OK, let's take a little closer look at this Utopia.
"Everyone would receive free, comprehensive universal health care."
So, who will provide this service? Will you pay them? How? If not, since everything will be "free" in your Communist America and they wouldn't need to pay for anything they need, why would they ever show up for work? If they realize they don't need to go to work to get food, housing, or whatever, would you force them to go anyway so others can take advantage of all that "free, comprehensive universal health care" they are laboring to provide? If so, you are talking about enslaving doctors, pharmacists, nurses, and all the support staff and technicians "health care" requires.
"Housing would be affordable, safe, and available to everyone."
Who will build these houses or, more likely, apartment blocks? The same questions apply to these laborers as to those you would expect to provide health care. And why is housing only "affordable" while health care is "free"? Is a roof over your head of less importance than a health concern? I also question the assertion that all this "affordable" housing would be "safe". My idea of safe might differ from yours. A concrete block house might be less prone to fire, and thus more "safe" by one definition, but it would be cold and likely to crumble in an earthquake. Or, are you speaking of the neighborhoods the houses sit in? Would you impose universal anti-gun rules to disarm me so that my less nice neighbors could prey on me safely? Why not let me weigh the risks and choose my own particular level of "safety"? Or do I get to dictate my preferences on your life?
"Food would be healthy, fresh, and freely available."
Once again, who will bother doing all the work to grow, process, and distribute this food if there are no benefits to going to all that trouble? If someone is handing you a hamburger with no strings attached, will you automatically show up to paint their house if you get the hamburger no matter what you do? If there are strings attached, then what you are doing is buying that hamburger, and it doesn't matter if you are using dollars, silver, or labor as your money- it isn't "free". And who gets to decide whether something is "healthy" or not? The "food pyramid" and it's various iterations and evolutions illustrates the folly of an imposed standard. And, peanuts might be healthy for me and deadly for someone else. Does this mean one of us has to suffer for the "good" of the other?
"Everyone would be entitled to a quality education, without cost."
I guess the communists believe everyone will just give up a huge percentage of their life, out of the goodness of their heart, to provide what others want. Including professors. But, I wonder what good an education would be if you can get everything you need by sitting on your butt. Sure, you might be smarter, but most college education is aimed at finding a career that will provide you a way to buy housing, cars, health care, food, and all the things you might need to live. If you really want education for its own sake, why bother with the mundane stuff? Learn fascinating stuff with no regard to its economic potential. That's pretty much what I have done anyway.
"Seniors would retire comfortably, in dignity and respect."
Not sure where this claim comes from. From all the free stuff available to everyone? Doesn't seem very dignified to me- except I suppose if everyone is getting everything free, at least there wouldn't be any stigma attached. I really question the "comfortably" assertion. Comfort requires other working to keep the lights on, the heat or air conditioning running, food coming, and the infrastructure in good repair. But who do you imagine will do all that work for you?
"Veterans would receive the treatment they deserve for the sacrifices they made for this country."
Who determines what they deserve? And who pays, or works to provide? How about "we" stop creating veterans, instead?
"Workers [sic] Rights would be fully protected, and they would receive the full value of their labor."
So taxation would end? Or do you consider that the way you plan to pay for all the "free" stuff, so it would be what the "full value" is based upon? But, since there would be no workers unless you forced them at gun point (and wouldn't the enforcers also be getting forced to work?), which would violate their rights more than anything else, I guess that's irrelevant.
"There would be equal pay and benefits for men and women."
Who's being paid, for what? Where does that money or those benefits come from? So, if I'm a man, working at a job I am incompetent in- or just napping the hours away, I can celebrate the fact that I am getting paid the same as the woman who's been doing this job at expert level for 10 years? I'm sure that will make her very happy, too. If either of us bothered to get, or keep, a job, that is. And I sure wouldn't. Of course, "equal pay" can be zero... I would prefer to be paid based upon my ability (or lack thereof) and the value of my work than just because a woman (or a man) is making a certain amount, so I must, too. Yes, it means the other guy isn't earning more than I am, but it also means I can never earn more than her.
"There would be no wealth inequality anymore, and the class system would be abolished."
That is probably true, as far as wealth goes, unless you look too deeply. If no one has anything, there is no wealth inequality. Of course, I have knowledge that would let me survive without modern conveniences more comfortably than someone else might- so my knowledge would be my wealth, and the only way to equalize that is to kill me. If you get to make that decision, then you obviously are of a "higher class" than me, or I could choose to kill you instead. I guess this one falls apart under examination pretty quickly.
"Everyone would have equal rights and freedoms regardless their orientation."
Everyone already has equal rights. That's the realization that drives libertarians. And, everyone also has equal freedoms- it's just that government employees always restrict those freedoms, and exempt themselves from those restrictions they enforce on the rest of us who are not so connected. Zero freedom (which isn't really possible) is still equal freedom. I would rather see everyone's liberty respected, than focus on freedoms.
"Women would have full reproductive rights upheld by law."
Which "law"? Real Law- Natural Law- is discovered; counterfeit "law" is made up in the minds of flawed humans and then written down. Whose beliefs get to be written into "law"? I have noticed that "full reproductive rights" tend to only mean one very narrow thing: unlimited access to "free" abortions. While I don't believe this to be an area that any third party should be sticking their nose into, others disagree. Who do you allow to make up the rules? I'd rather not let the State stick its camel nose under that particular tent at all. It leads to Sharia Law either way.
"Everyone would receive equal protection under the law, and an end to racism and racial profiling."
"Equal protection under the law" is a libertarian concept, not a communist one. As I say, everyone has the identical rights as everyone else. The real Law respects that- written "laws" never can. You can never dictate an end to racism. That's because it lives in the mind. The more you "prohibit" it, the more it will fester and grow- but it will do so secretly and cause more harm than if it were in the open. Your efforts will not "end" it, but will wind up increasing it. I think racism may some day fade away, on its own, but trying to forcibly crush it only keeps it propped up long after it would have otherwise died. And "racial profiling" is not a problem unless you have counterfeit "laws" and enforcers imposing them. That has a libertarian solution, too.
So ends my observations on this silly little poster. Communists are so cute- or would be if their poorly thought out ideas weren't so attractive to stupid people who can't think beyond the sound bites.