being close friends with a lot of people in it so I'm fairly familiar with their line. That's why I wanted to get outsider's views.

[gorillafuck]

Seeing as this is the learning board, could you elaborate on what brezhnevite connotes?it's a term that some marxist-leninists use to describe other marxist-leninists who deviate in any way from Stalin or Mao, i.e. consider Khruschev/Brezhnev's rule in the USSR as socialist. same with "Khruschevite".


My politics are still in flux. I've been in to radical politics for about 3 years now but I'm still learning- I am probably a little more heavy on the practice than the theory. I am beginning to think that anarchism is an ideology of privilege- for those who don't feel the immediate necessity of an end to capitalism, and who aren't worried about feeding poor people. I am more concerned about building a revolutionary left movement in the U.S.does "more heavy on the practice than the theory" mean you want to be a member of an organization which supports modern day china and supports the tianneman square incident as a victory for the working class?

[ellipsis]

An important question that needs to be addressed: Which FRSO are you talking about?

this. FRSO v. FRSO.

they are a cadre-based, top-down organization, i am not sure why anybody who identifies as green-anarchist would even consider this group, especially given the number of other marxists orgs, unless it was the only option.

it seems like you would be more into direct action, not publishing newsletters and going on permitted "a to b" marches.

I think your ideas of anarchists are way off. Look at Occupy Oakland and tell me they don't want capitalism to fall and they don't care about "poor people".

[Imposter Marxist]

the only non-state capitalist party in the US is ISO

[RadicalSalad]

this. FRSO v. FRSO.

they are a cadre-based, top-down organization, i am not sure why anybody who identifies as green-anarchist would even consider this group, especially given the number of other marxists orgs, unless it was the only option

The only other option would be starting my own group, and I am probably moving in a year, so I don't know how effective that would be.


it seems like you would be more into direct action, not publishing newsletters and going on permitted "a to b" marches.

I actually just did a pretty militant civil disobedience action with them recently that I shouldn't talk about on the internet, so you'll just have to trust me that it was bad ass.


I think your ideas of anarchists are way off. Look at Occupy Oakland and tell me they don't want capitalism to fall and they don't care about "poor people".

Rather, I am not convinced that an anarchist society will effectively take care of all who need it.


does "more heavy on the practice than the theory" mean you want to be a member of an organization which supports modern day china and supports the tianneman square incident as a victory for the working class?

There is certainly that. But I personally don't advocate for things like that, and from what I've heard from members, there isn't much ideological pressure in regards to things like that. So my question is, when do historical/theoretical lines actually matter? I've heard people say that it does, but in what way? Tangible examples?

[Paulappaul]

the only non-state capitalist party in the US is ISO

ISO isn't a Party, ISO is defiantly State Capitalist and defends the State Capitalist content of the Russian Revolution as progressive.

[gorillafuck]

There is certainly that. But I personally don't advocate for things like that, and from what I've heard from members, there isn't much ideological pressure in regards to things like that. So my question is, when do historical/theoretical lines actually matter? I've heard people say that it does, but in what way? Tangible examples?well why be in a group you don't support the aims of?

[KurtFF8]

Revleft won't let me post a link but it's frso dot org (http://www.frso.org)
Very silly to have two organizations with the same name...how do people normally distinguish?

The frso.org one is often referred to as the "Fight Back!" FRSO (the name of their paper being the reference).

I think the other one is usually just FRSO as I believe they are larger, but I could be mistaken about that.

[Kassad]

Freedom Road Socialist Organization (Fight Back!) deserves some serious analysis. How can a group that cheerleads Stalinism abroad (they believe China and North Korea are healthy workers' states) maintain such a stern liberalism at home? They took the "anyone but the Republicans" line in 2008, which was a backhanded endorsement of Obama and they will likely do the same this year, unless they remain silent.

All in all, they're a tiny Stalinist sect. Their politics are delusional and the thought of joining them makes me sick to my stomach.

[Os Cangaceiros]

ISO isn't a Party, ISO is defiantly State Capitalist and defends the State Capitalist content of the Russian Revolution as progressive.

Please don't feed the troll.

[gorillafuck]

Freedom Road Socialist Organization (Fight Back!) deserves some serious analysis. How can a group that cheerleads Stalinism abroad (they believe China and North Korea are healthy workers' states) maintain such a stern liberalism at home? They took the "anyone but the Republicans" line in 2008, which was a backhanded endorsement of Obama and they will likely do the same this year, unless they remain silent.did they endorse the democrats? I know the WWP endorsed Cynthia Mckinney when the last elections came around. the WWP/PSL/FRSO(FB) all seem to agree on everything except what to do when there are elections.

[The Vegan Marxist]

did they endorse the democrats? I know the WWP endorsed Cynthia Mckinney when the last elections came around. the WWP/PSL/FRSO(FB) all seem to agree on everything except what to do when there are elections.

The problem with Kassad is that he truly doesn't know what he believes in. He was PSL not too long ago, and a very dedicated ML at that. From there, he joins the RCP, and completely disregards anything and everything about the PSL. Give it a few more months and he begins denouncing the RCP for being "homophobic", using the usual Kasama-led rhetoric. Since then, he's taken on Trotskyism, and what appears to be Kasama's line (whatever actual line they take, still trying to figure that one out myself).

The crap Kassad is spouting is our position on the mass-line. In 2008, we'd already witnessed 8 years of Republican-backed capitalist destruction of our economy and of the globe via imperialism. We knew that the mass mindset needed to be changed and organized as a response, which is what the grassroots movement buildup that surrounded the pro-Obama campaign provided. It allowed us to reach out to the masses - masses, btw, who aren't subjected to a disciplined pro-socialist mindset yet - and organize them in the progressive demands of all wars being brought to a halt, for undocumented immigration to be legalized, for greater workers' rights, etc.

Of course, the FRSO never supported the Democratic party, itself, and instead openly denounced "both the Republicans and Democrats are parties of big business. Both parties’ leadership and presidential candidates supported the $700 billion bailout for bankers and billionaires. (http://frso.org/about/statements/2008/economy-peoples-struggle-elections.htm)" And yet Kassad neglects to mention this, and instead gives a half-ass soundbite of what was actually said by the FRSO:


Having said that, the defeat of the Republicans would be a repudiation of their leadership on deregulating the economy into crisis at home and charging into war abroad. But only a massive people’s movement can force Democrats in power to win more reforms that benefit working people and at the same time show more and more people that Democrats are not for real change; only socialism can bring that about.

To RadicalSalad, if you're truly serious in joining the FRSO, then I'd highly recommend you doing so. Though, I'd first recommend you reading both the Unity Statement (http://frso.org/about/unitystatement2001.htm) and our Statement on National Oppression, National Liberation and Socialist Revolution (http://frso.org/about/nq/nq.htm), if you haven't done so already. If you agree with our line, then you can get in touch with someone by pressing the 'Email Us' link at the bottom of the FRSO's main page. If you have any questions, you're more than welcome in sending me a PM and we'll continue talking from there.

Good luck comrade!

[eyeheartlenin]

did they endorse the democrats? I know the WWP endorsed Cynthia Mckinney when the last elections came around. the WWP/PSL/FRSO(FB) all seem to agree on everything except what to do when there are elections.

My impression was that both editions of Freedom Road backed Obama in the 2008 Presidential race, then, somewhat later, the Democratic administration went after those comrades of one of the FRSOs, who had worked on building solidarity with the Palestinians. Unfortunately, I do not know whether it was FRSO Fight Back or FRSO Freedom Road that got attacked by the federal government.

In that connection, I wonder whether, in the wake of the government's attack, the Freedom Road comrades will rethink their endorsement of Obama, as the Presidential elections are getting closer this year.

Of course, I could be mistaken.

* * *

EDIT:

Here are the statements by the two FRSO's, on Obama's election:

http://www.fightbacknews.org/2008/11/mccain-down-in-flames.htm
http://www.freedomroad.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=609%3Asavor-the-victory-get-right-to-work&catid=178%3Aelectoral-strategy&Itemid=231&lang=en

* * *

EDIT: Here is Fight Back's 2008 endorsement of Obama for President

http://www.frso.org/about/statements/2008/defeatmccain.htm

[The Vegan Marxist]

My impression was that both editions of Freedom Road backed the Democrats in the 2008 Presidential race, then, somewhat later, the Democratic administration went after those comrades of one of the FRSOs, who had worked on building solidarity with the Palestinians. Unfortunately, I do not know whether it was FRSO Fight Back or FRSO Freedom Road that got attacked by the federal government.

In that connection, I wonder whether, in the wake of the government's attack, the Freedom Road comrades will rethink their endorsements of the Democrats, as the Presidential elections are getting closer this year.

Read my post above regarding the "backed the Democrats" notion.

As for the FBI, they'd raided the homes of 23 activists. Not all were FRSO. Some were members of the Anti-War Committee. And some worked hand 'n hand with both. The FBI is trying to get us with bogus "Terrorism/support of" charges. Which was only because of our open solidarity campaigns with revolutionary foreign groups, like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

Right now, the main case is on our dear friend and close comrade Carlos Montes, who was also a former leader of the Brown Berets. He had six bogus charges brought against him, but two of them have been recently dropped (http://www.fightbacknews.org/2012/3/27/first-victory-case-carlos-montes-2-charges-dismissed-march-27). Four more to go!

Of course, despite the FBI raids targeting both FRSO and Anti-War Committee, we now know that the main target was the FRSO. We figured this out when one of the Fed agents left a piece of paper in one of the raided activist's home, the paper detailing specific questions to specific people, all of which having to deal with the FRSO. Here's a digital copy of the paper left behind:

http://www.stopfbi.net/sites/default/files/3-Interrogation%20Questions.pdf

[Kassad]

Ah, The Vegan (internet) Marxist has graced us with his presence once more. Note that Freedom Road's statement on the elections was "defeat McCain!" Source: http://www.frso.org/about/statements/2008/defeatmccain.htm

Not "defeat capitalism." Not "defeat the capitalists." Not "defeat the bourgeois elections." It was "defeat McCain." Fitting for their liberal outfit that spouts off the same rhetoric of "please, Democrats! Spend our money on jobs, not war!" Same Stalinist reformists, different day.

The problem with The Vegan "Marxist" is that he has no comprehension of what Marxism is. Marx would read, say, Freedom Road's defense of Chinese tanks rolling over protesters at Tiananmen and likely laugh in their faces. Sorry, but I'd rather make a sincere criticism of my past reformist politics than cling to the same "money for jobs, not for war" bullshit that has led the left in circles for decades.

Anywho, it's pretty easy to get people like TVM to start pouting the moment you call out their 50 person sect for not being legitimately revolutionary. Get ready for the tears, comrades. They'll be rolling out soon.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Ah, The Vegan (internet) Marxist has graced us with his presence once more. Note that Freedom Road's statement on the elections was "defeat McCain!" Source: http://www.frso.org/about/statements/2008/defeatmccain.htm


Very nice. Now let's actually read the article (http://www.frso.org/about/statements/2008/defeatmccain.htm), shall we?


The facts are plain; Obama parts ways, to a degree, with Clinton on the Iraq War, free trade agreements and racism. He has a message of hope with wide appeal. However, Obama operates well within the confines of the Democrats and their big business backers. That said, his election will create a better political climate for the anti-war, immigrant rights, labor and national movements. And no matter who is in the White House, it is important for progressives to stay active and to fight for an agenda that places the peoples needs first.

Yes, it was a call to vote for Obama over McCain, but with actual reasoning. You can throw around as much Red rhetoric as you want in a mass crowd who still doesn't even know the basic scientific definition of socialism is. Until you actually begin organizing them and struggling with them, you'll never be able to reach out to them.

That is the essence of the mass-line. Fact of the matter is that the pro-Obama grassroots movement was far larger and organized than anything else, which were subsequently denouncing the imperialist wars, calling for immigration reform, greater workers' rights, etc. And to walk right in, spouting empty quotes from historical figures and red sloganeering, you're not going to catch their attention. You're going to, instead, alienate yourself from the masses; you'll give them a message of you only fighting for yourself, instead of actually fighting for them.

But it doesn't matter. I'm not here to waste my time online, getting into arguments with people who I clearly can't trust. My time is outside, struggling. I've said all that needed to be said.

[Kassad]

So... you're just trying to dodge the fact that you were a part of the "anyone but the Republicans" sentiment? And you summoned workers to vote for a capitalist candidate? So now you're just a 50 person sect endorsing Obama. What's new from The Vegan "Marxist" "we endorsed Obama, but we got reasons" school?

[Os Cangaceiros]

That said, his election will create a better political climate for the anti-war, immigrant rights, labor and national movements.

The past three years have proven that theory to be pretty much entirely false, especially in regards to war and immigrant rights.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The past three years have proven that theory to be pretty much entirely false, especially in regards to war and immigrant rights.

On the contrary, the anti-war movement and pro-immigration reforms movement are larger and stronger than ever. The point was to organize these people under the same demands, given what the masses' hopes and expectations were. As it was also stated, "only a massive people’s movement can force Democrats in power to win more reforms that benefit working people and at the same time show more and more people that Democrats are not for real change; only socialism can bring that about. (http://frso.org/about/statements/2008/economy-peoples-struggle-elections.htm)"

[Kassad]

On the contrary, the anti-war movement and pro-immigration reforms movement are larger and stronger than ever. The point was to organize these people under the same demands, given what the masses' hopes and expectations were. As it was also stated, "only a massive people’s movement can force Democrats in power to win more reforms that benefit working people and at the same time show more and more people that Democrats are not for real change; only socialism can bring that about. (http://frso.org/about/statements/2008/economy-peoples-struggle-elections.htm)"

Let me rephrase. "Please, Democrats! Spend our tax dollars on education and jobs, not war! Please!"

[The Vegan Marxist]

Thanks to all the three years worth of organizing, we the people were able to pressure the Democrats into accepting various progressive demands, like the ones listed on this site:

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/09/so-that-ignorance-wont-be-reason-why.html

All of which the Republicans would've made extremely more difficult if they'd won again in the '08 elections.

[Kassad]

All the while butchering the people of the Middle East and Africa, while deporting over 1 million immigrants. Shoot me your address. Your "Obama 2012" button is on me.

[Os Cangaceiros]

On the contrary, the anti-war movement and pro-immigration reforms movement are larger and stronger than ever.

Care to back that up with some proof? I have plenty of proof of 1) the USA's escalated military involvement in about four seperate countries, as well as the continued occupation of Afghanistan (the exit from Iraq can't be claimed as an Obama "success", as he did it according to the previous administration's time-table), and 2) the number of immigrants deported since Obama took office. And this is the guy your party endorsed, "tactical reasons" or no "tactical reasons? Pathetic!



Thanks to all the three years worth of organizing, we the people were able to pressure the Democrats into accepting various progressive demands, like the ones listed on this site:

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/0...eason-why.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/09/so-that-ignorance-wont-be-reason-why.html)

All of which the Republicans would've made extremely more difficult if they'd won again in the '08 elections.

Yeah, funneling trillions of dollars to the architects of the financial crisis who plunged millions into misery, a Democratic presidency and Congress that signed into law a 1,000+ page bill constructed as a guaranteed profit plan for the insurance industry, more immigrants deported than under George W. Bush, more military conflicts prosecuted than under George W. Bush, the killing of American citizens, etc. Wow, an amazing record of accomplishment, to be sure! But hey, he made it so that gay people can slaughter 'murika's enemies in foreign wars like everyone else, right?

[Imposter Marxist]

ISO isn't a Party, ISO is defiantly State Capitalist and defends the State Capitalist content of the Russian Revolution as progressive.


They defend the Russian revolution? ...i feel like i've been betrayed. They should know better! It was state capitalist ):

[Lucretia]

the only non-state capitalist party in the US is ISO

Don't forget the LRP-COFI.

[gorillafuck]

We knew that the mass mindset needed to be changed and organized as a response, which is what the grassroots movement buildup that surrounded the pro-Obama campaign provided. It allowed us to reach out to the masses - masses, btw, who aren't subjected to a disciplined pro-socialist mindset yet - and organize them in the progressive demands of all wars being brought to a halt, for undocumented immigration to be legalized, for greater workers' rights, etc. I think that based on what you're saying, it's fairly obvious that what actually happened is that you allowed the Obama campaign to organize you.


Fact of the matter is that the pro-Obama grassroots movement was far larger and organized than anything else, which were subsequently denouncing the imperialist wars,and it turns out that Obama is more militarily aggressive than George W. Bush


calling for immigration reform,which has not occurred.


greater workers' rights, etcwhich has not occurred.

looks like you supported a "movement" (in actuality, a standard presidential campaign) with a leader who 100% duped you.

[Crux]

Very nice. Now let's actually read the article (http://www.frso.org/about/statements/2008/defeatmccain.htm), shall we?



Yes, it was a call to vote for Obama over McCain, but with actual reasoning. You can throw around as much Red rhetoric as you want in a mass crowd who still doesn't even know the basic scientific definition of socialism is. Until you actually begin organizing them and struggling with them, you'll never be able to reach out to them.

That is the essence of the mass-line. Fact of the matter is that the pro-Obama grassroots movement was far larger and organized than anything else, which were subsequently denouncing the imperialist wars, calling for immigration reform, greater workers' rights, etc. And to walk right in, spouting empty quotes from historical figures and red sloganeering, you're not going to catch their attention. You're going to, instead, alienate yourself from the masses; you'll give them a message of you only fighting for yourself, instead of actually fighting for them.

But it doesn't matter. I'm not here to waste my time online, getting into arguments with people who I clearly can't trust. My time is outside, struggling. I've said all that needed to be said.
"The facts are plain; Obama parts ways, to a degree, with Clinton on the Iraq War, free trade agreements and racism."

and how plain are the facts now...?

[gorillafuck]

a scenario for you, Vegan Marxist.

it's 1964. Barry Goldwater is promising to escalate the Vietnam War, fight communism as hard as he can, fight the unions, cut back on state programs and welfare. Lyndon B. Johnson is promising to get America out of Vietnam, fight poverty in America, set up social programs, and promising civil rights.

who do you campaign for, Vegan Marxist?

[RedTrackWorker]

I am more concerned about building a revolutionary left movement in the U.S.

That is why I'm interested in joining a party. I feel like my efforts will be hugely amplified in my area if I am working in lock step with this network. And I guess that's where the crux of my decision lies- the importance of my ideological differences versus the benefits of being a part of the most active party in my area, and a party whom I really like the practical elements of, as well as the people in it. They are very focused on analyzing the success and effectiveness of action.

You're in a tough situation. I'm from the south--I moved to NYC as I knew I couldn't figure out things on my own. I'm not suggesting that, just saying I have some sense of what's going on. Honestly, it's saddens me that the two FRSO's are often the organization southern activists encounter. To look at domestic politics, consider their relationship to the Democrats, perhaps the clearest example being their support of Jesse Jackson's campaigns (see the League's analysis of the campaign at: http://lrp-cofi.org/PR/leftswamp21.html. It doesn't take up FRSO but you can see they were part of the left in that swamp.)

Then internationally, there's of course their support of various dictators. See this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/kim-jong-sung-t147472/index.html) and my post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/kim-jong-sung-t147472/index.html?p=1979739) in it:

This thread shows how little the Maoists/Stalinists actually care about the workers and people who live in North Korea.
Some of the same people, partially correctly critique Dali Lama supporters by pointing out (correctly) that the llamas were theocratic, feudal-like dictators, using torture and violence to defend their privileged positions, obscured with religious ideology.

10 million flowers on Mother Earth convey his love.
East and West Seas blue water sings his achievement.
Grower of socialist paradise, Creator of happiness,
Long live! Long live! General Kim Jong-il.
Socialism, if it means anything, must mean some kind of basic liberation from all the backwardness and cultural dregs of capitalism. This massive secrecy, this worship of the leader, what can it possibly have in common with a break from capitalist society?
It's sad. No one gets involved in the workers' movement in order to end up defending a semi-theocratic, monarchical dictatorship.

==========
You could be involved in joint action on things you support with the FRSO. Attend meetings, study with them or whatever. But I think joining and building them isn't a way forward to contributing to the revolution.

[Lucretia]

On the contrary, the anti-war movement and pro-immigration reforms movement are larger and stronger than ever. The point was to organize these people under the same demands, given what the masses' hopes and expectations were. As it was also stated, "only a massive people’s movement can force Democrats in power to win more reforms that benefit working people and at the same time show more and more people that Democrats are not for real change; only socialism can bring that about. (http://frso.org/about/statements/2008/economy-peoples-struggle-elections.htm)"

To claim that the anti-war movement is flourishing and is larger and stronger than ever borders on delusional.

[HEAD ICE]

On the contrary, the anti-war movement and pro-immigration reforms movement are larger and stronger than ever. The point was to organize these people under the same demands, given what the masses' hopes and expectations were. As it was also stated, "only a massive people’s movement can force Democrats in power to win more reforms that benefit working people and at the same time show more and more people that Democrats are not for real change; only socialism can bring that about. (http://frso.org/about/statements/2008/economy-peoples-struggle-elections.htm)"

The point of a "mass movement" is not to pressure the Democratic Party to "do the right thing." The point is to try to develop an independent workers movement that is separate, outside, and against not only the capitalist parties but capitalism itself. When the Democrats or Republicans give reforms it is an effort to placate a fighting working class.

Instead of stressing the independence of the working class you rather seek to "force the Democrats in power to win more reforms", implying that the reasons why the Democrats don't is because they are spineless. They could do the right thing if we simply forced them to. You are saying that the Democrats are bad friends of the working class. The Democrats then could possibly be reformed into a real working class party. The only problem is that they are too timid, we need a 'mass movement' to 'force' them to 'win' reforms. If we just get rid of those timid elements and replace them with us...

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The point of a "mass movement" is not to pressure the Democratic Party to "do the right thing." The point is to try to develop an independent workers movement that is separate, outside, and against not only the capitalist parties but capitalism itself. When the Democrats or Republicans give reforms it is an effort to placate a fighting working class.

Instead of stressing the independence of the working class you rather seek to "force the Democrats in power to win more reforms", implying that the reasons why the Democrats don't is because they are spineless. They could do the right thing if we simply forced them to. You are saying that the Democrats are bad friends of the working class. The Democrats then could possibly be reformed into a real working class party. The only problem is that they are too timid, we need a 'mass movement' to 'force' them to 'win' reforms. If we just get rid of those timid elements and replace them with us...

Exactly. This is the same sort of post-WW2 logic that Stalinists in the USSR and UK subscribed to re: the UK. That the UK would achieve Socialism via a series of further left-leaning Labour governments. It's horrific logic. Anybody who has seen TVMs self-promotional videos on will know that he is delusional enough to fall for this shit. Let's just make sure the rest of the left movement and the working class don't! It's about time we put paid to the myth of the liberal-left being forced into winning reforms, i've had enough of liberals and social democrats screwing over working people.

[humbabba]

The Democrats then could possibly be reformed into a real working class party. The only problem is that they are too timid, we need a 'mass movement' to 'force' them to 'win' reforms. If we just get rid of those timid elements and replace them with us...

If this was what FRSO was about, why would their stated task be party building? They are trying to build a new party that fights in the interests of the working class. Why would they be trying to build a new party if they believed that the Democrats were the answer?

FRSO does not harbor any illusions about the Democratic party being the party of the working class. FRSO also does not dismiss entirely the idea of electoral politics presenting opportunities for education and radicalization.

[RedTrackWorker]

If this was what FRSO was about, why would their stated task be party building? They are trying to build a new party that fights in the interests of the working class. Why would they be trying to build a new party if they believed that the Democrats were the answer?

If life were as simple as all that, I would hope the working class would've made its international revolution by now. I mean that if parties intentions and actions were always above board and in line with objective reality, then it would be much easier for the working class to struggle and overcome its misleaderships. But the whole point of reformism and centrism and even reactionary leaderships is that they don't present themselves as they really are.

You can see this with the Democrats themselves. They are one of the two main parties of American imperialism but they present themselves in varying ways as the party of the poor against the rich, etc.

The American CP going all the way back to 1936 ran its own candidate for president and did not tell people to vote for FDR...because they realized the CP doing that could actually lose votes for FDR so they campaigned against the Republican but not against or for FDR....helping the Democrats out objectively and consciously.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Just because one is building a separate party doesn't mean one is also not supporting the Democrats--the more effective evil in American politics. Have you even looked at their open and fulsome support for Jesse Jackson's Democratic political campaigns?


FRSO does not harbor any illusions about the Democratic party being the party of the working class. FRSO also does not dismiss entirely the idea of electoral politics presenting opportunities for education and radicalization.

I don't dismiss using the electoral arena for education...but what has the FRSO taught with its electoral arena? Vote Democrats. Perhaps not always and in every election, but they say actions speak louder than words and the action of politically supporting the more effective evil of American imperialism speaks for louder than the words "working class" or "socialism" in a group's newspaper.

I think that only in the U.S. with its virulent racism and general more reactionary feel then Europe could the FRSO's even appear to have anything to do with revolution. There they would be too obvious for what they are: social democrats, one with a Stalinist flavoring and one without. I mean, this is a group that in one of its previous incarnations defended the U.S. bombing Vieques in order to strengthen the U.S.'s stance against Russia.

But of course you'll probably say, "But they say they're not social democrats"...well, that's what makes them a bit more dangerous than open ones.

There's really nothing redeeming about those groups. When the task is for the working class to understand the world so that they can change it, what do either FRSO contribute? Read their sites and tell me, show me where they have anything like a scientific analysis. Rather they distort reality to fit their warped little worldviews. Fight Back had an interview on how the Syrian uprisings are a conspiracy and such--either I can't find it or they shamefacedly took it down. This shit is an obstacle for any kind of revolutionary workers' movement and if there wasn't so much cynicism built up from a century of defeats, they'd be laughed out of any self-respecting movement.

...but given those defeats and given the litter of other shitty organizations that don't do better, I should perhaps be more patient....perhaps.

[SpiritiualMarxist]

Maoist? Black separatist? These things were discredited decades ago.

for a genuine green socialist organisation.

Who says being for self determination of Africans or African countries means you're a separatist? I'm pretty sure its in good conscience for people to not be subjected to the cultural and economic imperialism of Europeans.

[The Hong Se Sun]

As a Maoist I do not support the FRSO outright. They have some good stances and some bad ones. I think their tankie (when I personally say tankie I mean "A-historical") articles and stances on historical events are alienating to the masses and even to the left. Their analysis on Tienanmen square is utter crazy, Dengs army running over and beating pro-socialist, pro-democracy (sorry but with the destruction of democracy like in revolutionary China 47ish to late 60's it was reasonable for the masses to want their communal democracy and socialism back) and Maoist is portrayed in the FRSO as only CIA students were at the protest and they deserved it and the students started the fighting. Hungary is much the same. Again, as a Maoist I don't see how one can support Dengist policies or the path that China has been on and especially where they are headed.

I do agree with their line that a party needs to come about naturally. I like how they support the masses leading themselves as opposed to being like the groups who have 50-100 members sitting around claiming that they are the sole vanguard party of the working class.

I'm glad this thread was created because I didn't know that fight back participated in the Obama election. I knew that the other FRSO did.

[RedTrackWorker]

I'm glad this thread was created because I didn't know that fight back participated in the Obama election. I knew that the other FRSO did.

Freedomroad.org took no position on the 2008 election. Two different supporters told me they couldn't decide on a position. All the FRSO supporters I know voted for Obama and even had Obama bumper stickers and such but they had no official position, which I think is shameful to not be able to come up with a position on such a basic and fundamental in the U.S. class struggle, but that's part of why I can have no respect for either organization.

[humbabba]

...which I think is shameful to not be able to come up with a position on such a basic and fundamental in the U.S. class struggle, but that's part of why I can have no respect for either organization.

I'm sorry to post a quote this long, but just to make it perfectly clear, here is FRSO's position on electoral politics from their 2007 Main Political Report domestic section:


Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) and Election Policy
In FRSO, we view the differences between the Democratic and Republican parties as manifestations of contradictions within the capitalist class. There is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie manifest through the two-party system. Since 1985, the FRSO has taken a position on elections, sometimes working to build movements with an electoral expression, and other times supporting a vote against a reactionary candidate.

In the past we supported Chicago Mayor Harold Washington and the presidential campaign of Jesse Jackson on the basis of African-American political empowerment. Other times we strive to support and sustain independent or third party politics, like Ralph Nader's first run for President in 2000 or Elaine Brown's run for mayor of Brunswick, Georgia. Then there are times when an issue like the Iraq war defines our approach to elections on a national level.

The Iraq war was the main issue in the last presidential election and the 2006 mid-term elections.It will be so again in 2008. The mid-term vote was an opportunity to defeat Bush and the Iraq war policy. It created new conditions in which the antiwar movement has surged.

In 2004, FRSO said the main task was to build and organize the antiwar movement, which contains a large base of liberal Democrats. The FRSO encouraged people to vote against Bush. We could not endorse Kerry who took a pro-war, pro-occupation stance. We predicted correctly that Kerry would lose because he did not oppose the war.

The presidential campaigning for November 2008 has begun and the FRSO National Executive Committee policy is both responsive and clear. Ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq and war in the Middle East is at the top of our agenda. To accomplish this, our main activity must be to build the antiwar movement–to bring the troops home now. We are organizing people to protest war in the streets of all the major cities and small towns, conducting walk-outs against the war on campuses to build the student movement, and mobilizing for big antiwar rallies in Washington D.C. We support more militancy in protesting the offices of pro-war politicians, mostly Republicans, as well Democrats who claim to be antiwar but will not cut off war funding. The protests at Democrats’ offices inform us what a Democratic presidential victory will mean for the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

We encourage support for candidates that are firmly antiwar and anti-occupation, but that leaves us with few choices. Ohio Representative Kucinich is consistently antiwar, with no hope of winning. The Democratic Party leaders cynically use Kucinich to rope in a Left-Liberal base to support their “electable” candidates. FRSO wants people to vote against the pro-war Republican candidates, but we will not endorse the “electable” Democratic candidates willing to prolong the occupation (Clinton, Biden), or a Democrat who says we should end the occupation of Iraq, but leave U.S. military bases there (Edwards, Obama). We cannot support a candidate that says U.S. troops should come home over the course of two, three, or more years. We want the U.S. troops out now!

The leaders of the Republican Party, McCain, Giuliani, Romney, and others want to expand the war. “More war, more occupation” is a policy that must be opposed. FRSO is against all of the empire-expanding Republicans. We hope to prove it by leading, with others, the protests at the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis on Labor Day weekend 2008. We plan to make sure the antiwar movement delivers a hard whack to Bush and the Republicans, whoever their nominee is.

It is a well-known fact that money rules U.S. elections. Whichever candidate can attract the most financial support from the capitalist class wins more than 9 out of 10 times. The FRSO view is that the masses make history, not the politicians, and not their rich bosses. We will focus on building the mass movement against the Iraq war, with elections being another way to express opposition.

I think that is a very clear position. Even if you disagree you can understand the rationale.

[RedTrackWorker]

I think that is a very clear position. Even if you disagree you can understand the rationale.

I talking about a position on voting for or against Obama in 2008, so no I don't think that clarifies anything.

[hashem]

FRSO [fightback] is a fascist organization. it supports criminal governments such as north korea and iran.

at first i thought they are ignorant people and they are not aware of real situation in those countries. when i found out that they have met with Ahmadinejad in New York about two years ago, i personally sent them e-mails. i tried to explain some facts to them. i explained that Islamists have killed thousands of leftists and several worker and student activists are in prison. i even told them if their member (sara martin) walks in streets of Iran with same clothes which she was wearing when she met with Ahmadinejad, police would arrest her! but i found out that they were aware of their path. they have chosen to serve fascism.

see this link:

http://www.fightbacknews.org/2010/9/23/us-progressives-meet-iranian-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad

i posted several comments on that page but they didnt allowed my comments to be published.

there is not much difference between FRSO [fightback] and to Ku Klux Klans or Neo Nazis.

[humbabba]

I talking about a position on voting for or against Obama in 2008, so no I don't think that clarifies anything.

I guess I will quote it once again.


but we will not endorse the “electable” Democratic candidates willing to prolong the occupation (Clinton, Biden), or a Democrat who says we should end the occupation of Iraq, but leave U.S. military bases there (Edwards, Obama). We cannot support a candidate that says U.S. troops should come home over the course of two, three, or more years. We want the U.S. troops out now!

I do not know how that could be more clear. FRSO did not endorse Obama.

[humbabba]

there is not much difference between FRSO [fightback] and to Ku Klux Klans or Neo Nazis.

That is preposterous and offensive. From your above comment can we assume that you think the people of Iran will be better off when the bombs start dropping and the Marines go in?

The only people who have a right to set the course for Iran are Iranians.

I don't like social conservatives or religious police, but it's really not my decision how Iranians want to run their society.

Does FRSO champion Iran as some sort of ideal state with ideal policies? No. But are they going to be part of the imperialism cheer-leading squad to call for military intervention in Iran? Hell no.

[hashem]

From your above comment can we assume that you think the people of Iran will be better off when the bombs start dropping and the Marines go in?

which part of my comment gives you this idea? if you want to prevent imperialist wars, you should support revolution. but what is the position of FRSO [fightback]? it stands on islamists side which is provoking a war.


The only people who have a right to set the course for Iran are Iranians.

I don't like social conservatives or religious police, but it's really not my decision how Iranians want to run their society.

that is the point. if people of Iran "have a right to set the course for Iran", then all of revolutionaries should struggle against the Islamist regime of Iran which is denying Iranian peoples right. but FRSO [fightback] is defending the islamist regime.


Does FRSO champion Iran as some sort of ideal state with ideal policies?

yes. see these links:

http://www.frso.org/about/6congress/resolution-iran.htm

http://www.fightbacknews.org/2009/06/imperialism-and-irans-elections.htm

http://www.fightbacknews.org/2010/2/12/iran-celebrates-31-years-sovereignty

those fascists have a similar position about north korea.

KKK and Nazis are supporting the islamist regime of Iran too.

[RedTrackWorker]

First, just to say I don't support comparing FRSO to fascists.

Second,
I do not know how that could be more clear. FRSO did not endorse Obama.

The problem is that I did not say FRSO endorsed Obama. I said they did not take a position for or against (I don't see simply not endorsing and then saying nothing else and having various supporters vote for Obama as being a position against). FRSO supporters voted for Obama. Bill Fletcher, the person most prominently associated with FRSO, publically supported Obama and FRSO did not say, "He doesn't represent our views on this issue" or something like that.

[humbabba]

yes. see these links: ...

Nothing in those links says that FRSO believes Iran has an ideal system. They are applauded for standing up for themselves against U.S./Israel, and European imperialist aggression.

Let me ask you a question, do you think adding one's voice to or one's organization's voice to the chorus of Iran bashers makes a socialist revolution there more likely? Do you think adding your voice to the Iran bashing chorus makes imperialist intervention more likely? I think the second yes, and the first one not so much. FRSO works inside a country that is very hostile to Iran and it is part of their job to try to prevent war. FRSO does not work inside Iran and it isn't FRSO's job to shape Iranian policy.


those fascists have a similar position about north korea.

KKK and Nazis are supporting the islamist regime of Iran too.

And I would suggest to you that a similar position is in order with regards to the DPRK. They are literally besieged by the United States. Are you telling me that a socialist organization in the United States would do better to spend time slandering the DPRK, rather than calling for an end to imperialist bullying and sanctions?

Just like anywhere else it is the people in the DPRK who have the right to decide how they are going to run their country. They have been at war continuously for generations because of the imperialist aggression of Japan and the United States. They are under constant economic and political pressure, and they are always a hair away from renewed military struggle. In the face of all of this they have said that they will not bow down to the US and they will manage their affairs their way. You would think that, given the mountain of hostility facing them, the steadfastness of the DPRK would be an inspirational source of pride to the left. Unfortunately I think a lot of cultural chauvinism and caricature orientalism overwhelm the sensibilities of many.

As to the KKK and Nazis I don't know the Ku Klux Klan's position on Iranian policy, as I am largely unfamiliar with their program.

[The Vegan Marxist]

First, just to say I don't support comparing FRSO to fascists.

I thank you for that.


The problem is that I did not say FRSO endorsed Obama. I said they did not take a position for or against (I don't see simply not endorsing and then saying nothing else and having various supporters vote for Obama as being a position against). FRSO supporters voted for Obama.

Well of course people voted for Obama, because many wanted to ensure that the Republicans didn't come to power again, for obvious reasons. Nothing positive comes from not voting, but something negative can occur, like Republicans coming into office again, which would've made things a lot worse. All one has to do is look at what the Republicans are passing and pushing forward on state level. Those policies are exactly what they'd press forward on a federal level if they had the chance. Which is what we tried making sure didn't happen.

As for the claim of us not taking a position for or against, I believe we made it pretty clear that we were against Obama on an ideological level and regarded him and his party as backers of big business. For example:


The crisis has made it even clearer for all to see that both the Republicans and Democrats are parties of big business. Both parties’ leadership and presidential candidates supported the $700 billion bailout for bankers and billionaires.

and:


The facts are plain; Obama parts ways, to a degree, with Clinton on the Iraq War, free trade agreements and racism. He has a message of hope with wide appeal. However, Obama operates well within the confines of the Democrats and their big business backers.

So we made it very clear that we didn't support Obama, but voting for him was essential in making sure the Republicans didn't get another 4 years in power.


Bill Fletcher, the person most prominently associated with FRSO, publically supported Obama and FRSO did not say, "He doesn't represent our views on this issue" or something like that.

Bill Fletcher, Jr. isn't FRSO. He's Freedom Road. So of course we didn't say anything.

[A Marxist Historian]

Hey all...I am thinking of joining FRSO.

Context: I come from a green-anarchist tradition, but of course work on a lot of different issues, recognizing intersectionality and the need for a strong activist left on all fronts. I also consider myself a marxist. To me, successful left activism is much more important than theoretical dogma. For that reason, I want to be in this network of serious anti-capitalist activists. FRSO is the only real option for me at this point, since I live in the south. That being said, I obviously do come from a different theoretical place than the organization.

How important are my theoretical differences in considering whether or not to join?
What are some criticisms of FRSO from the left?

Forgive me if this is not in the right place, but it seemed similar to the PSL question.

One other lil' problem nobody is mentioning with the FRSO, both versions is my impression.

They supported Obama in the elections! (and maybe that's why Obama has been going after them and throwing 'em in jail, as that embarrassed him.)

Anybody who supported Obama is not just not a revolutionary, but also, obviously at this point, criminally stupid.

Actually most of the American left supported Obama backhandedly, but FRSO, like the CPUSA, supported Obama overtly and front and center.

Yecch.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

The problem with Kassad is that he truly doesn't know what he believes in. He was PSL not too long ago, and a very dedicated ML at that. From there, he joins the RCP, and completely disregards anything and everything about the PSL. Give it a few more months and he begins denouncing the RCP for being "homophobic", using the usual Kasama-led rhetoric. Since then, he's taken on Trotskyism, and what appears to be Kasama's line (whatever actual line they take, still trying to figure that one out myself).

The crap Kassad is spouting is our position on the mass-line. In 2008, we'd already witnessed 8 years of Republican-backed capitalist destruction of our economy and of the globe via imperialism. We knew that the mass mindset needed to be changed and organized as a response, which is what the grassroots movement buildup that surrounded the pro-Obama campaign provided. It allowed us to reach out to the masses - masses, btw, who aren't subjected to a disciplined pro-socialist mindset yet - and organize them in the progressive demands of all wars being brought to a halt, for undocumented immigration to be legalized, for greater workers' rights, etc.

Of course, the FRSO never supported the Democratic party, itself, and instead openly denounced "both the Republicans and Democrats are parties of big business. Both parties’ leadership and presidential candidates supported the $700 billion bailout for bankers and billionaires. (http://frso.org/about/statements/2008/economy-peoples-struggle-elections.htm)" And yet Kassad neglects to mention this, and instead gives a half-ass soundbite of what was actually said by the FRSO:



To RadicalSalad, if you're truly serious in joining the FRSO, then I'd highly recommend you doing so. Though, I'd first recommend you reading both the Unity Statement (http://frso.org/about/unitystatement2001.htm) and our Statement on National Oppression, National Liberation and Socialist Revolution (http://frso.org/about/nq/nq.htm), if you haven't done so already. If you agree with our line, then you can get in touch with someone by pressing the 'Email Us' link at the bottom of the FRSO's main page. If you have any questions, you're more than welcome in sending me a PM and we'll continue talking from there.

Good luck comrade!

Missed that one.

I don't know what's more disgusting, the fact that FRSO supported Obama, or the smarmy, sleazy dishonest lawyers' arguments for supporting Obama in this posting.

-M.H.-

[Martin Blank]

I don't know what's more disgusting, the fact that FRSO supported Obama, or the smarmy, sleazy dishonest lawyers' arguments for supporting Obama in this posting.

It's a package deal. I don't think you can really say one is worse than the other, since they are so intimately connected.

[hashem]

They are applauded for standing up for themselves against U.S./Israel, and European imperialist aggression.

just change the names on above statement and you will be praising Nazis for standing up against USA or European imperialist aggression.

what is the reason behind Iran - USA conflict? is it different from the reasons behind Central Powers - Allies conflict (during the first world war) in essence? both sides are reactionary, imperialist and expansionist. no matter which one you choose to side with, you are supporting reaction, imperialism and war. a revolutionary organization never adds its voice to each of these criminals. but FRSO [fightback] is siding with Irans fascist government. same thing is true about north korea.

if you truly believed that people of Iran, korea or other countries "have the right to decide how they are going to run their country" then you would have supported their struggle against the governments which are denying them this right. but you are doing the opposite.

imperialists media uses sects like FRSO [fightback] or WWP. while true revolutionaries have struggled against islamist regime since the day it was created and they have lost many comrades in this struggle, Voice Of America and BBC refer to positions of those sects and claim that leftists are supporting the fascist regimes of Iran or north korea.



Are you telling me that a socialist organization in the United States would do better to spend time slandering the DPRK, rather than calling for an end to imperialist bullying and sanctions?

what makes you think that a socialist organizations rule is "calling for an end to imperialist bullying and sanctions" ?! who listens to your "call"?! who cares about your "call"?!

a revolutionary organization provokes revolution inside its own country and helps workers and toilers of other countries as much as it can. but your favorite sect is (at best) passive and confused in regard to interior policy and supports fascism in other countries.
imagine what happens to a worker or a student who mistakes such sects with true socialist organizations.


As to the KKK and Nazis I don't know the Ku Klux Klan's position on Iranian policy, as I am largely unfamiliar with their program.

then i will tell you: Ahmadinejads government invited them to tehran in order to hear their speeches against jews and about denying Nazis crimes during the second world war. he paid for their travel from Iranians pockets while people were hungry in Iran.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Despite some peoples' efforts on this forum in trying to correlate the FRSO's line with that of Obama- or Democrat Party-endorsing, which we never endorsed either of the two, nor did we support the two on an ideological level whatsoever, it's best to actually look into what we're doing now, especially with the recent upcoming election in our midst.

I'll post a few articles here (full length) for others to read. These events are very important and we hope others will join us, as thousands more will.

The upcoming anti-NATO Summit demonstrations:


Vets to return service medals to NATO commanders at May 20 anti-war protest
By Staff | April 24, 2012

http://www.fightbacknews.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/article-lead-photo/Jesse%20Jackson%20-%20CANG8%20press%20conference-1%20(2).jpg (http://www.fightbacknews.org/sites/default/files/Jesse%20Jackson%20-%20CANG8%20press%20conference-1%20(2).jpg)
Rev. Jesse Jackson, with Joe Iosbaker at
press conference in support of march on
NATO Summit. (Photo: Roger Beltrami)

Chicago, IL - A press conference was held here, April 23, with the Reverend Jesse Jackson, trade union leaders and ministers, along with Iraq Veterans Against the War, to announce support for the protest against NATO on May 20 in Chicago. The Reverend Jackson has agreed to speak at the May 20 rally, which will be held at noon at Petrillo Band Shell in Grant Park, and then he’ll help lead the march to McCormick Place, where the war-makers will be meeting. Jackson compared the significance of May 20 to the historic civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery.

In addition, Aaron Hughes of the Iraq Veterans Against the War announced their plans to march as well. Veterans of the Afghan war will return their service medals to the NATO commanders in protest of the War on Terror which has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands. Hughes said, “We also must do this to begin to take back our humanity.”

Joe Iosbaker of the Coalition Against NATO/G8 War and Poverty Agenda announced that more unions, representing over 50,000 workers, have endorsed the march in the past two weeks. The unions include SEIU Local 1 and Workers United. “It’s a snowball effect,” he said, and predicted that more unions, churches and community groups will continue to add themselves to the list of endorsers.

http://www.fightbacknews.org/2012/4/24/vets-return-service-medals-nato-commanders-may-20-anti-war-protest


Major unions line up to join march against NATO Summit
By Staff | April 18, 2012

Chicago, IL - In the past week, unions representing over 135,000 workers have endorsed the protest march on the NATO summit in Chicago, May 20.

The unions include the Chicago Teachers Union, with 30,000 members; Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Locals 73 (25,000 members) and Health Care Illinois/Indiana (80,000 members); and the United Electrical workers Western Region, a smaller union but very important. This is the union that includes the workers who famously occupied Republic Windows and Doors in 2008 and the same factory, now called Serious Materials, in February of this year.

Joe Iosbaker, Executive Board member of SEIU Local 73, moved the resolution to endorse in an executive board meeting. He proposed that they unite behind the main slogan of the march, “Jobs, Housing, Healthcare, Education, Our Pensions, the Environment: Not War.” President Christine Boardman spoke in favor, saying, “This is a very important march and I want to see a big contingent of our members out there.”

Sarah Chambers, Executive Board member of the Chicago Teachers Union, introduced the motion to their House of Delegations.

Commenting on the Local 73 endorsement Iosbaker said, “I’ll be proud to see my union brothers and sisters marching against the NATO/G8 agenda of war on the poor in the interest of the rich.” Local 73 was an early supporter of Iosbaker and 23 other activists who are being attacked by the FBI and Department of Justice for their anti-war and international solidarity efforts.

The text of the resolution against the 2012 NATO Summit adopted by Chicago Teachers Union follows:

“Whereas, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) exists for the purpose of making war against nations and groups that the 1% deems at odds with its interests, and has been directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians in the ongoing war in Afghanistan, and

Whereas, public sector employees, reeling from reduced state and federal revenues due to economic contraction, war and tax cuts for the wealthy, have been especially hard hit; and

Whereas, NATO as a vestige of the cold war, continues to fight unjust wars throughout the world even though the cold war has ended; and

Whereas, military budgets and expenditures have taken money from education, social services, healthcare and other needed programs causing hardship to the American people and causing a loss of jobs;

Whereas, people should be put before profit; money should go to jobs, education, pension, healthcare, housing and the environment, not war;

Therefore Be It Resolved, that this body goes on record as expressing its opposition to the NATO summit being held in Chicago May 2012; and

Further Be It Resolved, that we call on our members to mobilize and join the planned permitted march to be held on May 20th 2012; and

Be it Finally Resolved, that CORE (Caucus of Rank and File Educators) submit a workshop proposal to the People’s Summit on May 12th-May 13th to education people on our vision and to unite with organizations and individuals who dissent from the global vision of NATO.”

http://www.fightbacknews.org/2012/4/18/major-unions-line-join-march-against-nato-summit

Anti-DNC demonstrations:


Charlotte conference plans protests at Democratic National Convention
By Michael Graham | April 15, 2012

http://www.fightbacknews.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/article-lead-photo/DNCmeeting2.jpg (http://www.fightbacknews.org/sites/default/files/DNCmeeting2.jpg)
Fern Figueroa of the Coalition to March on
the RNC speaking at Charlotte conference.
(Fight Back! News/Staff)

Charlotte, NC - Over 60 activists converged here, April 14, holding a conference at the Charlotte School of Law to discuss the upcoming week of protest at the Democratic National Convention (DNC). Charlotte, a prominent center of banking, will be hosting the convention where Democratic Party elites and delegates will establish the party platform and select Barack Obama as their candidate for President of the United States. The DNC will be held Sept. 3-6.

Conference attendees traveled from all over the country to help plan the activities which are expected to include a “March on the Wall Street of the South,” among other events. So far over 50 organizations (http://protestdnc.org/endorsements/) have endorsed the protests, and the number is steadily growing.

Also attending the conference were a group of activists from Florida from the Coalition to March on the RNC (http://www.marchonthernc.com/) who are preparing to protest the Republican National Convention which will be held in Tampa, Florida, Aug. 27-30. Mutual support and goodwill was shared between the two coalitions planning the DNC and RNC protests.

The protests at the DNC are making use of the Charlotte Principles (http://protestdnc.org/clt-principles/), a set of guidelines that will help the diverse and growing number of groups planning activities to work positively and powerfully together.

Conference attendee Sarah Buchner of Asheville, North Carolina, from the Committee to Stop FBI Repression (http://www.stopfbi.net/) said, “I believe we accomplished a lot here today. The fight for the permit to march is important and there are issues surrounding new city new ordinances and expected police repression. There is a lot of work left to do, but everyone is excited and determined.”

The city council of Charlotte recently passed a long and vague ordinance, obviously meant to curtail freedom of speech and assembly during the DNC. It allows the city manager to unilaterally declare an “extraordinary event” in a given area of the city. This will ban a startling array of objects like water bottles, backpacks, bicycle helmets and various lengths of string and wire. It will give police sweeping abilities to search and detain protesters, observers and neutral passers-by. Legal challenges are already in the works but it is expected that the ordinance will stand through the DNC.

Demands for the DNC protests include: Good jobs for all! Economic justice now - make the banks and corporations pay for their crisis! Money for education, healthcare, housing and all human needs, not for war and incarceration! Justice for immigrants and all oppressed peoples! Stop the raids and deportations!

To learn more about the Coalition to Protest at the DNC please visit: protestdnc.org (http://protestdnc.org/)
To learn more about the Coalition to March on the RNC please visit: marchonthernc.com (http://www.marchonthernc.com/)

http://www.fightbacknews.org/2012/4/15/charlotte-conference-plans-protests-democratic-national-convention

Anti-RNC demonstrations:


Coalition to March on the RNC press conference demands right to protest
By Marisol Marquez | April 10, 2012

http://www.fightbacknews.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/article-lead-photo/Jared%20(2).jpg (http://www.fightbacknews.org/sites/default/files/Jared%20(2).jpg)
Jared Hamil of the Coalition to March on
the RNC speaks out demanding permits
for the march in August. (Fight Back!
News/Marisol Marquez)

Tampa, FL - Organizers for the Coalition to March on the RNC held a press conference today, April 10, outside City Hall in Tampa. Leaders are organizing a national protest on the opening day of the Republican National Convention, to be held in Tampa, Florida on Aug. 27. Protesters will demand jobs, healthcare, education, equality and peace.

Fernando Figueroa, of Gainesville Area Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), spoke about opposing the ‘Clean Zone,’ an ordinance proposed by the Tampa city government that would attempt to keep Coalition to March on the RNC protesters away from the Republican National Convention. The Clean Zone also proposes that a number of items be banned from the march. “They want to talk about things we can't bring to the protest, like string and children's toys. I'm bringing shorts and a t-shirt to the march in August, and I want to talk about some items that really should be banned, like pepper spray and police batons,” Figueroa said.

Jared Hamil of the Coalition to March on the RNC and Fight Back Florida talked about the struggle for a permit in Tampa. “We filed for a permit requesting to march within sight and sound of the convention and we will not be caged or treated like animals.”

Tom Burke from the Committee to Stop FBI Repression spoke about the organizing going on around the country to say no to the Republican agenda. “We are building a national march in Tampa against the Republican agenda. We demand our permits to rally, march and protest where the Republicans can see and hear us.”

Organizers of the press conference also announced a rally for that night at 7:00 p.m. in Joe Chilura Park to demand permits and say no to the Clean Zone.

The call for the protest states, “On Monday, August 27, 2012, the attention of the entire world will be focused on Tampa, Florida. The Republican National Convention brings together some of the worst politicians that this country has to offer. We're calling on all those ready to fight back against the attacks launched by the Republican Party and their corporate masters to take to the streets and demand a better future for our families, our communities and our children.”

http://www.fightbacknews.org/2012/4/10/coalition-march-rnc-press-conference-demands-right-protest

And there's several more articles accounting all our events and recent actions in regards to these upcoming mass demonstrations and massive buildup we're applying in bringing all these different organizations together to protest against both pro-capitalist-imperialist parties and the imperialist efforts by that of NATO.

Talk all you want, but this is our line and this is where we stand. None of the lies made on this thread matter, because these mass demonstrations that we're organizing is evidence of the contrary.