Communist Manifesto

Negatives:
1. When reading the homework on the blog, I decided to jump right to the 10 demands at the very end.  The demands were "pretty generally acceptable" only to the workers, not the bourgeoisie class.  If those 10 demands were set in stone as law, the upper class would no longer exist.  People would not get land from rich relatives, the rich would be taxed, everybody must work, and not just the upper class would be educated.  The bourgeoisie class would not favor any of these.  They would never want to give up all the advantages they have as the rich folk of the area, such as having smarter children, having land bestowed upon them, and making money by not actually working.  The 10 demands must be more accommodating to these richer people if Marx and Engels want them to pass.  This would inspire the proletariat class to want a revolution, but they would have difficulty carrying it out with the lack of things they had and the ability of the bourgeoisie to hire people to defend them.
2. Marx and Engels are unwise when they bad-talk the bourgeoisie class.  This part is when the two are explaining how the bourgeoisie class even came to be: with the development of modern industry came commerce, navigation, and railways, with which the bourgeoisie class grew at the same proportion and increased capital.  Overall, they came about from a "series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange."  When Marx and Engels write about their growth, he says that they pushed each of the classes back during the Middle Ages.  This phrase is a poor choice of words because it basically says that the whole bourgeoisie class is a group of terrible people that are trying to better themselves and keep everybody away from their wealth.  This is not entirely true, because the bourgeoisie class needed the proletariat people to bring in their wealth, because they did not work themselves.  This helped the proletariat class, however, because it gave them  the desire for communism, where they would not be considered subordinate to others.
3. One quote struck me as a terrible statement in the passage.  It reads: "There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society.  But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."  This quote seems to deter people from wanting a communist state.  Marx and Engels show with this quote that there is no religion, morality, or "eternal truths "like justice and freedom.  Religion has been one of the most important aspects of life from c. 2000 BCE to the present.  People would be deeply offended and outraged by the abolition of religion.  They also display the fact that freedom and justice would be gone.  In the state with the bourgeoisie class ruling, people at least had the freedom to quit their terrible jobs or try and start new lives, whereas in communism they are sworn into that position for good.  Also, without justice or morality, people would become mindless puppets and would become robots to support their country.  This quote does not aid Marx and Engels in spreading communism.
4. Marx and Engels even admit in the Communism Manifesto that children will unable to do what they want with their lives.  They try and sugarcoat it by coming up with what they feel are positive aspects of communism, but this one piece would not be forgotten.  People as they grow from children into adults will already have what they are going to do for the rest of their lives planned out for them.  Even if they do not want to do a certain thing, they would not have the choice but to accept this role in society.  Again, this concept in communism would turn a country of working families that share a love for one another into a group of robots programmed to do whatever the state assigns them.

Positives:
1. Marx and Engels strongly appeal to the hard-working proletariat class.  These people have difficult lives, but there is almost nothing they can do about it except for work and get money.  However, their jobs can be difficult, dangerous, or just plain boring, and all for a very low wage, even for the time.  They probably hated the bourgeoisie class for having it so easy and owning a ton of land which could be broken up amongst different people and the bourgeois would still have plenty of property.  Communism, according to Marx and Engels, would give all the commoners equal amounts of land, with money not being an important factor for people, and everybody being equal to one another.
2. The two men explain that the bourgeoisie class came about because of the acquirement of capital, not just land.  As people acquired capital, they became more wealthy and were only interested in helping themselves and nobody else.  Of course, this was a process that occurred over a period of time, as families eventually became capable of acquiring more wealth from deceased elders.  They explain that in communism, there is no obtaining of wealth, which appealed to the lower class citizens.  They would no longer have to be the hard workers and get very little reward from it; they now would not have to worry about getting money to live, rather than just working on their land that is the same amount as everybody's land.
3. The lower class people of the bourgeoisie state would no longer have to work for the rich people that earn their money by doing very little in their day.  The lower class people that all found jobs to support their family often had grueling occupations that they needed to keep their family relatively healthy.  They hated the bourgeoisie because they never helped their workers and were only concerned about earning more capital.  With communism in place, these proletariat workers would not have to grind on their difficult, very low-paying jobs anymore.
4.Education for all kids in the communist state would be free of cost.  Now, not only the rich, preppy kids of the bourgeois class get an education.  Every child will become literate and learn what their superiors had been learning all along.  Because of this, nobody will be able to rise up and grab control of power because they have a much more advanced intellectual capacity than others.  People will be equal with one another not only in social power, but brain power as well.

Revolution Leaders

George Washington- He is drawn standing tall and proud looking.  Washington has one arm extending, as if he is reaching out to everybody else like he is saying "follow me" or "I will guide the way".  He has a sheathed sword in his left hand pointing towards the ground, which could symbolize that he will lead with peace and that his job as a war leader is over.  The items on the table, such as the red table cloth, could stand for the blood that was shed to break off their country from Great Britain.  He is wearing a long, black jacket with black pants and shoes.

Marat- This picture of Marat is of him dead.  There is what appears to be a stab wound in his chest.  There is blood on the letter in his hand and on the blanket under him.  He looks as if he is smiling with his eyes closed.  This could be like he had finished what he started successfully and it was his dying feat.  The quill in his hand and letter suggest that he just finished the letter, which could be an announcement that France is free from the tyranny of the French crown.  The picture of him dead is important because it shows that until his death he was fighting to free the people of France.

Toussaint Louverture- The picture of Louverture is of him standing with a proud, accomplished look on his face.  It is as if he has finally overthrown the French government in Haiti.  His sword is in its sheath, as Washington's was.  This could symbolize that his job as a rebel has finished and that his time to lead has begun.  He is holding a large sheet in his hand with writing, which could be the Haitian constitution.  Louverture is wearing rather elegant military clothing, especially compared to the man behind him.  The picture appears as though it were meant to make Louverture seem like a vibrant and powerful man.

Simon Bolivar- Simon Bolivar has an extremely elegant uniform like that of Toussaint Louverture.  Out of all four paintings, he is the only one looking straight at the painter, which could signify that he was a haughty yet willing man.  There appears to be some sort of glow emanating from his left shoulder and face that could try to make him seem more royal and elegant.  Bolivar is holding something in his left hand, which once again seems to be a sheathed sword to signify the end of the war.  His right hand is in his jacket and over his heart, which might mean that he is pledging himself to his people

 In each depiction of the revolutionaries, they all have something in their hands.  However, Marat is the only one without a sheathed sword; he has a quill.  The sheathed swords all could represent the end of hard times, while the quill and bloody letter could indicate that the difficulty is just beginning for France.  Marat also is the only one not wearing elegant looking clothes.  The elegant clothes could try and give the men a powerful air to their appearance.  Each picture has the person's name somewhere on it except for that of George Washington.  The names on the pictures serve to remind everybody who led them through their individual revolutions, to try and make them seem more important.  The lack of George Washington's name could be his way of making him more of a common man as opposed to someone who everybody should know and be loyal or subject to.

The revolutions all needed a heroic figure.  Somebody was needed to unite the rebels into one force to fight against their ruling superiors.  Also, the heroic figure was necessary to spark the uprising and try to bring other people to support them. Each depiction of revolution leaders express similar qualities.  They all express the resilience that the leaders possessed.  This is most prominent from the sheathed swords, showing that they would not quit, and the painting of Marat, who had just finished a letter, possibly declaring freedom, right before he was killed.  The dominant quality shown, however, is loyalty to their land.  It is evident in each painting that the leaders would stand by their fellow rebels no matter what, because they are all depicted with their weapons on them, except Marat who was painted dead to further extend the loyalty and dedication to the people of France.