To be Communist or Not to be Communist

After reading the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in 1848....

4 positive/constructive things:

1.  public education for children- by becoming Communist, Marx and Engels propose that all children be given free education in public schools. This is a positive thing because education always seems to be a winning factor in anything, with education, the children will be able to live better and more educated lives
2. abolish child labor in factories- while they encourage education for children, they also advocate for the abolition of child factory labor which in turn would provide children the time and opportunity to go to school and learn rather than wasting their life away working in a factory where it is dangerous and not a very qualified child center
3. this is where it kind of ends.........

4 negative/destructive things:

1. abolition of all rights of inheritance- this with the addition of no competition will cause the economy to never improve because if whatever you collect and work hard for in this life isn't going to be saved for your children then is it worth it to even have the will to work for it at all?
2. getting rid of competition- competition is what drives a society/economy to grow and prosper. Without competition, the economy will just be in a stalemate and not change at all which makes sense in a communistic nation because everyone gets an equal share but taking human nature into mind, people will get greedy and want more than what everyone else gets and things will start getting messy.
3. obligation of all to work equally- when you take inheritance out of the picture, some people start to feel as if it's not worth working; they don't want to work because it's not worth it but they are forced to by the government which will then lead to anger and hatred towards those in power
4. taxes, taxes, taxes- according to the manifesto, one of the ten main things is "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax". With just one look at history, it is clear that people do not like taxes and a heavy one is not going to make people like them more. Unhappy commoners are never good for a nation.

Those Who Start Revolutions

I shall begin by describing the paintings individually.
George Washington: very regal background, lush red curtain, sword in one hand, standing upright, stern expression, one hand gesturing to unknown, throne like chair in background, fully dressed in uniform
Marat: sitting down in bathtub? bed?, holding a quill in one hand, a document in the other; bleeding; eyes closed, looking down, seems to be naked
Toussaint: standing upright, fully dressed in uniform, holding sword in one hand and a document in the other, wearing hat with feather on it, soldier in the background, stern expression
Bolivar: standing upright, stern expression, holding a rod or sword or something in one hand, the other hand is on his heart, dressed in uniform, quills in background

All of these paintings have the men holding something in at least one hand. Washington holds a sword, Marat: a quill and a document, Toussaint: a sword and document, Bolivar: a sword/rod. I think that they are portrayed in this way because it gives them a purpose- makes them look like they are going to achieve something. Another similarity is that Washington, Toussaint, and Bolivar are all standing upright, fully clothed in an elegant uniform. I think that this is done to show that they are men of rank, or power. Lastly, all four men have stern facial expressions. This serious nature of their persona characterize them as men who are ready to lead a revolution, as men who are capable of it. Rather than a smiling or silly expression, a more serious one leads one to believe that they can accomplish what is put before them, that they are not weak.

As previously mentioned, the artists portray these men in this way because it makes them appear to be competent and able in leading people to revolt. The artists chose certain facial expressions and body language to show that these four men were serious in what they were doing, that they knew what they were doing. For the future generation, these paintings give somewhat of a distorted view on these four men just because the artist purposely choose to display them in a specific way to get their point across. The paintings convince the future generations that these men were regal, brave, and confident. They convince them that these men changed lives and that they knew how to do it as well.

Revolutions need heroic figures because it is simply human nature to follow someone who takes charge. There are people who are "leaders" and those who are "followers". Those who are "followers" are naturally inclined to follow the "leaders" and without the "leaders", the "followers" feel as if they can accomplish nothing. The most heroic thing about heroic figures is their aura and their confidence-how they portray themselves to others. Most likely, no one is willing to follow someone who is weak and doubts themselves. People like to follow people who are confident and act like they know what they are doing. It's also the group/mob mentality of people but it's also the human nature of some to take charge and seize the day.

6 Apps on a Killing Spree

I thought that what Niall Ferguson was saying made a lot of sense. I really liked how he gave a little background information first before diving into his main concept. I liked his analogies of using Germany and Korea to explain that divergences occur not because of geography but because of the people, the idea, and the institutions. I enjoyed the fact that he made jokes and had a sense of humor, which made him even more interesting to watch rather than it being a boring lecture. These are the six killer apps that he discussed in his TED talk: competition, the scientific revolution, property rights, modern medicine, the consumer society, and work ethic. These are the six killer apps of prosperity that are the cause of the great divergence. The one that I agree with the most is competition because I think that competition is a huge aspect of getting farther in life. I think that competition really encourages others to work and try harder instead of settling. With competition, when someone thinks of a really great idea it will push someone else to think of something better and with that, there is progress in the world. One super interesting thing that he said was that the Western hemisphere was basically falling apart, it was losing it's head start to a lot of Eastern countries. Ferguson said that the apps are open to download anywhere and once they're downloaded, that country shoots up ahead faster than the Western hemisphere when it started the race. I think that's really unique and interesting to think about because the Eastern hemisphere is catching up and even passing the Westerners not only in academics but also in economic prosperity and technological advancements.
I think that it's mainly because of work ethic. I feel as if that the Western hemisphere has reached a point where it is so comfortable how it is that it doesn't feel like it has to make improvements while other countries are working their butts off trying to improve and obtain a better lifestyle. America needs to watch its back.

Even besides his lecture, I loved the way that Niall Ferguson presented himself. My favorite quote is, "You can play a game and try to think of one I've missed at, or try and boil it down to just four, but you'll lose." I really liked his confidence and persona on stage and I learned a lot just by watching him talk and give his lecture.