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
Arte-miy333 [17]
3 years ago
6

Why did some labor unions favor capitalism while others favored socialism?

Social Studies
1 answer:
umka2103 [35]3 years ago
3 0

Answer:

Leaders of the most powerful labor union, the AFL, favored capitalism, in which private businesses run most industries, and competition determines how much goods cost and how much workers are paid. Some workers and union leaders claimed that capitalism was unfair. Instead, they supported socialism, a system in which the government owns and operates a nation’s means of production. Socialists such as IWW members hoped that the government would be more sympathetic to workers’ concerns.

Explanation:

just took the test.

You might be interested in
What’s the first step of purchasing insurance? contacting a company or an agent signing a contract with a company shopping aroun
Marina86 [1]
Shopping around for the best deal
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
The ideas expressed in the quotation are based primarily on the writings of
KIM [24]
liming griddle is the writing of ur Q.
6 0
3 years ago
How has the United Kingdom maintained an important role in world affairs
kenny6666 [7]

The UK's world role: Great Britain's greatness fixation

Editorial

Mon 25 Jan 2010 00.05 GMT First published on Mon 25 Jan 2010 00.05 GMT

Shares

3

Comments

130

In some eyes, but most notably its own, the British government will be in the driving seat of world events this week. Today, G7 finance ministers will be in London to discuss inter­national banking reform and the transaction tax, and – in the claim that the City minister, Paul Myners, makes on our comment pages today – the UK will be "leading international efforts". On Wednesday, diplomats from around the world will meet here to discuss the threat to Yemen from al-Qaida. A day later, attention shifts to another international conference in London, this time on the imperilled future of Afghanistan. Quite a week.

Every country likes to be taken seriously around the world. Lots of nations like to feel they are punching their weight, or even above it. Only a few, however, seem to feel the need to promote themselves as the one the others all look to for leadership. It is one thing – though never uncontroversial, and in some contexts increasingly implausible – for the United States to see itself in this role. As the world's largest economic and military power, the US remains even now the necessary nation in international affairs. It is quite another thing for Britain to pretend to such a status.

Advertisement

The continuing pre-eminence of American clout has been starkly shown by what has happened in banking over the last several days. Domestic political pressures spurred President Obama into declaring a war on the money men, and markets worldwide immediately trembled, as they grasped that his plan could unleash a global drive to split retail and investment banking. There should be no shame for London in wholeheartedly welcoming the initiative while admitting that Britain could never have made such a move on its own. Instead, however, the government carries on as if its own detailed plans for banks' living wills, and its distant dreams of a Tobin tax, are framing the debate.

Britain is a very important country. The sixth-largest economy in the world. The fifth-largest military power. Its claim to what the former prime minister Lord Home used to call a seat at the top table is beyond dispute, though it would be a still more influential one if we sometimes ceded it to the European Union. And yet, more than half a century after the loss of empire, our political culture still seems racked by the need to be the leading nation, not just one of them. Such delusions are most associated with the political right, but Gordon Brown can also seem peculiarly ensnared by them. His Britain must always be first, always at the forefront, must always show the way to the rest. Even in the G7, the G8 or the G20 – never mind the UN – a mere share of the action is never enough, and it must always be Britain that is leading the effort, whether in Yemen or Afghanistan. But this way hubris lies. Mr Brown immodestly let slip to MPs in 2008 that he had saved the world. And as he arrived in Copenhagen for the ill-fated climate change summit last month he announced that "There are many outstanding issues which I'm here to resolve."

In reality, of course, no single nation can resolve the world's problems alone. Only the United States and China, separately or together, can even aspire to set the agenda for the rest. If the US raises its commitment to Afghanistan then other nations are likely to follow. If the US penalises the banks, others soon fall into line.

Britain has no such potency. Yet we still struggle to adjust to our reality. We can propose, as we shall be doing in three important London meetings this week, but we cannot dispose. Every day, the descant of the Chilcot inquiry reminds us of where the refusal to recognise this truth can humiliatingly lead. Our national interest should be to play our important role as a true, trusted and committed European partner on the world stage. No longer the greatest. Just one great among others. Good enough ought to be good enough. The people get it. If only the politicians did too.


7 0
3 years ago
I need to know the vocabulary definitions for these words ASAP!
lapo4ka [179]
It would be faster if you just went and looked them up yourself 
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why was India divided into two different countries when it won independence from Britain?​
Luba_88 [7]

India divided into two different countries, after winning independence from Britain, due to religious differences between (India) Hindus and (Pakistan) Muslims.

In the “Mountbatten Plan”, India and Pakistan was split with the “Radcliffe Line”. This allowed for the mobilization of citizens as well as the ability to choose where to live (India or Pakistan) due to the split by religious majority.

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Travis is experiencing the loss of his brother who died from cancer. He feels numb and as if the future does not hold anything f
    15·1 answer
  • In 1987, the population of the United States was approximately 2.44 x 108 people. The national debt of the United States in that
    15·1 answer
  • The study by douglas carroll and his colleagues (1994) examined the link between socioeconomic status and health using grave mar
    13·1 answer
  • A psychologist reports that authoritative parents tend to have well-behaved children. before we conclude that parenting style in
    8·1 answer
  • 1 point
    12·1 answer
  • After her mother says, "No, you may not eat any cookies" Sandra takes some cookies from the cookie jar and eats them when her mo
    5·1 answer
  • Years after he barely survived an attack that killed his wife and two children, Mr. Pukari suffers recurring flashbacks and freq
    10·1 answer
  • How does franchising work and in what industries do we find franchises?
    11·1 answer
  • What is the importance of currency in our daily life​
    13·1 answer
  • What is a fault?
    7·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!