No. They believe in communism, entrepreneurs had private businesses, which disagrees with the idea of communism which was to share company with state
Answer:
The answer is (b-)False.
Explanation:
<u>The United States never attempted to disengage from world affairs and embrace isolationism</u>, but quite the opposite. Even before World War II ended, the US took a leading role in shaping the postwar world, especially through the conferences of Teheran in 1943, Yalta and Potsdam in 1945 that brought "The Big Three" together (Franklin. D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Iosif Stalin). The United States was also a founding member of the United Nations in 1945, and was designated as one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
Both Sam Adams and John Hancock had anti-British sentiments. In the 1760s the British imposed regulatory measures in America so they could have greater authority over the region. John Hancock was influential and quite wealthy so he thought it was time to aid the American cause for independence from the British as he felt their influence in America was harming it.
They supported by ensuring that those workers would get higher pay, as well as promising that the state would in turn help the company once the war is over. It was like the war bonds thing but more complex as it involved companies and not regular people.
First, they imported a LOT of food from other parts of the empire. Rome is now built on the remains of Roman food packaging material: broken up pottery. Romans mainly lived on what is know as the mediterranean triangle: Wheat, wine and olive oil. Bread made up 70 to 80% of most of the Romans diet. Three kinds of food that are pretty easy to transport over longer distances. There were huge imports of grain from north Africa and Egypt. Rome lived on that grain. Wine and olive oil came from almost everywhere.
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1z8xck/how_was_ancient_rome_able_to_support_a_population/
