In a word: No. The Communist Manifesto

Throughout the highly repetitive manifesto, which really does nothing more than say a bunch of times 'Rich people treat you like crap... use our system," and provides no better rebuttal than "This one isolated time in history in our isolated peninsula, when you skim over some facts, this is what happened, and it will happen again," brings up some things that are worthy of some closer examination.

The Negative:

1. Industry has led to the destruction of family life, and that has to stop:
• This was talked about, and what they say is true. Urban manufacturing halted the development of families and had parents sending their kids off to factories, and that had to stop, as it did in many developed countries later, but it is a problem that still happens in other less developed societies today.
2. Those with power have developed power abroad
• International power and shipping/trade has lead to the ability to accrue personal international power for those who own labor (or land).
3. The few who have money control the many that need to work
• Working in the factories makes money for the wealthy landowners, and helps workers improve their conditions very little
4. Machinery has destroyed distinctions in labor
• Mundane tasks mean society is no longer specialized, and so there is no reason/ opportunity for advancement the way there used to be with artisans and merchants working to improve their conditions

The Positive:

1. The need for workers to have rights
• This is a point that is still pushed somewhat today, especially when the media gets a good juicy clip of a sweatshop or unfair labor conditions in other countries ("enjoy that sweatshirt, a starving child made" it type media that really pushes the facts or just doesn't back them up).
2. Private property is a form of capital
• This is a statement I have to find myself agreeing with. Property is a form of wealth, and therefore a form of capital, and I agree with what Marx is saying to a point, I think too many of the wealth controlled the poor, but I think that we need property. In Africa, it was the lack of property that led to slaves as a form of social wealth and a display of social prominence. 
3. The need for a progressive income tax
• A fact most today would disagree with, and a point that to me doesn't fit with communism (maybe I'm misunderstanding...) but one that is important none the less. Without taxes, infrastructure and development cannot be supported on a wide scale, government does that and when the government cannot support or defend itself, it falls. This leads to a power vacuum in some cases and social unrest in all, so why would you want to do that? We need taxes that can support what we want from out government (public education, water, roads, medicare, etc.).
4. The need for a central bank that holds a monopoly
• When a central bank can hold a monopoly over the flow of money, it doesn't mean that other banks can't arise, it means that a central bank controls all of the the value of the money, and we have that to an extent today with the Federal Reserve System (those FDIC plaques are wonderful reminders), a bank that controls the flow of money and to a degree tracks where it flows. The only difference is that without a monopoly banks are able to invest money. Although this is generally good for the person who is collecting interest on the account, a monopolized bank would at least keep money secure, a critical need in any society. 

Liberator Portrayal... Judging a Book by the Cover?

Upon looking through pictures of the liberators on the PowerPoint (Washington, Marat, Toussaint, Bolivar), there are a few things that stick out to me right away when I look at them. The first is that all of them are portrayed with a weapon, but not one that is active. Washington, Toussaint and Bolivar are all portrayed as having sheathed swords. Marat, although not holding a sword, is holding a pen, which was his "weapon", in this case it was the instrument that he used to push for change. All of the men are also portrayed as having a mixture of military and scholarly leadership (again, except for Marat, who fought with the pen). Washington is portrayed as having a desk in a beautiful, well decorated room, while Toussaint is portrayed holding both paper and sword. Bolivar's portrait is set in a beautiful room with a pen and a globe in the background, both symbols of learning and knowledge. Marat, also, is portrayed as having pen in hand, and so we could see him as a martyr for his cause, fighting (with pen) to the death for change, as well as having scholarly knowledge portrayed with pen and paper in hand. In order to portray these men not as conquerors, but as scholars and knowledgable leaders, they must not be portrayed as warriors fighting, but instead as leaders working towards a goal. In order to portray this, having a balance of military power and knowledge in the portrait is a must. In the case of Marat, he has fought for his cause by being a martyr.

So why is each liberator portrayed the way they are? By portraying these men where their greatest achievements happened (sadly for Marat that was in the tub), it imposes upon future generations several traditions, one is that they should be scholars as well as military leaders and the other that they should lead without extravagance, as none of the liberators in the portrait are dressed very extravagantly. In dressing nicely but not with extravagance, they are showing that they are not wealthy aristocrats that have decided to seize power for themselves, but that they are citizens who have stepped up and wish to lead for the good of the people, not the gain of personal wealth.

I'm being long-winded, so I'll speed this next one up! The reason these revolutions need heroic figures is that every movement needs a figurehead, someone that can give tangibility to the cause. Without a leader, figurehead or tangibility, a cause would not be able to gain any ground or make any progress. As for what is heroic, I believe there is more than one element that answers that question. The first is personal sacrifice. They have risked their lives and imprisonment (or even death), and well as united people together for a cause. These are the actions that make these men heroes. As for their ideals, that is what makes these men possess heroic minds. By believing in freedom and the lack of corrupt government (whether their revolutions fixed that or not), just having the ideal and helping bring that ideal to life makes these men heroes.