Discuss the various political ideologies and their impact on foreign direct investment. Is anyone stronger than another? Do you feel that your attitude lends to one over any others? Defend your opinion?
#5 is basically correct about Marxism, but I will take it a step further: since Marxism, Communism, and Socialism are three related but very different ideaologies, each must have its own little explanation.
Marxism: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Since all work is done for the collective, and since no one has the right to take more than another and risk it on speculation, there can be no foreign investment or interest in any way. This is the pure form, idealized and Utopian, with no one claiming elite status and no drains because everyone is contributing.
Communism: generally a form of governmental dictatorship or "Lords and Serfs" deal. The government (which does not exist in Pure Marxism) takes all the resources and doles them out as it sees fit. In this case, all work is done for the government, which has the power to speculate if it chooses. Foreign investments would be possible, but unpopular because of the money it removes from the internal economy (remember, these are all intending to be a zero-sum game).
Socialism: removal of the private sector in favor of the public sector, or the governmentalization of the entire economy. While Communism has a working class and a ruling class, Socialism has neither, instead trying to make everyone part of the governmental class. In theory, this would ensure equality, but it falls prey to the same foibles; no one wants others to have more (money, power, control) and so the structure fails. Foreign investments would be key to keeping money flowing, but again they would likely fail in the long-term.
Historical studies of M/C/S societies are useful here.
As posters #5 and #7 have alluded, part of the problem with Communist's investing in another country is that they don't acknowledge investing in their own.
An ideology that does not acknowledge market forces cannot invest, neither nationally nor internationally. If we suppose "exploitative behavoir" under Capitalism (and true Capitalism is not coercive, or defined within a power relationship, because it only works when parties voluntarily wish to engage in business) then exploitive behavoir perpetrated upon peoples both domestic and foreign under Communist ideology must be extreme. Examine the history of Soviet Russia and Red China.
Communists don't need to invest; they invade.
There are a number of political parties in the world, mostly based in liberal philosophy, that advocate at least limited protectionism of domestic industries. This has a tendency to limit foreign investment by rewarding domestic investment. Even Obama in his State of the Union Address suggested we should provide tax credits for manufacturers who stay in the US.
To develop #5, it seems clear that Marxism would be fundamentally opposed to foreign investment because it would involve entering a power relationship with another country that could lead to exploitative behaviour and result in the start of capitalist policies that are incompatible with Marxism.
I, too, would agree that the conservatives, on either side of the political fence, would tend to be more likely to engage in foreign direct investments. Free enterprise/trade is important to the conservatives and, therefore, they would be more likely to support companies which offer the most competitive prices (or options) to the consumer.
Marxism is a political and economic ideology. It seems that Marxism is not compatible with foreign direct investment because, some contend, as soon as a Marxist government begins such investment, it has abandoned Marxism and become capitalist, perhaps even imperialistically capitalistic.
I agree with the two above post. Conservative (ironically) are better when it comes to foreign investments. Part of the reason for this is because liberals usually emphasis big government. This means that we need more money to stay domestically to prop up government agencies, even if they are ineffective. In light of this, I would say that Republicans are more for foreign investments.
Those who advocate nearly unrestricted free trade -- such as libertarians -- would probably be even more likely than conservatives to promote foreign investment. Pat Buchanan is a good example of the kind of conservative who is very skeptical about "free trade." On the other hand, I can't think of a libertarian who opposes it or could logically oppose it.
I would imagine that a conservative would be more likely to engage in foreign direct investment. Conservatives are more likely than liberals to believe in the importance of free trade. Therefore, conservatives would be more likely to want to invest in other countries.