Yap, which is exactly why wealth redistribution is wrong.

In a non free society with slavery, serfdom, caste system, etc. You have the rich being parasites, people who were born into nobility and who take wealth from the poor, making EVERYONE poorer, but ensuring they are the relative rich rather then the relative poor. That is a perfect example of wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich. Communism and socialism is wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor. Both are catastrophic.

I am good enough at math to know exactly how much money I am making my employer, and often times it is indeed several times what he pays me. But it is a mutally beneficial relationship, I can and I HAVE left jobs before. I quite and found another job, since I live in a free society nothing prevents me from doing so, which is why the so called "rich" are not parasites exploiting me.

Can you please provide an example where minimum wage can prevent exploitation (not already covered by other laws, such as employing illigal immigrants, etc)?

UK is still a monarchy. Since 1689 the sovereignty lies into the hands of the parliament so when you call the England of the 19th century a feudal state it still is, quite easy.

I suggest you look up what defines a feudal state before saying it was one.

INO.  If you want to compare 21st century UK with 19th century Uk (which BTW had slavery) go ahead.  But in the 19th century, it was moving out of the "king is all" (it was after all only 24 years earlier when the US revolted and formed a new nation - totally unheard of at the time).  Quite simply, while it is not a true MOnarchy in the sense of the Royalty dictate all (they still have power - just not as much), it had, has and always will have a royalty that America has never experienced (much to Hillary Clinton's chagrin).  And that was what Karl Marx was writing about. 

At the time of his writing, many European nations were entering the Industrial revolution where the "serfs" were taken off the farms and put in factories in what by any modern comparison was deplorable conditions.  And that was a great influence on his writings and why he saw things like the Russian Revolution occuring (that of course was corrupted by the fact that man is not perfect).  Indeed, many european countries still have a monarchy - in name only.

But england was a feudal state.  It is not now, it is socialist.  But it was during most of the 19th century.  I know what it is.  I am not ignorany of European history like many Americans.  I have lived it - and may have stared across the wall at you back about 40 years ago. (If you are that old).

But all this is getting away from the point.  Marx and Engels did not conceive of a peaceful transition to a non-royalty society, because they had no conception of it.  America was still a very backward nation that was struggling with its own self doubts (the Civil War), and they (Marx and Engels) were immersed inthe fiefdoms of europe and what they saw as the "exploitation" of the masses by royalty.  NOt of the masses running the show.  A shame really.  If they had been born in the US, the world may never have had the stain of communism (but I am sure there would still be enough generic dictators to take the place of the faux communist).

I am not argueing that Marx wasn't influenced by the late-feudal countries in Europe, but England definitely wasn't feudal.

There was no serfdom, no supreme rule by landowners or kings, the bill of rights granted them rights like bearing own weapons, no punishment without a trial, freedom to elect a parliament, freedom from cruel punishments.

That is no feudal society at all.

And nowadays UK is not socialist: the means of production are in personal hands and the national income isn't collected and made equally available to everyone. What makes UK socialist? UK is a social market democracy (you know there is grey not just black and white).

I guess if it wasn't for Marx and Engels which became so popular with communism either someone else would have turned up or some other guy who had same ideas would have become the idol of communism, maybe even Thomas Morus

I don't see who used it wrong honestly.

Leauki, Sovereignty is usually defined by having the legislative and executive power (or at least most of it) and while the queen has to sign laws she has no real legislative and executive power at all. The Sovereign in UK is all their citizen which are represented by their parliament.

superamus = above anything/everyone

Maybe anglo-saxon definitions are a bit different from what we consider sovereign in germany though.

Leauki, how much power has the queen and how much power have the citizen via their representation by parliament?

(I admit that this might be a bit of a pragmatic definition of sovereignty but a sovereign monarch is a absolut one, not one who is just monarch because of tradition)

And I never said the citizen are "The Sovereign" just that they possess the sovereignty.

Edit: actually I did, my bad. The Sovereign per definition is the Queen yes.

Edit2:

Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. 

source : http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/sovereignty.cfm

"Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. "

You are confusing type of sovereignty with who owns the sovreignty.

The Queen is the sovereign and soverignty is hers. The fact that she happened to decide that her sovreignty is parliamentary and that she makes parliament come up with all the laws doesn't change that fact.

In Germany the people are the sovereign. Nevertheless, sovereignty in Germany is parliamentary. The German Bundestag (and Bundesrat) make the laws, but they are NOT the sovereign of Germany; the people are the sovereign.

In both cases parliament is the tool used by the sovereign. But in the UK the sovereign is the monarch and in Germany (and the US) the sovereign is the people.

In our prayer books which we import from England (obviously), there is a prayer for the Queen/King and her Prime Minister and his cabinet. We have a card glued to the cover of the book that replaces the prayer with one for the President and the Taoiseach. The president in a republic represents the people and the people are the sovereign. In a monarchy the monarch either represents himself/herself or has a Governor General. (A president might also have a governor general, of course.)

it was english, stop trying to make a fool of me:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

(and don't try to seriously tell me you don't know the english bill of rights of 1689 which heavily influenced most modern constitutions)

Could you please give some examples why UK was a feudal society in the 19th century

Could you please give some examples why UK nowadays is "mainly" socialist.

I guess it comes down to the problem that you totally changed the meaning of "socialist" as most americans have changed the original meaning of "liberal".

That is what I thought, but then I was pointed out that according to the dictionary, socialism IS a system where the government owns all the means of production. Socialism was a trasition stage towards communism. Soviet russia was a socialist state that claimed to one day become communist, but never made good on that promise.

What we have are mixed systems, those countries have a lot more socialism in their socialism/capitalism hybrid. Which by popular definition is called socialism (where total socialism is called communism by popular definition, despite there never being a communist country)

Taltamir,

According to Marxist philosophy socialism is state control of the means of production and communism is the ideal that is thought to derive from it.

But since Marx' time many socialists have changed their views. The world's most influential non-communist socialist party, the German SPD (Social Democratic Party of Deutschland) advocates a mixed system with some socialism (health care, key industries etc.) and some controlled capitalism. Traditionally the SPD has been almost violently anti-communist, but that has changed in recent years*.

A socialist country is not only a country in which the state owns the means of production but also one where the state CAN take such control if it is deemed necessary. Western Europe's socialist countries have capitalism because the government allows it, not because it's the basic system.

Notes:

*In the German state Hesse two weeks ago the SPD candidate for prime minister failed to get elected with the votes of SPD, Green Party, and the communists (which she tried to despite the fact that she promised before the elections that she wouldn't use communist votes). The reason she failed was that four of her MPs, known traditional Social Democrats refused to vote with the communists in parliament. The four MPs cited the promise to the voters, the history of the communist party, Social Democratic ideals, and concerns about employment numbers as their reasons.