Left-wing discussion

[Egeides]

"If you have a substantial ammount of money you can invest it in companies in the developing world which then employ people boosting the country's economic outlook."

So often false, since they have no excess of capital to invest back. A good exemple of this would be Chile, literally possessed by USA. The people just get the money they need to continue working and can't make new investments. It's the whole case of Africa or of any country with foreign investments for low-pay jobs (and since corporations decide which price they pay...).

[zamboe]

"If you have a substantial ammount of money you can invest it in companies in the developing world which then employ people boosting the country's economic outlook."

So often false, since they have no excess of capital to invest back. A good exemple of this would be Chile, literally possessed by USA. The people just get the money they need to continue working and can't make new investments. It's the whole case of Africa or of any country with foreign investments for low-pay jobs (and since corporations decide which price they pay...).

Completly false.

I challenge you to present hard proff about your comments of Chile.

"So often false, since they have no excess of capital to invest back"

- Capital is abundant, what's not abundant are the investment oportunities with a reasonable risk/return relation.

"literally possessed by USA"

- Proof ?. What's more funny is that you use the word literally. Chile is not possessed by USA.

"The people just get the money they need to continue working and can't make new investments."

- aka people don't save !, that's 100% not true, many developing countries have a surplus of net savings, therefore capital to reinvest. I just recall the extraordinary case of Ireland, and the great miracles that the growth of nationals savings along with the foreing investment made to boost his economy for more than a decade.

[Egeides]

zamboe, you're asking me backing proofs while you don't ask the same from the other side.

No problem... And when I said this, it wasn't to be taken litterally. I know, of course, that they may have a penny free to be invested... but you need more to really invest. Look at the copper industry: it's Chile's economic lungs. Why, since it's not at all the only ressource? Well if we look further, we see that there is in fact a difference with other ressources: it's not own by exterior interests since it was nationalized under Allende.

Now, could you please apply the same exigencies to your own statements? I'm curious to see.

And did you asked your self what was "rentability"? It is not rentable when people cannot buy your stuff at a high enough price. And why can't they?...

I think I DID talk too fast on one thing though: I gave a very general portrait while of course it may be more complicated. It was just a general rule. But globally, the weakest you are economically, the more others can take from you.

[Gobalopper]

If you didn't already know zamboe lives in Chile. :)

[Egeides]

I didn't know, and I'm ready to attack.

YIIIIHAAAA!!! ;)

[me=Egeides]takes his carnaval trumpet out of the wardrobe for the occasion[/me]

PS: Gob, I'm from Canada and I know lot of Canadians that don't know about NAFTA and its effects... The probability to be wrong doesn't make being wrong or not. And I know some people from S.America that say same as me.

PPS: I insist, what I said was a generalization of a rule.

[zamboe]

zamboe, you're asking me backing proofs while you don't ask the same from the other side.

Of course I ask you proofs to back what you said, else I'd think you are misinformed, after you post some kind of proof if needed I will post proof to prove you are wrong. What's is not correct is you ask me to present proof to prove you are wrong, it's you who started this particular subject inside this topic, so you should back up your words.

No problem... And when I said this, it wasn't to be taken litterally. I know, of course, that they may have a penny free to be invested... but you need more to really invest. Look at the copper industry: it's Chile's economic lungs. Why, since it's not at all the only ressource? Well if we look further, we see that there is in fact a difference with other ressources: it's not own by exterior interests since it was nationalized under Allende.

It's not a penny free. Just to mention about some,

12.5% of every monthly salary is taken by law to be administrated by private pension funds (in order to guarantee the best possible plan when people retire). And my friend 12.5% is a lot of money that every month the AFP have to invest.

7.5% same concenpt for health care, since part of the money is invested too. (about 3%)

So you have about 16% of a whole country monthly income to invest.

Second, tax benefits for reinvestment of companies net income not distributed as dividends, and in Chile companies and people use it at max.

Third, people personal savings at retail level, banks, accounts and that.

All of that is not a penny.

Of course that's not enough, when ANY economy is boosting up, it cannot be provided only by national savings to keep investing, it needs and takes foreing invesment, and foreing investment comes because the economy is boosting up, that's all a virtuous circle.

About cooper my friend, you haven't been updated for a couple of years.

Chile is the biggest world cooper producer.

However most cooper in Chile is produced by foreing investments (60% and growing), all those companies are not Chilean, however about 40% still being produced by the nationalized Codelco.

And you know why ?, simple as water.

Because cooper demand had sky rocket in the last 2 decades and therefore the nationalized Codelco was producing at full capacity and making money, but more cooper was demanded. Chile had two choices 1) Re invest the earnings of Codelco in the industry itself or use that money to invest in education and social programs, decision was simple, more of the money was for social programs and reduction of poverty in Chile. And foreing companies were allowed to invest under clear rules of taxes, royalties and legal security. Investment came in great numbers.

It's common that foreing companies like BHP and Phelps Dogde (canadian and australian) devoted to the cooper industry with operations in Chile issue bonds in the local market to finance it's growth in expanding their operations in Chile, who buy those bonds ? the AFP mostly !, with people's savings !.

And did you asked your self what was "rentability"? It is not rentable when people cannot buy your stuff at a high enough price. And why can't they?...

Please clarify, I fail to understand what you are asking/saying.

[Egeides]

zamboe, I generally do not go THAT in details simply for forums but it seems a pretty interesting experience ;D

I found back my initial source and the guy's name is Eduardo Galeano, from Uruguay (after looking Google, he's apparently well known: http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/ba2000-11-30.htm). The article can be read in English (http://www.portoalegre2003.org/publique/cgi/public/cgilua.exe/web/templates/htm/2I5RU/view.htm?search%5Fby%5Fyear%5Fto=&search%5Fby%5Fmonth%5Ffrom=&search%5Fby%5Fheadline=false&keywords=mesopotamia+india+and+america&search%5Fby%5Fauthorname=all&user=reader&search%5Fby%5Fstate=all&search%5Fby%5Fmonth%5Fto=&search%5Fby%5Fday%5Ffrom=&infoid=4133&query=simple&search%5Fby%5Ffield=tax&y=0&x=0&search%5Fby%5Fpriority=all&search%5Fby%5Fyear%5Ffrom=&editionsectionid=100&search%5Fby%5Fday%5Fto=&search%5Fby%5Fsection=all) or Spanish (http://www.portoalegre2003.org/publique/cgi/public/cgilua.exe/web/templates/htm/2I5RU/view.htm?search%5Fby%5Fyear%5Fto=&search%5Fby%5Fmonth%5Ffrom=&search%5Fby%5Fheadline=false&keywords=mesopotamia+india+and+america&search%5Fby%5Fauthorname=all&user=reader&search%5Fby%5Fstate=all&search%5Fby%5Fmonth%5Fto=&search%5Fby%5Fday%5Ffrom=&infoid=4189&query=simple&search%5Fby%5Ffield=tax&y=0&x=0&search%5Fby%5Fpriority=all&search%5Fby%5Fyear%5Ffrom=&editionsectionid=100&search%5Fby%5Fday%5Fto=&search%5Fby%5Fsection=all).

My comment about you not giving the explanation was that you were criticizing me to not go further while you didn't do it either. I think I could have explained myself better and therefore a little harsh. Sorry.

I'll come back to answer the rest of your post since I have to go somewhere and I know I'll have to study the whole thing a bit.

Now I saw I was highly misunderstood... My point with Chile wasn't that Chile didn't had a penny to invest, but that exterior investment weren't generally giving to the country as much as it should (the maximum profit in a situation of superiority). I used the exemple nationalization of copper to show this, since I wanted to to make a parallel between what was from exterior investment and what wasn't.

PS: HECK, how do we make an hyperlink address??

[Egeides]

Ok, now I have the time...

From what I see, I think I was misunderstood but that we a still have a different opinion. And this is probably because I lacked precision. I didn't clarified that I didn't took Chile as a case of "not having investment capital" and I didn't clarified that I didn't meant a TOTAL lack of capital but simply a tendancy to lack capital (in comparison with the one who invests). So my fault in precision isn't minor.

But we probably still disagree on this: I believe that if a country in stronger and invests in Chile, Chile probably wont have the advantageous part. If it is owned by someone else and the contract doesn't stipulate that a minimum shouldn't go to the investor, then the population will get screwed. The problems is that big corporations are pretty strong and big countries also. Africans doesn't get alot from its ressource right now. Otherwise, some African countries would be rich.

About USA being implicated in this, well I don't remember where I read that, but it said that USA had good relations with Pinochet and therefore was one of the main investors. I wasn't talking about copper, it was in general (well from what I read).

And finally, I went in Merriam Webster and apparently "rentability" doesn't exist in English even if "rentable" exists lol

So I was answering to "Capital is abundant, what's not abundant are the investment oportunities with a reasonable risk/return relation." What I was saying is that if it does not have a good rist/return relation ("rentability"), well there is a reason for that and it may well be that there is a lack not only of investors but also of a local market built by consumers that have money to buy (thus bringing "rentabilty" ;)).

There, now I am more clear. To generalize in a simple rule now, basically stronger ones have more power to push their interests, thus injustice towards the weaker ones. The bigger is the difference, the bigger is the problem and its consequences.

[zamboe]

I read the article you posted, that btw is not spanish is in portugese.

I will quote just some part to comment, since the rest is out of the subject.

"

Half of the population of Brazil lives in poverty or in extreme poverty, yet Lula's country is the world's second market for Montblanc fountain pens, and the ninth largest buyer of Ferraris. Armani shops in Sao Paulo sell more than in New York.

Allende's executioner, Pinochet, paid homage to his victim every time he spoke of the "Chilean miracle." Pinochet never confessed it, nor has it been mentioned by the democratic rulers who came after him, when the "miracle" became the "model"--but what would happen to Chile if its copper were not Chilean? The copper industry--the central roof beam of the Chilean economy--was nationalized by Allende, never to be privatized again.

"

The first part is only a sample of what is called "income distribution", that means that the difference in income between rich people and poor people is way to big. There is no direct relation between investments and income distribution.

Second part, indeed very wrong and with a left-wing taste in the middle. Because first, the so called "Chilean miracle" was not because of cooper, otherwise that so called miracle would have happened to as soon as Codelco was nationalized. The miracle happened because Chile was the first country that allowed foreing investment in key areas like telecomunications, energy, banking, etc and at the same time privatized most of the state companies.

But we probably still disagree on this: I believe that if a country in stronger and invests in Chile, Chile probably wont have the advantageous part. If it is owned by someone else and the contract doesn't stipulate that a minimum shouldn't go to the investor, then the population will get screwed. The problems is that big corporations are pretty strong and big countries also. Africans doesn't get alot from its ressource right now. Otherwise, some African countries would be rich.

The situation is not as simple as you put it, but in order to simplify it without deviating the key point, I can say that, there is a competition between countries get the investments in their territory, companies or investors will choose the best place for them, and it should be that way, because they are investing the money of others, and those people need the best return possible at the lowest risk possible. A few years ago, Intel announced it has decided to make a new High Tech Factory and R&D center in Central or South America. At those years not a single country in the area had it's regulations and legal environment set up for High Tech companies, so some countries like (Costa Rica, Mexico, Chile and Brazil) competed to get Intel in it's territory. Each of them had a different income tax, dividends tax, legal security laws, etc, etc, the best package was from Costa Rica and Intel went there, I hope you understand that if a country puts laws that pretend to take all the benefits of the investment for itself, then it will not get investments.

The fact that some investors are huge and strong companies, DO NOT, and please re read it, DO NOT guarantee the success of the investment.

About USA being implicated in this, well I don't remember where I read that, but it said that USA had good relations with Pinochet and therefore was one of the main investors. I wasn't talking about copper, it was in general (well from what I read).

That's a political issue and I've discussed it long enough with Miles some time ago, in this very same forum. Yes the US government supported and accepted Pinochet, but that's all. Investments from the US came when the Democratic elected government privatized and opened the market for it.

So I was answering to "Capital is abundant, what's not abundant are the investment oportunities with a reasonable risk/return relation." What I was saying is that if it does not have a good rist/return relation ("rentability"), well there is a reason for that and it may well be that there is a lack not only of investors but also of a local market built by consumers that have money to buy (thus bringing "rentabilty" ;)).

There, now I am more clear. To generalize in a simple rule now, basically stronger ones have more power to push their interests, thus injustice towards the weaker ones. The bigger is the difference, the bigger is the problem and its consequences.

Btw, the correct word in english is "return". I've just checked a book.

The risk and return are different concepts, but used together to evaluate an investment. I will finish to elaborate later, but let me tell you that being a strong company (aka having financial support) is everytime less important.

[Caid Ivik]

What I love mostly on left-wing is, that they see everything only in one view. They must get all people to some "classes" with unite mind and same working. Rich people must oppress those poor, head of state cannot have good intentions... Well, and of course, the United States of America are the source of all evil on the world, quoting highest Iranian ayatollah Chamenei, the body of Satan. Once you will attack the Red Cross for its centralised command - also that's an imperialistic sect trying to take over the world by enhancing its reputation and special rights!

And we RIGHT are evil people ;D

[Egeides]

Well except the exclusively Chilean part, it's the traditional liberal argumentation that I already knew. I agree to this in a certain extent: if no one uses his power to push his stuff, and if it is really globally profitable (about which I presently have no final opinion).

I would also answer by an article I read some time ago and which is perhaps the best one I ever saw on the subject of liberalism vs. its oponents (it's 20 pages): http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/fall1f.htm

It is the closer you can get to my personal view of this stuff.

(besides, this article is so good I think I'll make a new thread just for it).

About the part specific to Chile, I think I wont get really further since for now it's just two assertions explaining it in different ways. I know that economical "miracles" often come from strong investment, and such investment can come in any way, should it be nationalization or else. But the information we need to get here to know more about it is the % of profits going to the country in the case of Codelco and which % when it is NOT Codelco (the parts of Chilean economy that's owned by exterior). Then only we would know if the exemple of the Chilean economy is worth being used to show that developping countries don't get their share. Otherwise, we don't have what it needs to slice between us too.

And thanks for your productive comment Caid, but I don't think I should behave towards what you think of my person. I only look arguments opposing the subject and this is just not about economics.

I believe that the concept of "classes" exists as well as all the rest and we should consider thw whole instead of everything except classes. For the rest of what you said, it has nothing to do with me: a bunch of sophisms extrapolated from other persons (not all leftists are perfectly coherent, as for rightists). And Caid, LEFT are evil people ;D

I'm ironic (not untasteful I hope), but it's just to say you that generalization aren't true, and other's ideas aren't always idiotic and I'd appreciate if you see how others may think differently. There are reasons why others have different ideas and it's not because they are unintelligent, closed-minded and all adjectives defining people negatively. It may also be because they have a different ideologic structure.

[Edric O]

What I love mostly on left-wing is, that they see everything only in one view. They must get all people to some "classes" with unite mind and same working. Rich people must oppress those poor, head of state cannot have good intentions... Well, and of course, the United States of America are the source of all evil on the world, quoting highest Iranian ayatollah Chamenei, the body of Satan. Once you will attack the Red Cross for its centralised command - also that's an imperialistic sect trying to take over the world by enhancing its reputation and special rights!

And we RIGHT are evil people ;D

LOL, I loved the "head of state cannot have good intentions" part. It goes a long way to show rightist hypocrisy. You see, that's exactly what the right-wingers say about all communist or socialist heads of state: that they are all naturally evil. On the other hand, their own imperialist right-wing heads of state are all innocent saints... ::)

[Caid Ivik]

AH! Again you are generalizing, considering ALL people as same!

This is the hardest, darkest and most oppressive error of marxism. WE ARE NOT SAME. Everyone thinks by another way. It was, it is and it will be forever. Fact is that most of the dictatorships of the world were familiarizing with left ideology. Those bad rightists had also one radical ideology, but that's not good also. Social, liberal and christian democrats, honoring freedom of speech, market and human rights have no manifests, on which they have to stay. They make those functional countries and have the right to show others the best way, altough it should be their choose if they want to stay under autoritative or democratic regime. Communism is oppressive in its core by unabling free market. I don't see a possibility of good way with it. But why should I think all may be same in future? Well, it's empirical. You won't step twice to same dirt.

[Egeides]

Exactly what I'm saying. But I'm adding to this that power tends to attract some bad people, and money tends to bring the ones that are bad people to make bad things.

Like you said, there's a great variety to add to this. Classes do have an influence, as does nationality and all kinds of personal influences. And I think maybe you see Edric as making generalization because he's constantly writing about classes, classes, classes. But I think it doesn't stop from seeing the rest. Anyway, classes are an economic standard, so no surprise that communists constantly talk about classes when it comes to economics and society.

[Edric O]

I'll stop talking about classes when there won't be any difference between "rich" and "poor". Until then, we have several economic classes, with the upper ones exploiting the lower ones.

Now, is it just me or is Caid showing us a splendid example of hypocrisy? First he tells me not to generalize (which is a good point - I always try to avoid generalizing), and then he makes broad generalizing statements about "all leftists" and "all Marxists"...

Maybe if you actually went to a leftist/Marxist forum, Caid, you'd finally see how different each of us is from everyone else. There are pure Marxists, Marxist-Lenininsts, Trotskytes, anarcho-communists, state communists, libertarian communists... in fact, one of our greatest problems is that we are so different from each other that we often can't get along...

[Caid Ivik]

Once maybe, when you'll work, you will see a difference between employment and slavery. You know, those money which you'll be payed by must have some source. And if you work on something, which doesn't bring much of them, don't be surprised.

You are still generalizing. If you try to avoid it, it is nice, but not enough. Don't think it is something weird, Marx does it in all his books, every worker is for him oppressed, every "capitalist" moneylust and every Jew (excluding himself) lives for lichva.

If you were reading all, you should find a little point on social democrats, EdricO ;) Have I attacked once some of those, who stay on the left, but without some straight ideology? You call yourself not a social democrat, but a marxistic democrat, what is for me a impossible combo, because I see a difference between them. Do YOU so?

[Edric O]

Once maybe, when you'll work, you will see a difference between employment and slavery. You know, those money which you'll be payed by must have some source. And if you work on something, which doesn't bring much of them, don't be surprised.

LOL, Caid, I've worked part-time summer jobs before. I know what working is like (and it's not really "like" anything - you just go to work, do whatever you're supposed to do, and eventually get paid. It's not some "new experience".... ::) ).

Wage slavery is still slavery. Just because the slaves are particulary well-treated, that doesn't mean that they're not slaves. Well, "slavery" might not be the right word. "Serfdom" would be more correct. You see, wage labour is in many ways just the capitalist version of feudal serfdom.

People should work for themselves, not for "the boss".

You are still generalizing. If you try to avoid it, it is nice, but not enough. Don't think it is something weird, Marx does it in all his books, every worker is for him oppressed, every "capitalist" moneylust and every Jew (excluding himself) lives for lichva.

First of all, please note how stupid is the idea that "Marx was an anti-semite" considering he was a Jew himself. When was the last time you saw a Jew who hates Jews? ::)

Second, the fact is that every capitalist *IS* lusting for money and wealth. As always, there are some exceptions, but they are very rare. The very REASON why someone gets into business is to accumulate wealth for himself.

And workers ARE oppressed, by the very nature of their position. Of course, some of them are less oppressed than others.

If you were reading all, you should find a little point on social democrats, EdricO Have I attacked once some of those, who stay on the left, but without some straight ideology? You call yourself not a social democrat, but a marxistic democrat, what is for me a impossible combo, because I see a difference between them. Do YOU so?

Ummm... what? If you're asking how can I be a "Marxist Democrat", the answer is simple: ALL Marxists (not Stalinists) are democrats. The very word "democracy" means "the people rule". And that is what Communism is all about.

[Acriku]

Well Edric, there were blacks who hated their own race, and whites who hated their own, so I can imagine a Jew hating his people.

[Caid Ivik]

Once maybe, when you'll work, you will see a difference between employment and slavery. You know, those money which you'll be payed by must have some source. And if you work on something, which doesn't bring much of them, don't be surprised.

LOL, Caid, I've worked part-time summer jobs before. I know what working is like (and it's not really "like" anything - you just go to work, do whatever you're supposed to do, and eventually get paid. It's not some "new experience".... ::) ).

Wage slavery is still slavery. Just because the slaves are particulary well-treated, that doesn't mean that they're not slaves. Well, "slavery" might not be the right word. "Serfdom" would be more correct. You see, wage labour is in many ways just the capitalist version of feudal serfdom.

People should work for themselves, not for "the boss".

You are still generalizing. If you try to avoid it, it is nice, but not enough. Don't think it is something weird, Marx does it in all his books, every worker is for him oppressed, every "capitalist" moneylust and every Jew (excluding himself) lives for lichva.

First of all, please note how stupid is the idea that "Marx was an anti-semite" considering he was a Jew himself. When was the last time you saw a Jew who hates Jews? ::)

Second, the fact is that every capitalist *IS* lusting for money and wealth. As always, there are some exceptions, but they are very rare. The very REASON why someone gets into business is to accumulate wealth for himself.

And workers ARE oppressed, by the very nature of their position. Of course, some of them are less oppressed than others.

If you were reading all, you should find a little point on social democrats, EdricO Have I attacked once some of those, who stay on the left, but without some straight ideology? You call yourself not a social democrat, but a marxistic democrat, what is for me a impossible combo, because I see a difference between them. Do YOU so?

Ummm... what? If you're asking how can I be a "Marxist Democrat", the answer is simple: ALL Marxists (not Stalinists) are democrats. The very word "democracy" means "the people rule". And that is what Communism is all about.

1.There have to be a boss. Alternative is anarchy, there have to be an organisation, because alone you cannot make i.e. a car.

2.Marx was a native Jew, but uneducated religiously. He couldn't even know to speak jidis. But the fact is, that most fanatical antisemitists were usually native Jew convertites. He considered them all as nation of abominated capitalists and felt ashamed for his origin.

3.You are talking about exceptions. Throw the stone if you think you are without sin.

4.People rule everytime. Even in "people's democracy", there are SOME people on the head...

[Caid Ivik]

I will store that reply if you won't be able to counter soon.

[Edric O]

I'm still here, Caid. I told you in my IM that I'll make a topic about it when I leave, and I haven't made that topic yet. But I will do so in a few minutes, so we'll have to put this argument on hold until I come back...

1. You mean there has to be a manager. Yes, of course. But not a boss (as in "company owner").

Obviously, there will always be someone to co-ordinate all the work. That's the manager. But the capitalist notion of "company owner" will be abolished, along with wage labour. In essence, all the workers/employees will be share holders.

Or let me put it another way: In capitalism, the boss hires the workers. In communism, the workers "hire" the "boss" (actually manager).

2. Two words: PROVE IT. I've never read anything by Marx that even comes close to these accusations of yours, and I suspect that you're either making it up yourself or just repeating some urban legend you've heard. Either way, it's utterly false.

3. What? I don't see any connection between that Bible parable and what we were talking about. I said that the vast majority (if not ALL) capitalists are after one thing: PROFIT. Pure selfish accumulation of wealth.

4. Caid, are you trying to twist my words on purpose or didn't you understand what I said? "The people" means "the population". Democracy means that the entire (adult) population of a country shares the political power. Marxism is by its very nature democratic.

[Warlord Ripskar]

You neglect the requirement for start up capital. Once running a business can largely look after itself given a competant manager and workforce.

When a business is starting it swallows large ammounts of money buying premises, machinery, tools, materials etc. Without either a bank or share holders to invest the intial capital nothing happens.

[Edric O]

That only applies to a capitalist economy, Ripskar.

In communism, since all "businesses" are the public property of the people, the notion of "capital" no longer exists. The materials needed to start a "business" are provided by the state from a public fund that exists precisely for this purpose.

[Warlord Ripskar]

That doesn't work. In feudal Europe we saw that when the nobility wanted to carry out some project they were habitually unable to pay for it, their serfs usually paid their dues in labour or produce, coinage was almost unheard of. In other words a barter system opperated.

Added to this was the fact that money lending was prohibited by the church on grounds of morality.

So the nobility and everyone else for that matter was unable to buy items from outside their own domain.

However the Jewish community unhindered by the Pope's edict were able to lend money and became the main conduit for conducting transactions.

In the Communistic system where banking is prohibited a replacement will develop in the form of Loan Sharks who will become excessively powerful. Communist theory will drive a subculture of criminality. This coupled with the bureucratic nature of the system will reduce the workers to slave status just as surely as pure capitalism. There is no impetous for development in the Communist system, either personal or technological.

[Caid Ivik]

As everything shows EdricO back at action, and me too, it is no time to lose. Let's see:

"1. You mean there has to be a manager. Yes, of course. But not a boss (as in "company owner").

Obviously, there will always be someone to co-ordinate all the work. That's the manager. But the capitalist notion of "company owner" will be abolished, along with wage labour. In essence, all the workers/employees will be share holders.

Or let me put it another way: In capitalism, the boss hires the workers. In communism, the workers "hire" the "boss" (actually manager)."

Yes, worker chooses the one which will want from him the least...

"2. Two words: PROVE IT. I've never read anything by Marx that even comes close to these accusations of yours, and I suspect that you're either making it up yourself or just repeating some urban legend you've heard. Either way, it's utterly false."

It's not about accusing Marx of antisemitism. He wasn't against Jews as a race, but as a "class", because he saw in everyone a lichver or banker. All Jews were for him just an unproductive band living from money shaking, sign of dying capitalism. This theory was especially presented by his follower Rosa Luxembourg, which was anyway a native Jew too. To be sure, I don't bring these things up from his own books, but from things which were written about him, but it is truth, that he made many articles against Jews ("Their God? Money!" - Rheinische Zeitung).

"3. What? I don't see any connection between that Bible parable and what we were talking about. I said that the vast majority (if not ALL) capitalists are after one thing: PROFIT. Pure selfish accumulation of wealth."

Ok, so you think it is only a profit. But for what is that profit? Of course, if you want to manage a company, you must try to be succesful, why would you do it for a bankrot? Everyone wants to improve his life, many also want to help with living the others. It doesn't mean they want to destroy everyone with the same ambition.

"4. Caid, are you trying to twist my words on purpose or didn't you understand what I said? "The people" means "the population". Democracy means that the entire (adult) population of a country shares the political power. Marxism is by its very nature democratic."

Marx shared his thoughts only with the intellectual sphere. If you think only intellectuals are "the population", then I wouldn't be so sure with that marxist democracy... But as I think about democracy, it was created by ancient Greeks, as a rule of people - not slaves, called in marxist literature grandly as a "proletariate".