The fallacy of the Left: it's feudalism by any other name

The drive of the Left in the UK towards allowing minors (i.e. those under the legal age of majority) to vote is simple. It's a development of the Lutherian concept which stated "give me the child before seven and I will give you the man." The idea is simple: like those on the left who think that the age of sexual consent for homosexuality should be reduced to 12 years, the plan is to capture voters before they enter the real world and discover the fallacy of the left.

The fallacy of the Left, no matter how it brands itself, is that, for all its talk of freedom and promises of a better world, a left-wing government is, at its heart, a feudal government, a system of oppression delivered to the idealistic and narrowly (or less) educated.

The elements of feudalism are a central authority delegating power to enforce and tax to subsidiary groups.

Feudalism: Monarch with power of life and death over subjects
Socialism/Communism: President, Great Leader or a similar title representing absolute authority with power of life and death over subjects

Feudalism: Barons
Socialism/Communism: Party / Committees

Feudalism: Knights
Socialism/Communism: local committees, unions

Feudalism: occupation of property was subject to a licence from the monarch in return for loyalty
Socialism/Communism: occupation of property is subject to a licence from the Party, often represented by local committee.

Feudalism: right to work subject to approval of the Baron or Knight.
Socialism / Communism: right to work subject to approval of the local committee or union.

Feudalism: landowners / landholders paid a tax equal to 10% of their gross revenue, usually in-kind e.g. one tenth of their harvest, known as a tithe. Those who worked on estates did not earn from their work but were rewarded by the estate (i.e. the Knight or his representative) as he saw fit applying a form of profit-share in which much of the profit was remitted to the Monarch, much of what was left was retained by the knight and the peasant took a share of what was left. Whichever, the peasant (villeins in Old French) were not allowed to leave.
Socialism/Communism: land owning is, generally, not admitted. Land holding is allowed provided all profits are remitted to the state and then distributed according to a secretive system under which party officials gain a range of benefits, including premium workspaces and domestic accommodation and the peasants take a share of a small part of the pot. In most communist and some socialist systems, the workers are not allowed to leave their district without permission which is often withheld on apparently arbitrary bases.

Feudalism: in England, land confiscated by King William I, the Duke of Normandy, who conquered England in 1066. We've, the English, have been fighting tyranny ever since.
Socialism/Communism: Under communism, everywhere, land is confiscated by the state. Socialism, land may remain in personal ownership but subject to severe restrictions and a preference for land to be in public ownership e.g. social housing, and distributed according to centralised rules and favour.

Feudalism: loyalty to superiors is paramount, challenges are severely dealt with.
Socialism/Communism: loyalty to the leader, the Party and the system is paramount, challenges are severely dealt with.

There are many core issues, amongst them whether a limited choice is a genuine choice. Therefore, the pretence of elections in any one-system state where the candidates all represent the same system (even if not the same party or, even, the same factions) will always result in a one-system state. An election which cannot result in change is a means of oppression of the people, masquerading as a freedom.

Both systems rely on autocracy. Both systems rely on loyalty and, therefore, the further down the line one looks, the stricter the rules and the enforcement so that each layer can demonstrate to its superiors that it is ensuring both loyalty and revenue from below. The end result of both is oppression of the working class.

The irony of that statement should not be lost on readers: the language of the left claims to be progressive but it in fact it is designed to return society to a system under which rewards are in the hands of autocratic leaders who control all aspects of their lives.

The left is driven by a self-appointed "intelligentsia" which claims that being versed in a narrow form of political education makes them superior leaders, and therefore better able to decide what is best for the population than the population itself. It derides the right for privilege, especially in education, while in many cases having educated its own leaders in the same schools and universities and, thereby, represent the "class" they claim to despise whilst alleging that they are working from within to destroy that system. How odd, then, that they generally drive nice cars, live in expensive houses, dine in smart restaurants and enjoy fine wines while modern peasants struggle to pay their mortgages, lose their cars to repossession, rarely eat out and drink the cheapest, highest alcohol level, substances they can get their hands on.

The simple fact is that Communism and Socialism are, at their core, an utterly repressive, regressive system of control of the masses.

Karl Marx, the doyen of the Left, was anti-Jewish, pro-slavery and a proponent of terrorism. See quotes below.

In a couple of weeks, the UK goes to the polls. The concept of encouraging youth to vote is worthwhile but only if the young are properly educated. Young people are, by nature, revolutionary (small "r"), looking for new approaches to old problems, convinced of the benefit of rapid change. These are strengths not weaknesses, provided they are backed by a comprehensive understanding of what they are proposing and why. But the teaching of history has become flaccid and superficial. The Russian Revolution is presented as a one-dimensional over-throwing of cruel leaders, the growth of anarchism in the UK is consigned to the English Literature elective, and then only if e.g. Joseph Conrad is on this year's syllabus. The truth of the Pol Pot and Revolutionary China is not taught at all in British schools which focus almost exclusively on a short period of right-wing extremism prior to and during the Second World War.

So-called "liberals" have constantly constrained the liberties of the many to satisfy the interests of the few, making the interests of the few paramount. This is not liberalism, it is a tool of authoritarianism of both Left and Right.

Next month, the UK goes to vote in a general election. Both the Leader of the Labour Party and his number two, the Shadow Chancellor have expressed approval of Marx and espoused his writing.

So it's simple: if you want a world where "revolutionary terrorism" is OK, where Jew (or any religion) bashing is OK, where the object is to control the proletariat (which is, by definition, anyone who is not a member of the political elite) and where slavery is not only OK, but is actually a good thing, then vote Labour.

But if you want freedom, if you want to have mobility of labour even within your own country, if you don't want a committee telling when and where you can work, if you want to work hard to earn money that you keep and enjoy or invest for your children to provide them with a better education and/or future then you do have a choice. Unlike the Marxist approach that even if there are elections the choices are between near-identical candidates enforcing near-identical policies, then exercise that choice. Vote Conservative.

Theresa May is a rubbish Conservative: she's over the line to the left of centre. Far from re-establishing the centre, she's compelling a drift to the left, willing to say and do anything for power. She is a doyen of true populism, not the current mis-used version of the term. But at least she's not a Marxist and, although some of her proposals are not too far away from the Socialist/Communist ideas of local committees, she nevertheless supports individual rights and freedoms and your ability to keep more of the money you earn without government interference.

Quotes from Marx:

- on terrorism: [T]he very cannibalism of the counter-revolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror...We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.

- on "the Jewry": [T]he task of abolishing the essence of Jewry is in truth the task of abolishing Jewry in civil society, abolishing the inhumanity of today's practice of life, the summit of which is the money system. On another occasion he wrote" we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets. "

- on slavery: Direct slavery is as much the pivot upon which our present-day industrialism turns as are machinery, credit, etc. Without slavery there would be no cotton, without cotton there would be no modern industry. It is slavery which has given value to the [European] colonies, it is the colonies which have created world trade, and world trade is the necessary condition for large-scale machine industry. Consequently, prior to the slave trade, the colonies sent very few products to the Old World, and did not noticeably change the face of the world. Slavery is therefore an economic category of paramount importance.