So Holla Forums, what is the way you would actually handle appointing leaders? Is a dictator the only way to socialism?

Fuck off Trotsky. That's retarded tankie mentality

so trots are tankies now? how the fuck are democratic elections tankie mentality?

He's probably referring to the idea of your "elections" being limited to choosing from your buddies in the ruling class – I mean "the party".

There would not be leaders. Just people appointed to do things. They would work on request rather than leading however

If you're interested in governing, you can simply join the party?

Oh of course! Why didn't I think of that before? Here, let me just go join the Republican party so that I can run for president in four years.

Don't be retarded. The only reason to have a condition like "must be a part of the party" is to bar entry for undesirables and control who gets into power.

anyone who has aspirations to one day run for office can simply join the party lad

OP here.

So from what I'm getting is it will either be full mob rule or elected dictator required to be of the socialist party?

How do you appoint groups to handle civil services and tally votes without corruption altering votes and how would you account for the slower response time inherent in collecting the opinions of each voter?

How do you ensure each candidate is truly socialist and how do you go about removing them if it turns out they are pushing another agenda (such as setting up the transition to libratarianism for example)

Would there only be one party or would any "socialist" sub group be eligible?

You're still missing the point here. If there's no necessary prerequisite needed to be eligible to join the party, why have the rule in the first place? What difference does it make whether you're part of the circlejerk or not?

You mean people making decisions for themselves? Egads, the horror.

Missed this, thanks for answering but now I'm curious as to how the appointee doesn't become a leader simply by virtue of their position. Does this mean that they are more treated as "worker's advisors" and simply advise the worker on what they should do to be more effective or did I misinterpret that? The reason I ask is because an advisor has little actual power over the advisee (made up word, I know) in that they can simply choose to ignore them with little consequence. I feel like it would be difficult to handle stressful or unpopular jobs (waste management, book keeping, large scale mateniance, ECT.) when the workers can tell the one overseeing them to "fuck off".

I could see the society maybe becoming a commission based society but then that could potentially become more cut throat than ever.

leftypol doesnt believe in leaders you dumbass

Upper 51% make the decision…
But I suppose it wasn't fair of me to assume that…
I should have asked about how you handle divisive matters and how you prevent an oppressed 49% or, in the case of having more than 2 options, an oppressed majority (winners being as low as 34% while the combined other two sides add up to 66% and it only getting potentially worse with more options per vote.)

A few of your comrades seem to disagree, but there is an alternative discussion running paralellel and arguing with them only divides your movement instead of building the case for your brand of socialism/communism/anarchism.

...

why would any subgroup be outside the party?

because the party is comprised of career revolutionaries. if you've been in the party for 30 years and hold some high position, it would be implied that you've studied deeply subjects of politics and marxism for many years

you hold elections?

the supreme soviet should have the power to null his decisions

By preventing too much power from concentrating into the hands of one person and keeping the people well-informed and class conscious.

kek

...

Dictatorship was a makeshift to defend socialist states from subversion and assault by Western capitalists. The only way to successfully establish democratic socialism is to take out the United States administration and immediately establish multiple socialist states in the West in the wake of its defeat, before they can be assaulted by reactionary Russia and revisionist China.

If someone is deeply embedded in the party, they might perceive problems within the system or have a change of opinion that alters thier opinion on what is and isn't acceptable thus they know how to be socialist but their faith in it is shaken to the point where they think they need a new revolution. Powerful words can do many things and not all of them are good or conducive to logical thought.

...

I partially disagree. Democratic nations tend to play nice(r) with democratic nations so if you could start revolutions in other countries on the premise of a social democracy, you might even get the world police's stamp of approval. Even the US was flirting with social policies for a while though still far from a revolution, it might support a socialist democracy elsewhere with the right angle.

May I get an idea pertaining to this fro. One of the full democratic socialists?

Or I suppose any full democratic system on leftypol would do.

They would be elected by whichever organisation to carry out the will of the organisation and are instantly re-callable. Essentially, they are tool. They have volunteered to oversee a process and the people have decided they would be a good overseer, however they do not lead, because the process would never be decided by an individual, but by the collective. The 'leader' then is like a knife, the people are the brain who tell it to cut, the people are the leader.

This is why only good ideas would be accepted.

The only reason they would do this is if they did their job poorly.

The issue is not how do we appoint leaders but how do we avoid, psychopaths, reactionaries and traitors to sizing powers and how do we keep the leaders we have accountable

...

Elections are a popularity contest that neither selects the most apt person nor satisfies fairness criteria.

Radical democracy. Sortition or bust.

But then cityfags and you liberals get to tell EVERYONE how to live.

No, it means everyone chooses how they live in their local industry and area and other areas can choose to federate if they wish

Oh and also you don't know what the word Liberal means.

Liberalism the ideological position of the free market, which we oppose absolutely

The only justified hierarchies are non-binding, non-punishing unions between egoists which can be dissolved at any time between any person.

what happens if they're not egoists?

hang the leader and give full control to the workers themselves.

...

Then you should not want to associate with them in the first place

...

You seem to assume everyone in the world is a rational thinker that is willing to do hard work for the greater good when I know from experience that many people would procrastinate or even outright shirk thier duties if given a choice in the matter. These "leaders" would likely end up as volunteers doing most the work themselves with a few minor helpers in good cases and no one at all wanting to go beyond the basics of helping themselves and those they care about in some of the worst cases. Your way of thinking would require generations of reeducation and a level of revolutionary fanaticism not common in this era.

...

We don't even have to wait for 20Jan17. He's already breaking those promises

Your faith in humanity is admirable. Your interactions with others in a working environment must have been fortunate.

Hive mind when?

Rojava is an example of how it can be done.
There are still influential figures and heroes to look up to, but there is no vanguard party or cult of personality.
Without political empowerment of the working class being established from the beginning there is no hope for socialism.

Anyone that wants to be a "career revolutionary" is highly suspect. We don't need some pseudo intellectual who's never worked in his life to tell us what to do.
"B-buh but I need to teach you how to be socialist!"
Fuck off, go do something that's actually useful instead of ripping off the workers to fund your apparatchik lifestyle. Confederal democracy and workers self-management or bust.

I don't know guys. Having politicians seems an awful lot like inequality seeing as they don't have to labor as hard as the factory worker but getting the same income. Direct democracy will work until it becomes identity politics. Elections will be based off professions. The bakers' vote, the janitors' vote etc.

"B-buh but I need to teach you how to be socialist!"
Fuck off, go do something that's actually useful instead of ripping off the workers to fund your apparatchik lifestyle.

This describes most of Holla Forums unfortunately. Except no one is a true revolutionary and we live off our parents. Mom has told me time and time again to get a job but she's too stupid to understand I would rather stay home and not be a slave to a capitalistic system in which I am nothing but a replaceable cog that is being exploited to create porky's consumerist society. She doesn't understand though.

I'm currently learning a trade and making preparations to move to Rojava beginning next year.
You can do the same. Study something useful, and if you can't find anyone to start a cooperative with move to a place where they do already exist.
There's really a problem with people thinking "others" will save us. No one will come. We will have to do it ourselves.
Corbyn won't save us, neither will Podemos, nor would Bernie. Expecting someone else to pull you out of this mess is one of the most porky tier forms of politics.

...