I'll give you some thoughts on the political views of the thinkers named. It's up to you to search for images and write your descriptions.
Aristotle believed there were three valid types of government, depending on the size and scope of what was to be governed or upon local situations. (He studied the constitutions of various governments as part of his work in writing <em />his work, <em>Politics.</em>) As state with a sole ruler ruling rightly is a monarchy. If that form of state is abused, it becomes tyranny. A state with a number of members of the ruling class is an aristocracy -- rule by the excellent ones, noble men suited for governing. If it is corrupted by having a few rule but not of noble character or in a noble way, Aristotle referred to that as an oligarchy (rule by a few). A state in which all worthy men participate in governing Aristotle termed a polity, a constitutional government. He saw it as a corruption, though, to have a full democracy (rule by the people), which would become the sort of thing we call mob rule.
Aquinas picked up thoughts from Aristotle, who had favored a monarchy. Aquinas, writing from a Christian perspective, wrote about the righteous and proper sort of ruler who would serve as God's appointed leader among the people, truly caring for them (not becoming a tyrant).
Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx were partners in establishing communism as a political ideology. Engels and Marx believed that in time, class struggles between overlords and those beneath them would give way to a society in which all ruled and lived and worked collectively.
Answer:
what cartoon are you talking about?????
Explanation:
Answer:
Cultural beliefs have an important role in encouraging child labor. In developing countries, people believe that work has a constructive effect on character building and increases skill development.
<span>An effective bureaucracy demands reliability of response and strict devotion to regulations. Such devotion to the rules leads to their transformation into absolutes; they are no longer conceived as relative to a set of purposes. This interferes with ready adaptation under special conditions not clearly envisaged by those who drew up the general rules.</span>
