Re: Actually...

But if managers and supervisors are elected in still makes them "politicians" even if they operate on a lower level than a president.

Such managers and supervisors would NOT be politicians. They would not have political power over the workers. Their job would simply be to manage on behalf of the workers, but never to rule over them. Ruling over them would be impossible in a system where no one had economic privilege over anyone else.

I don't know how you define democracy but I personally do not believe in it, because it represents decisions made by a majority over a minority, that's the fundamental problem with it. Just because something is popular, doesn't make it right. It doesn't matter if something is "right" or "wrong" under democracy; the sole requirement is that something has a majority support.

I totally disagree with this frightening tendency to hate democracy in favor of some sort of "benign" dictatorship. In fact, this tendency is every bit as worrisome and terrifying to me as the tendency for working class people to support laissez-faire capitalism. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief among many intellectuals, democracy does NOT simply mean majority rule or "mob rule." This is why we have a constitution. A constitution is supposed to guarantee that EVERY single opinion matters as much as every other, meaning that minority opinions are supposed to be the most protected opinions of all. Minority groups are supposed to be given special protections under a democracy with a constitution, and a constitution is supposed to give EVERYONE under a democracy certain inalienable rights that not even a majority can take away. This is what is what prevents a true democracy from devolving into mere mob rule. The U.S. is simply a plutocracy disguised as a democracy, so of course the constitution is routinely subverted. Also, what you call mob rule does NOT prevail in the U.S. today. Decisions made by a minority of people (an oligarchy) is clearly in evidence, and this makes it quite clear that an "enlightened" minority, or a single "enlightened" individual, does NOT do better than a majority when it comes to making decisions for a society. The problem is, because we are not a true democracy, we have a poorly educated majority that is influenced and trained from an early age by the minority ruling class. If we had a full economic democracy, there would be no ruling class to miseducate or control the workers. As such, the majority would be much better informed and much more enlightened, and democracy would work. Minority opinions would be protected, and a constitution would be honored, because there would be no minority, oligarchal force responsible for making all of the decisions, including decisions to supercede a constitution.

Of course, just any constitution per se for its own sake could be just as much a disaster as democracy if it was drafted up by a bunch of fascists who hold to today's status quo mentality. A constitution would only be of use if it was of a paragon of libertarian values.

Yes, any good constitution WOULD be filled with libertarian values, and I think we can count on one being constructed in an economic democracy. Under such a democracy, government would be the administration of THINGS, and NOT the administration of PEOPLE. We wouldn't have a political state run by a minority of people with a professional police force and a professionally trained military at their beck and call, to whip workers into place if they ever rebel. You can't condemn true democracy because one has yet to be tried.