All categories

3 years ago

Which choice BEST describes the shift in political power that took place following the Russian Revolution of 1917?

History

2 answers:

ki77a [65]3 years ago

8 0

Answer:

<em>Option A) The best description for the shift in political power that took place following the Russian Revolution of 1917 is a shift from an Autocratic system to a Communist one.</em>

Explanation:

The Russian Revolution began on March of 1917 and marked the collapse of the Russian Empire on the hands of the Bolshevists, led by Vladimir Lenin, who would later become the founder of The Communist Party of The Soviet Union. The political system of Russia went from an authoritarian one, in which all the power is concentrated in the hands of one leader, to a communist one in which the revolution puts the working in class in power and establishes social ownership of the means of production.

galben [10]3 years ago

4 0

The answer should be A "Autocratic to Communist"

You might be interested in

Why does Jefferson approve of having the House of Representatives chosen by voters?

Inessa05 [86]

It is c:People should only be taxed by representatives whom they have elected.<span>

</span>

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

BartSMP [9]

Hdhjdhdhehehsushhdhd

5 0

2 years ago

Think about Laissez-Faire policies. Do you think the owners of these factories would like them? Why or why not?

julsineya [31]

As I understand it, Laissez-faire ideology maintains that the "free market" is the best way to determine what businesses can and should do. This means that businesses, in competition with one another, should be free to determine their paths free from any government rules or regulations. The belief is that the competition among various businesses will ultimately result in the best outcomes for society in general - Adam Smith's "invisible hand". As part of this philosophy, workers should also be free to compete with each other and choose to work wherever they wish and this process will also result in the best results for the workers as well.

However, isn't there a huge assumption in this philosophy? Doesn't the whole justification of this belief depends on the condition that there is perfect competition and that any company and any worker have the equal ability to compete with one another?

What if there is no perfect competition? What if some companies have advantages - due to any of a whole array of reasons - that place them in a non-competitive position vis a vis their competitors? Without perfect competition then other companies are not necessarily able to compete with other companies that have certain advantages. If such a situation exists, then advantaged companies may have the ability to pursue a course that results in their private benefit, but not necessarily to the benefit of society as a whole. The same would apply to workers in that reduced competition among companies would result in decreased leverage for potential employees.

To recap, if the Laissez-faire ideology maintains the best economic policy for society as a whole, and it depends on there being perfect competition on an ongoing basis with minimal government intervention, doesn't it fall apart if there is less than the perfect competition?

5 0

2 years ago

Create a Twitter discussion between the characters, recreating the story from beginning to end. Include Louise Mallard, Brently

Pie

Answer:

Richards: *josephine I have terrible news. It's about Brently. He has passed away.

Josephine: *richards My goodness! What happened?

Richards: *josephine A train accident. We must tell your sister.

Josephine: *richards Oh, no! Remember her heart condition. We must be careful.

Richards: *louise Louise, I'm afraid there is something I need to tell you.

Josephine: *louise Please, sit down before you read this, dear.

Louise: *richards *josephine What is going on??

Richards: *louise Please keep in mind we are here for you, no matter what.

Josephine: *louise Something happened to the train...

Richards: *louise It's a tragedy, and we are deeply sorry.

Louise: *richards *josephine Oh my God! Brently is gone...

Louise: My husband has passed away... But why don't I feel sad?

Nothing has changed. The world is still turning.

Oh my! I just realized... I'm free to do whatever I want!

Josephine: *louise Are you alright?? Talk to me!

Louise: *josephine I'm fine! Leave me alone!

Brently: *richards *josephine *louise Guys, have you heard about the accident? It could have been me!

Richards: *brently Wait, what?!

Josephine: *brently You're alive??

*louise Sis? Sis??!!

Explanation:

Kate Chopin was an American author who lived from 1850 to 1904. Her stories were often controversial due to their feminist take and daring female characters.

In "Story of an Hour," a misunderstanding leads Louise Mallard to a revelation. Her sister and a friend let her know that her husband has died in a train accident. However, instead of feeling sad, Louise realizes she is finally her own woman. She does not have to ask anything or justify herself to her husband. She can do whatever she wants. But, in the end, her husband appears at home, very much alive. Louise ends up dying due to a heart condition she has.

NOTE: I used an asterisk (*) where the symbol for "at" on tweets should have been. Brainly wouldn't let me post the answer otherwise.

4 0

3 years ago

Anyone know anything about the great debate In American History?

Anarel [89]

Answer:

yes

Explanation:

american debate was held between the us president and the opposition party

5 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers