It can be said that this characterization, ''robber barons'', is largely justified because of the ways and means used by the industrial leaders to gain more wealth.
The industrial leaders in the 19th century were doing everything they could in order to accumulate more wealth. That often meant neglecting the laborers and their rights, keeping the wages as low as possible despite constantly having increase in profit, using violent methods to prevent having competition. In general, all of that can be put as robbing the people of what they deserved to have, be it wages or opportunities for progress, thus the ''robber barons'' characterization is a very good metaphor and largely justified.
Laissez-faire leaders allow members of a group to dictate their own strategies and methods to meet the goals assigned to them. This phrase translates to "let them be". This leader will not micro-manage or be overly directive but will allow workers or members to guide themselves.
According to social theory, many people after World War II believe that conservatism would not regain popularity in the United States because several reasons. One of the reasons is that conservatism is associated with anti-Semitism.
Therefore, people believed that since World War II fought against antisemitism, conservatism would no longer be popular in American society.
Other reasons many people after World War II believe that conservatism would not regain popularity in the United States include the following:
- Conservatism is believed to favor a social hierarchy over equality.
- Conservatism is assumed to have the belief in conspiracy theories.
Hence, in this case, it is concluded that many people in America thoughts conservatism would not be popular after World War II.
Learn more here: brainly.com/question/21542068
I think the answer is (B. “they are spreading with tireless energy the propaganda of the new social order
People come together and agree to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection.