So fellow comrades what is your position on the free will debate, and using lack of free will as a base for socialism

Causality is a spook for spooked science faggots who can't into philosophy

I take Nietzsche's idea of "free" as far as will goes

in every act of willing there is, to begin with, a plurality of feelings, namely: the feeling of the state away from which, the feeling of the state towards which, and the feeling of this “away from” and “towards” themselves. But this is accompanied by a feeling of the muscles that comes into play through a sort of habit as soon as we “will,” even without our putting “arms and legs” into motion. Just as feeling – and indeed many feelings – must be recognized as ingredients of the will, thought must be as well. In every act of will there is a commandeering thought, – and we really should not believe
this thought can be divorced from the “willing,” as if some will would
then be left over! Third, the will is not just a complex of feeling rather, it is fundamentally an
affect: and specifically the affect
of the command. What is called “freedom of the will” is essentially the
affect of superiority with respect to something that must obey: “I am
free, ‘it’ must obey” – this consciousness lies in every will, along with
a certain straining of attention, a straight look that fixes on one thing
and one thing only, an unconditional evaluation “now this is necessary
and nothing else,” an inner certainty that it will be obeyed, and whatever
else comes with the position of the commander.

Free will is not compatible with determinism and I'm not sure why people are so determined (or desperate) to prove otherwise considering how it almost always devolves into a semantic debate as points out. Barring omnicience people are forced to rely on unreliable sensory input which within a moral positivist framework would preclude free will.

I disagree and would argue that our lack of progress in this arena is the root cause of our current ideological dark age.

Moral spoonbending aside, Nietzsche's framework still leaves one constrained by probalism.

pretty much all neuroscience suggests free will is an illusion
it's the most compelling ethical case against free market dogmatism, imo. most of the standard arguments are contingent on belief in free will. right wingers will tell you that if someone wants healthcare, they should CHOOSE to work harder. but what if the reality is that person simply doesnt have the same level of motivation as other individuals? or they're just not smart enough? these are unsavory explanations, but also the most realistic. lazy people aren't lazy because some entity distinct from their physical body and the natural world decides they simply don't want to work; their underlying brain chemistry, which is impossible to control, determines every action.

I once saw someone argue for free will because technically things aren't deterministic at the quantum level.

Is being a set of dice really that much better than being a robot?

I agree. This bizzare dualistic framework that many people operate under is absurd. It is little more than magical thinking masquerading as a political ideology.

Quantum uncertainty is still probalistic which would leave moral judgement floating upon a "best guess" scenario mediated by possibly comprimised sensory input.

Free Will requires some sort of theistic belief that there is somehing nonphysical in a reality that is non causal controlling our physical, causal brains.
The lack of it is not th idea that you can't make choices. That's an unintelligent strawman that makes no sense. Determinism does not imply Fatalism. In fact the opposite. Fatalism means that no matter what you do "x" will happen to you.
Determinism means you are part of a causal chain, being affected by everything around you, affecting everything around you.

That is all.

And you call my ideology unsaleable?

Honestly a hammer and sickle inside a swastika flag is always going to be a tough sell.