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
nekit [7.7K]
3 years ago
5

What are four things the Communist Party does through its party organization? ensures freedom of the people recruits members and

leaders develops policy indoctrinates the people maintains discipline
History
1 answer:
EastWind [94]3 years ago
7 0
<span>The four things the Communist Party does through its party organization are: 1. recruits members and leaders 2. develops policy 3. maintains discipline 4. [ indoctrinates the people  </span>
You might be interested in
Which shared American value is explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence?
Nadusha1986 [10]
..........................c
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Lisa is making cookies to sell at the Annual Dirt Bike Competition. A dozen oatmeal cookies require 3 cups of flour and 2 eggs.
just olya [345]

Answer:

Oatmeal cookies = 1 dozen

Sugar cookies = 7 dozen

Explanation:

Objective function:

Maximize:        P = 3x + 2y

where

                       x =  oatmeal cookies

                       y = sugar cookies

Constraints:

Since it takes 2 and 4 cups for oatmeal and sugar cookies respectively, and she has total 40 cups of sugar:

1)     3x+4y ≤ 40

The same for eggs:

2)     2x+y ≤ 20

She can make no more than 1 dozen oatmeal and 7 dozen sugar cookies:

3)      x ≤ 1

4)      y ≤ 7

Now graph these above four constraints equation( see the image below)

Now the corner points are :

(0,7), (1,7), (1,0), (0,0)

Put these corner points in objective function:

for (0,7) :  P = ( 3×0 )  + ( 2×7 ) = 14

for (1,7) :   P = ( 3×1 )  + ( 2×7 ) = 17

for (1,0) :   P = ( 3×1 )  + ( 2×0 ) = 3

for (0,0) :  P = ( 3×0 )  + ( 2×0 ) = 0

Since the maximum profit = 17 comes from the point (1,7), she should make 1 dozen of oatmeal cookies and 7 dozen of sugar cookies.

5 0
3 years ago
Great Britain and France avoided a take over by fascist by
maks197457 [2]

Answer:

Great Britain and France avoid a take over by fascists' by restricting freedom of speech.

Explanation:

Fascism is a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc. , and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.  

How Britain and France avoided fascist revolution inside their own country during rise of fascism in Italy and Germany?

What made Mussolini’s Fascism, and Lenin’s Communism too, was a specific and unique situation, never to be repeated in later history: namely, the presence of enormous masses of disaffected veterans, with recent experience of war at a very high technical level of skill, and angry about the condition of their country. (And of enormous amounts of weapons.) Fascism was not made by speeches or by money, but by tens of thousands of men gathering in armed bands to beat up enemies. And that being the case, what happened to the similar masses of veterans who came home to France, Britain, and America too, after 1918?

Well, France was exhausted. She had fought with her full strength from day one, whereas Britain had taken time to deploy its whole strength, and America and Italy had only entered the war much later. For five years, every man who could be spared had been at the Front. Her losses were larger in proportion than those of any other great power. And on the positive side, France, like Britain and America, was prosperous. The veterans went home to a country that was comparatively able to receive them, give them a place to be, and not foster any dangerous mass disaffection. This is of course relatively speaking. There will have been anger enough, irritation enough, even some disaffection. But the only real case of violence from below due to disaffection was the riot in Paris that followed the Stavisky affair in early 1934, and that, compared to what took place daily in other countries, was a very bad play of a riot.

ON the other hand, both America and Britain experienced situations that had more than a taste of Fascism, but that failed to develop into freedom-destroying movements. In America, Fascism could have come from above. The last few years of the Wilson administration were horrendous: the Red Scare fanaticized large strata of the population, and the hatred came from the top, from Wilson and his terrible AG Palmer. (Palmer was a Quaker. So was Richard Nixon. Is there a reason why Quakers in politics should prove particularly dangerous?) Hate and fear of “reds” was also the driving force of Italian Fascism; and Wilson and Palmer mobilized it in ways and with goals that Mussolini would have understood. Had Wilson not suffered his famous collapse, he might have been a real danger: he intended to run for a third term in office. And the nationwide spread of the new KKK, well beyond the bounds of the old South, shows that he might have found a pool of willing stormtroopers. Altogether, I think America dodged a bullet the size of a Gatling shot when Wilson collapsed in office.

Britain’s own Blackshirt moment took place in Ireland. Sociologically, culturally, psychologically, the Blacks and Tans were the Blackshirts of Britain - masses of disaffected veterans sent into the streets to harass and terrify political enemies, bullies in non-standard uniforms with a loose relationship with the authorities. Only, their relationship with public opinion developed in an exactly opposite direction. Whereas Italy’s majority, horrified by Socialist violence at home and by Communist brutality abroad, tended increasingly to excuse the Blackshirts and wink at their violence, in Britain - possibly because of the influence of the American media, which were largely against British rule in Ireland - the paramilitary force found itself increasingly isolated from the country’s mainstream, and eventually their evil reputation became an asset to their own enemies and contributed to British acceptance of Irish independence.

Thanks,
Eddie

5 0
1 year ago
Were colonies useful mostly because they provided a ready market for manufactured goods?
Oksanka [162]
No. European countries wanted colonies because they wanted to gain more wealth. Gold and silver from the colonies made the countries richer. Another reason was for the raw materials that they needed for their factories. Getting raw materials from the colonies was much cheaper than buying from other countries. One more reason was the desire for land and power. Having colonies made replenishing  supplies easier and in case of war, the colonies could be used as military bases.
4 0
3 years ago
Question 11 (3 points)
Illusion [34]

Answer:

A. Protected womans rights to own property

Explanation:

I took this :)

3 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • The isolation of early American cultures?
    7·1 answer
  • Which quotation sums up Herbert Hoover's view of the Great Depression in 1933?
    14·1 answer
  • The first species of early humans to travel outside of aftrica was ?
    10·1 answer
  • What big event happened in Russia during 1889?
    9·1 answer
  • Name two elements of Safavid culture that are still prevalent in present-day Iran
    10·2 answers
  • Can somebody give me some facts about Asia
    10·2 answers
  • What type of historical evidence is a newspaper article written immediately written after the great Chicago fire.
    13·1 answer
  • How does george washington, spymaster show the importance of stealth and creativity in american heroism? edg 2020 guided notes
    6·1 answer
  • Which of the following was not a result of the Great Depression?
    14·1 answer
  • Chavez believed in to bring about change. chavez is comparing his followers to dr. king’s . chavez believes that joining in the
    13·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!