~Hello There!~
I'm sure fur and cotton were involved.
Hope This Helps You!
Good Luck :)
Have A Great Day ^_^
- Hannah ❤
Absolute chaos is what we would define as anarchy; it is essentially the reverse of order. What makes an anarchy worse would be the shocking lack of a robust legal system because there can be no laws in a society built on complete chaos, but if you're talking about a government based on anarchy, it would be a system where there is no state identity and no real central government. Somalia, to some extent, serves as the most prevalent illustration of why a government founded on anarchy is a horrible concept. Although there is a central government, its power over its territory varies. Certain sections are under the influence of the militant group Al Shabab, and the Somaliland region is attempting to declare its independence from the federal government. The country is rife with a milder but no less deadly type of anarchy due to the absence of a strong central leadership.
Anarchic societies where every individual is equally empowered are unsustainable. The individuals quickly cluster into tribal units, and without some overriding authority, it’s impossible to stop that from happening. The tribal units (or gangs, if you prefer) are run by warlords who keep each other in check until one of them gains a decisive advantage over the others, and then you’ve got the beginnings of a state.
This drama has played out countless times in the course of human history, and is still playing out in the criminal underworld to the extent that it can. That extent is limited by the fact that now there is an overriding authority with enforceable power, the legitimate state.
Thank you,
Eddie
Answer:
pls mark me as brainly
Explanation:
they couldn't because the lover class family had no good education. But the upper class could get privet education.
<span>During World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union fought together as allies against the Axis powers. However, the relationship between the two nations was a tense one. Americans had long been wary of Soviet communism and concerned about Russian leader Joseph Stalin’s tyrannical, blood-thirsty rule of his own country. For their part, the Soviets resented the Americans’ decades-long refusal to treat the USSR as a legitimate part of the international community as well as their delayed entry into World War II, which resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of Russians. After the war ended, these grievances ripened into an overwhelming sense of mutual distrust and enmity. Postwar Soviet expansionism in Eastern Europe fueled many Americans’ fears of a Russian plan to control the world. Meanwhile, the USSR came to resent what they perceived as American officials’ bellicose rhetoric, arms buildup and interventionist approach to international relations. In such a hostile atmosphere, no single party was entirely to blame for the Cold War; in fact, some historians believe it was inevitable.</span>
The correct answer is C - res publica.
The res publica were a class of people which we would today consider to have been the early aristocrats of Early Rome. Later on, the class of wealthy romans and those who had power were called the patricians.
