Arbitrary distinction.

Twitter has fewer employees than a fast food franchise.

It's not an arbitrary distinction at all, but a significant one. A capitalist is defined as an individual whose annual income on the basis of owning, rather than actually working themselves, is so significant that they do not need to work.

If this was true, there would be many more companies started by workers alone.

You missed my point entirely. We only "need" capitalists within a capitalist system to start big companies because it requires a huge amount of money to afford factories and sizable real estate to have a high-earning company business. Workers cannot afford to start such companies, and can only hope to start small businesses that do not permit them to cease working themselves (I'm speaking from personal experience here, dude! We need to talk again sometime!). In fact, this is how capitalists keep their number tiny and prevent too many workers from "breaking out" of their class and entering the capitalist class. It is, as the late George Carlin often described it, a rigged game. What I did say is that workers do not need capitalists to run industries, because they are already run by workers, even if the workers do not control their own product under the current system. In a moneyless economy, it wouldn't require money to create industries that were required to produce an abundance for all, but simply a majority vote from workers, which determined that resources are required for that purpose.

Well then I'd work at the currency mint, because if I worked at the car factory, all I'd get would be 100 cars, and I don't need 100 cars. I wouldn't even know where to park 100 cars.

You misunderstand (on purpose?). If you worked at a car factory in a true Marxian system, you wouldn't "only" be entitled to items produced by that particular factory, and from that particular industry. You would do your share of the useful societal work at that factory, but you would have full access to the general social store, which would entail the full fruit of your labor produced by all industries, e.g., food, a home, communications technology, access to medical care, access to recreational facilities, etc. The same with every other worker under that global system.

But it's still artificial.

The point is, it's now technologically possible to move everyone in the world out of that abject state. Which means there is no ethical reason to force anyone to remain impoverished.

It's the same. Without parental or de facto parental help, we're all poor.

Which is why we need a worker-run and socially owned system to insure that no few are able to gain economic power at the expense of the majority. It doesn't matter if it's artificial or not; what matters is whether or not it's possible, and modern technological advances have made it so.

But they were never subjected to the feudal land assignments to which England along with most of Europe was. North America (British and French) was created as a continent of small independent farmers from birth.

Which went a long way towards making the capitalist phase of production possible, thus enabling the Colonies to break away from feudalism and move onto the next more advanced and progressive economic stage. We have since advanced enough with the advances capitalist production brought about to move onto the next phase.

Sure, if you arrive to your appointment still alive.

1) Assuming you're able to arrive at all, because you cannot afford out of pocket or extremely expensive private insurance. Or, if you're allowed treatment anyway, but receiving a crushing bill that puts you into huge debt, something workers do not need under the best of circumstances, let alone when they're facing a serious medical crisis.

2) The "you have to wait forever to see a doctor" propaganda to rationalize some "benefit" to a privatized health care system is just that: propaganda. Urban Canadians, for instance, have a waiting period to receive specialized health care as urban Americans, and for largely the same reason: greater availability of doctors in that particular area, as opposed to rural areas. But sans workers getting bankrupted by medical fees. In a classless society, it would be even better, because there would be no fiscal equation whatsoever, but simply what was needed by individual patients. Not only that, but the emphasis could be placed on curing and prevention, as opposed to simply making a serious condition manageable because it wasn't profitable to cure or prevent something as opposed to constantly treating its symptoms.

Not very closely, it seems. The USA and Canada (which despite more social programs is closely linked) grow more than other First World countries; have lower unemployment (in spite of a much larger illegal immigrant population which depresses employment); their recessions are shorter; and yes, even their poor are richer than the poor in other First World countries (although, point conceded, North American poor have less social program access than poor in other First World countries).

More social mythology, my friend. American workers have just about the lowest standard of living in the First World nations, due to the huge amount of debt and lack of comparable social programs that other First World nations have, and are by far more overworked and underpaid than workers in any other First World nation, and our comparable rates of poverty are higher. And the far worse conditions of workers in Third World nations is only the case because of the global capitalist hegemony: they lack the money to buy the items and services that could easily be provided for everyone in the world if we had a global moneyless system of social ownership that had no concerns with making profit for a market.

No, I didn't.

Because it's actually true.

Poor Chileans are better off after the Pinochet free market reforms than they were under Allende's social democracy.

Pinochet was a puppet of the U.S., and was hardly worker reform-minded. Allende was the one who was favored by the Left in Chile, and he was subject to all the typical opposition from outside U.S. government and business intervention as Chavez was in Venezuela, and just about every truly left-wing politician in Latin and South America. The U.S. government and corporations have worked hand-in-hand to foil any true movement towards left-of-center politics and economics south of the North American border... not always with full success, but enough to keep things far from worker-friendly over there.

The Amazing Inkless Book!

Well ok then.

Don't the lumberjacks who raised the trees from whence your book's paper came from also deserve the full fruit of their labor?

Yes, and especially so if we lived in a moneyless economy where an alternative to trees were found for producing paper that wouldn't have fiscal opposition since it would be "too expensive" to develop, and interfere with the profit interests of too many lobbyists who pour campaign money into politicians' pockets. Lumberjacks could then be happy to move onto other industries that needed their labor in place of cutting down the trees.