Communist Manifesto

Pros:   A graduated income tax should work.  As people get more money, they have more money to give to the government.

A centralized bank could potentially work in a perfect world, but not the real world.  It would be nice to all have equal banking and rights to money.  The problem is that banks need to make money too.

Free education is something we have today.  It is very useful and actually works correctly.  Other than teachers' unions striking, the public school system runs smoothly.  It is funded based on the amount of students and wealth of the town.  It means that everyone, no matter how much money they have, should start out with the same foundational education.  Because of funding, poorer people often get a worse education, but the main idea works.

Equal obligation also sounds like it should work.  Labor should be distributed equally.  People should work about as hard as each other, and people should make about the same amount of money.  The problem is that the owner of a high tech business can't be making the same as the guy selling burgers at McDonald's.  This idea would only work if it was graduated, so there were tiers of income based on position.


Cons:   Abolition of all rights or inheritance would mean that when someone died, their possessions would go to the government, not whomever they wrote in their will.  This would supposedly put people all on the same starting level, but really it just creates a system were everyone struggles, instead of some people.

Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels would make the rebellions worse.  If you anger rebels, they rebel more.  If rebels don't have a home, they live on the streets and rebel more.  If rebels don't have rights, they have more to rebel against.

The state can't control everything.  If the state controlled everything, it would be a small group of misrepresenting men making the rules.  For example, if our government controlled everything with the public having no say, there would be a death penalty in every state, no gay marriage, no abortion, and no minorities in the public eye.

People can't combine agriculture and production industries.  They work off of each other, but they would bring each other down if they were the same thing.  They each need the other, but if production and agriculture were owned by the same people, first, many people would be jobless, second, people wouldn't have options in products.  They would all be created by the same people.

Liberators

Everyone of these people are portrayed similarly.  Well, at least the ones I saw.  Yet again, my internet is refusing to show my the page.  From what I saw, these people are portrayed in a way that makes them look important.  They also look like leaders, but not in a nice way.  They all look important, but with a forced pose.  The pose makes it seem as if the importance was act.  That's just my opinion, but that is how I see it.  The only difference is in the second picture.  It is odd and kind of creeps me out.  The person looks dead, as if it was suicide.

These people were portrayed this way to be presented as leaders, as someone to look up to and follow.  This means that future generations will hopefully look up to these men.  They might see them as role models of how to make a change, especially if they are portrayed regally.

These revolutions need a heroic figure to be a leader.  A riot or revolt would be chaotic with a leader.  The leader needs to be someone whom people will listen to and respect.  These leaders all look the part of being in charge and being heroic in a time of need.