Does Karl Meet His Marx?

Pros:

1. The period of exploration opened up new opportunities for the bourgeoisie to make a profit and exploit the average worker and his fellow man to oppressions of working in the new industrial era.
2. Each major step that the bourgeoisie took throughout history required that the class move up politically (monarchs, emperors, etc.)
3. The industrial revolution, when it came to the work place, abolished any distinction between sex and age. If you were a worker, you were expected to do your task regardless of whether or not you were small, big, pregnant, sick, fit, etc.
4. Communism isn't doing away with property. It's taking bourgeoisie's property and distributing it equally among the proletariat, which sounds reasonable and like a fair deal for everybody, which is communism.

Cons:

1. Marx makes it sound like the bourgeoisie were already in place when it came time for the industrial revolution. They weren't. They were average men who maybe had a little bit of extra money, invested it in the correct industries of the time, and made their profit that way. Feudal lords didn't just become the bourgeoisie over night.
2. Marx made it sound like the bourgeoisie was the cause of supply and demand in the market. No. Regular people, who saw something they liked and wanted to buy, were the cause of supply and demand. It requires everybody. Not just one class.
3. Marx believes that the proletariat struggles represent communism, when in fact, they represent socialism. The workers like their new industrial jobs more than their previous ones, so they don't want to do away with them. They just want the jobs to be under better conditions with better wages, which is ultimately government regulation, which is socialism, not communism.
4. To go along with the previous point, the proletariat don't want to overthrow the government. They want better wages for themselves and better conditions. If there's still a government there, then there wouldn't be communism.

The Liberator Heroes

First off, what I notice about all the liberator heroes is they have a proud nature to their characters. George is standing upright with a sword; Marat, thought injured, is smiling, as showing his sense of pride and accomplishment of what he's done; Toussaint is in uniform with sword in hand, as if gloating of his recent victory; and finally Bolivar is in uniform, in a formal pose, sword in hand, as if he just won a great victory as well.

The heroes are portrayed as proud to show future generations the heroism behind the men who liberated their countries from previous oppressors, and to help to carry on that pride.

These revolutions needed Heroic Figures as front runners, because they were the driving force behind the revolutions themselves. They were the ones who reminded all the revolutionaries what they were fighting for. George Washington had to encourage his troops through 7 desperately cold winters, otherwise the British might have retaken the colonies. Marat had to encourage the people of France to topple a few century long-standing empire, which could not have been done without inspiration. Toussaint had to encourage Africans, one of the most put-down races in history, to rise up and defeat their white owners. And finally Bolivar was faced with the difficult task of creating a rebellion in one of the newest and most uninhabitable places on earth, and continually had to encourage them! This is why heroes are needed: so humans remember the cause they're fighting for.