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?

Saying that humans are not able to pursue something disinterestedly is also an unfounded presupposition. I assume that with “disinterested” is meant “without particular subjective interest”. So the presupposition is that humans always pursue something for their own particular reasons. This presupposes an idea of man that is not so obvious as you might think. The whole philosophical and religious tradition up until the 19th century thought man was special, in that man alone was able to have contact and insight in the infinite/the objective order (compared to other animals). This insight in the objective/infinite is meant when it is said that man can pursue truth in a disinterested way. I just want to point to the fact that the position that man can’t pursue philosophy disinterestedly is not so obvious as it may sound - rather, it is steeped in contemporary ideas about humanity and really not very critical at all. As so often, the more obvious an idea sounds, the less its implicit presuppositions are explicitly present in one’s mind

Cattle ranchers are indeed very interested in the well being of their animals...

Saying that humans are not able to pursue something disinterestedly is also an unfounded presupposition. I assume that with “disinterested” you mean “without particular interest”. So your presupposition is that humans always pursue something for their own particular reasons. This presupposes an idea of man that is not so obvious as you might think. The whole philosophical and religious tradition up until the 19th century thought man was special, in that man alone was able to have contact and insight in the infinite/the objective order (compared to other animals). This insight in the objective/infinite is meant when it is said man can pursue truth in a disinterested way. I just want to point to the fact that your position is not so obvious as you make it sound - rather, it is steeped in contemporary ideas about humanity and really not very critical at all.

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?

[deleted]

No, you are deliberately conflating two different definitions of the word capitalist to suit your argument. I hate to be the guy citing a dictionary, but since your definition of the term is not one shared by everyone else, let's consult Miriam-Webster:

>Capitalism: noun

>1: a person who has capital especially invested in business

>2: a person who favors capitalism

You are saying that only definition 1 is valid and that definition 2 does not exist (even though it's the one that more relates to discussions of philosophy, and is obviously the meaning I intended in my comment).

You do not get to gatekeep how the word is used or decide which definition is or isn't useful. You also do not get to tell other people what their beliefs are. Sorry.

You can't love anything while harbouring hate for someone, artist or not. Direct your hate to that person's past actions or behavior that you disagree with, because we all share in that humanity whether you like it or not, and perhaps that introspection will help you better appreciate their art, and even yourself.

You really shouldn't hate anyone to be honest. We are all just the universe expressing itself in the form of an individual. Our experiences and our genetics form us but in a way "there is nothing new under the sun". An artist creates art and you either like it or you don't. You shouldn't love the artist because you love his art and vice versa with hate.

There is an idea in Marxist economics called the "anarchy of production". Capitalist production does not hold social needs as the primary motivation but private profits. How about an example?

Think of how many different kinds of shoes there are. Thousands? Tens of thousands? What if we consolidated the resources and productive power of every shoe factory to produce a few hundred different kinds of shoes total? There are fewer options for sure, but everyone gets a pair or more as needed and there's less work required to produce the shoes needed.

The shoe designs could be rotated in and out as decided by popular vote every year or two but custom orders could be made to the nearest factory. Custom orders may be given lower priority to the shoes that are needed but I think reasonable people would be willing to wait if their custom shoes are free, comfortable and high quality.

You need to take a long hard look in a mirror. Good day to you as well.

>>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?

It's not necessarily concerned with innovation or more products for everyone, but with balanced power and working on realizing the needs of the people before the wants. If we educate 20 times more people, we will have probably have several times higher innovation, but would have to drastically reallocate the consumption of the most privileged.

>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?

Capitalists are very rarely talented in any of the many fields required to run a business, as opposed to the people who actually create the products and services. The cleaners may argue more equal compensation for the value they provide (sanitary workplaces are indispensable to our health) and how they need to do their job, while software engineers may argue how the code structure should look and the economics department on which area of the product needs most improvement to meet some productivity standard.

>Why are they assuming that people wouldn't just make short-sighted and ultimately destructive choices?

Because it's against their interests, as opposed to oil and weapon's lobbies starting wars and literally eradicating life on the planet, simply because it benefits only the owners of such companies.

>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?

Innovation comes from education and application of that education, if we educate many times more people and give them power over their workplace, then innovation will 100% to up over time.

To me, there are two sperate questions. Those being, the consideration of art already consumed, and the desire to consume new art.

Take, for example, Kevin Spacey. Let's say, in my 20's, that I loved 'the usual suspects'. Watched it 1,000 times. Then I learn what he did. What does that doe to my love of that art?
Well, maybe I can separate the person from the art, and maybe I can't. That's each person's decision. But I can recognized that, in this case, my judgement is clouded by some amount of nostalgia. Perhaps I can get a flash of my memories of just enjoying Spacey's performance before I knew about his troubling history. And perhaps not. As it happens, while the above is hypothetical, I still find myself fondly remembering 'Baby Driver' despite his part in it, and have re-watched it a few times after I heard the accusations.

On the other hand is the desire to consume new art. Say, in this case, that Spacey has a new movie come out. Do I go see that in theaters? He is likely to act well in it, and I did enjoy it as an actor, so there is a chance I enjoy it. But by seeing it in theaters, I am spending my time and money, and tacitly saying to the movie industry that 'despite what he is alleged to have done, I am still willing to pay to see this artist.' In doing that, I am actively contributing to an industry that has shown itself more than happy to sweep abuse under the rug in the name of profit. Is that okay? Should I be saying 'yes, I know he's a POS, but he's also a really good actor and I'm paying him for that, not his personal life.'

Put it another way (and this is an imperfect analogy, but I think it tracks)- say my last partner was abusive, but we had good days. Is it wrong for me to miss the time they took me out on a date, and we had fun? In my mind, no. For a time we were happy, and it can be comforting to remember that we stayed so long because they teased you with light amongst the clouds. But do those good memories mean that I should get back together with them? God no, they broke my arm, and would have done worse except the neighbors called the cops. It's not wrong to miss what we had, but it would be to try to create it anew.

We are a tribal people. I think a lot of the resistance and anger around this question comes from 'person whose art I like did a bad thing, people are attacking the author, people are now attacking the art too, I like that art, therefore I must stand by the artist'. I think there is a lot of power in saying 'I did/do like this art. It was a big part of me. But I now recognize that the artist has done/said things that I can't agree with, and I won't be supporting them going forward.'

Ultimately, this all comes down to personal beliefs. Personally, I will never judge someone for an emotional attachment forged to a toxic piece of media, provided that attachment was forged before that person knew it was toxic. But I will judge people for continuing to support a toxic product once they have become aware of it's problems.

Some things are harder than others to separate, and what would that even mean?

The biggest call for boycotting artists of various types is to stop giving them money. Usually that means waiting until the death of the artist, or buying/making non-licensed art. However even doing that can give publicity and a statement of ambiguity of separating anything, for example having a themed teddy bear you bought off Etsy and someone else going to the licensed store to buy a similar one because they liked yours so much.

So do you decide to stop the art all together, even if you can mentally separate the art from the artist, or do you continue and leave it up to interpretation to whomever may see what you choose to consume or purchase?

That doesn’t even begin on things that are essential with limited choices, such as cell phones that are all made unethically.

This whole thread is basically an equivocation of the term "disinterested". I absolutely acknowledge the fact that knowledge, and the pursuit of knowledge (or truth, let's say), is always finite and situated within some given medium. But this thread seems to be taking "disinterested" to mean "absolutely without motivation", and taking "motivation" to mean "one's entirely subjective reason". There is of course a good sense in which we should be on guard against this kind of stuff, but I don't think it's at all as widespread in philosophy as this thread is making it out to be. It seems to me obvious enough that we must have our own commitments to what things like "truth", "knowledge", etc. mean in order for us to be able to pursue them, but I'm getting the impression that what this thread is devolving into is a discussion about how those interested in these kinds of pursuits are really just rationalizing their beliefs instead of presenting reasoned views that respond to other views in a critical way (and of course it's devolving into other things as well, good ol' r/philosophy for ya!).

Oh my goodness yes! And why any philosophy teacher at college level will try to brain wash you into their own philosophical beliefs. I love philosophy so much, but the arrogance of philosophers is insane.

>You're nitpicking by only focusing on a single definition of the word capitalist, but substitute whatever word you want for "someone who thinks capitalism is a good economic system" (and I realize the way I phrased that sets it up for some pithy zinger but can we please not?)

It's not nitpicking, this is literally a philosophy forum meant for discussion and I'm giving the only philosophically useful definition of capitalist. There are objective realities of the class-based societies we live in and your direct material interests depend on how you relate to that social system.

If you've read all that socialist theory and you are a worker, then you must understand that the organization of power in your favor as opposed to against it would allow you greater freedoms and less alienation.

I did understand what you meant by team capitalism and I reject the idea that socialism doesn't allow for nuanced policy in regards to economic problems.

Choosing socialism only means choosing workers' power and working on undoing these exploitative systems permanently and at the speed in which it is possible to do so. If it is beneficial to workers that some level of private property and profit remains for the time being and in a controlled setting, despite it being socially backwards, then that policy will be chosen.

Both public ideological discussions and scientific experiments would be taken into account when balancing socio-cultural development with the realities of economic demands.

[removed]

It's actually quite humorous that you would bring empathy into this. I assure you, you are the one working with less of it. Just so you don't pat yourself on the back for giving out empathy to the "right people", I am not speaking on exclusively having empathy for the bad actors. I am speaking about having empathy for everyone. But this is a concept lost on people like you because I know you think only people on your side of the street deserve it.

Good day sir.

>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?

I'm still getting over some post-COVID brain fog so I'm sure my examples aren't amazing, but you can probably come up with something where two ideologies, or even just principles that you generally agree with are in conflict with each other. And just because you resolve it one way or another doesn't mean you have to commit to or abandon either idea.

Exactly. No one can remove themselves from the context of who they are in any moment (culture, personal lived experiences, language, beliefs, scientific views of the era, etc. etc.). Like a whale, you might float to your own surface, but in the water you still are ha.

Unproductive hair-splitting - and yes, there is occasionally a productive version. This ain't it.

"Disinterested pursuit" clearly means "no investment in a particular destination that therefore taints the journey" in context.

Are we really worried that this thing we usually just call "intellectual laziness" will be forgotten? That's when one's immature lust to achieve anything that one might convince one's self is "truth" will suffice. Rather than being an investment in a particular destination, that's an undue, overriding investment in being done - for bragging rights, for mental comfort, for whatever.

That is also bad, yes. We weren't going to forget about it.

I think to the idea of philosophical stances guiding behavior, it’s probably more true that a persons natural inclination will influence which stance they resonate with. Or which theology (or it’s absence) as well.

Though I’m not arguing against the point that philosophy can be meaningful, and that thoughtful introspective people might develop personal growth and philosophical views together as they grow.

Great response! But I think that there’s probably an underlying principle that would cover both scenarios, which makes them not opposing ideas at all. I find it more interesting to examine what that principle might be, because you’ll most likely find that the two “opposed” ideas are not actually opposed at all.