1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
slavikrds [6]
4 years ago
14

Which of the following groups believed that the means of production should be owned by society as a whole?

History
2 answers:
Tpy6a [65]4 years ago
5 0
B- private socialists and capitalists aren't in that field of business, so they can be ruled out right away. B is the answer.
Dmitry [639]4 years ago
3 0
The answer is B (Socialist).

It would not be Private Entrepreneurs and Capitalist since they support private control of production. Socialism on the other hand believes that production should be controlled by the workers themselves.
You might be interested in
Why would hawaii have military significance for the united states?
ElenaW [278]

Answer:

The United States wanted to use Hawaii as a platform from which they could have a dominant military presence in the Pacific. Hawaii was a militarily significant island throughout the Spanish-American War. ... On December 7th, Pearl Harbour was attacked by the Japanese, forcing them to participate in the Second World War.

8 0
3 years ago
What was one purpose of CREEP?
const2013 [10]

CREEP was what everyone called Nixon's 1972 fundraising committee, despite their futile efforts to make us act like grown-ups and use its official acronym, CRP, or simply, “the Committee to Re-Elect.”

5 0
3 years ago
Recognizing Point of View: What was Bismarck’s thoughts about German nationalism?
NeX [460]

Answer:

Explanation:e points to the writings of Constantin Frantz in support of his view that such foresight ... reason for identifying the Prussian monarchy with German nationalism. In.

4 0
3 years ago
One of the most significant differences between the articles of confederation and the constitution was
Inessa05 [86]
  <span>The most important difference was that the Articles of Confederation gave very little power to a central government while the Constitution created a strong central government. 

Other major differences include: 

Articles of Confederation: 
- no Bill of Rights 
- gov't has no power to collect tax 
- to make amendment, vote of states had to be unanimous 
- no president (executive branch) 
- only one "house" in Congress (unicameral) 
- states could coin there own $ (so there were multiple currencies) 
- Congress had between 2 and 7 reps per state 
- representatives in Congress were appointed by state legislature (no popular vote) 

U.S. Constitution: 
- Bill of Rights 
- gov't can collect tax 
- amendment needs 3/4 vote 
- has an executive branch 
- two houses in Congress (bicameral) 
- only U.S. gov't can coin $ (one currency for nation) 
- Congress has 2 senators per state and representatives depending on the size of the state's population 
- senators appointed, but representatives elected through popular vote</span>
7 0
3 years ago
Please help please please
Whitepunk [10]

hope this helps State-based representational conflicts, however, coexisted with regionally-based conflicts. In fact, the struggle to reconcile the place of slavery in the new republic had more influence on the enumeration of federal tax authority in the Constitution than any other issue. The perplexing approach adopted with respect to direct taxation attested to slavery's impact.


Article I, Section 2 provided that "representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons . . . and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons." Similarly, Article I, Section 9 stated that "no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herinbefore directed to be taken." The insertion of the direct tax clauses was not designed to protect the taxing power of states against the Federal government, or that of richer against poorer states. The delegates sought this compromise, rather, as a means to account for slaves when determining the number of southern congressional representatives. goodluck

8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • A history question is attached below:
    8·2 answers
  • Why did the Indus Valley civilization come to be known as harappan civilization ?
    7·1 answer
  • Which of the following is an example of apartheid?
    5·1 answer
  • Difference between Hinduism and Buddhism
    10·1 answer
  • Put the following events in order from the OLDEST to the MOST RECENT
    6·2 answers
  • How did fertility and mortality rates affect populations during industrialization?
    10·1 answer
  • Throughout history, some rulers have been given the title "Great." For example, Ramses II of Egypt is also known as "Ramses the
    13·1 answer
  • Which statement decribes why the devshrime system was so important to the ottoman empire
    12·2 answers
  • Which fort was established in 1817 along the Arkansas River, and eventually became part of Arkansas when state boundaries were e
    15·2 answers
  • Which rainforest layer contains the most mushrooms
    6·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!