I agree with the criticism of the current capitalist system, but I have a hard time seeing that democratic decision making at all levels would somehow produce the best outcome, this is the assumption I'm questioning here. To comment on your example, I would agree that that outcome would be preferable but I don't believe that it would be achieved with democratic decisions on everything. I believe it would be a lot more likely that the workers of the shoe factory would favor their individual immediate contentment, for example voting to work very little, invest majority of the income for their salaries and not better shoe making devices, thus the end result would be even less shoes for everyone and less money invested in R&D for new and better machines.

I'll admit that I haven't red that many books on Marxist economics, only what other people have written about them. Do you have any reading suggestions on the topic?

I don't believe these two "extremes" are the only possible alternatives, and the problem with both of these seem to be that the people who have the most knowledge don't get to choose the best course of action. People make choices against their own interests all the time and the actual day to day interests of a cleaning lady are most likely contrary with the best possible outcome for everyone. Innovation requires more than just education; it requires sacrifices of the immediate desires. My gripe with this democratic decision making with everything is that it is only desirable if all the actors would be experts on whatever they are deciding on. I'm fairly confident that majority of people aren't able under any circumstances to make the best decisions for the good of the whole.

I'll give a silly example off my head: Do you really believe that it would be desirable that the vote of the vain cleaning lady (who believes in energy healing) had the same weight as a doctor on what medical devices or new treatments the hospital should invest in? Many people are stupid and short-sighted on even their own simple life decisions, how could it possibly be desirable to let them have equal say in choices that have complex implications for everyone?

Isn't the whole thing a massive assumption? Shouldn't we ultimately favor the system that in reality produces most output and not because it is based on some holy tenets?

>I don't seek power, but I want to democratically be able to participatein production. I want to elect my bosses and be in equal social standingwith all my co-workers, whether they require extra support at work orif they are the single most productive person there.

Can you explain why communists and socialists assume that democratic planning of companies would actually produce more innovation or more products for everyone? Doesn't it sound crazy that a cleaning lady who doesn't know anything about the company or the product would have equal say in how the company profits should be reinvested or who should be the head of R&D with the people who actually know something about how the business world runs? Why are they assuming that people wouldn't just make short-sighted and ultimately destructive choices? Or are the real results irrelevant, we can hinder all innovation and possibly starve to death because all that matters is that we all made that decision?