Answer:
it was successful method to tax within Great Britain
The correct answer is D, as the Soviet Union exerted strict control over its media, while the United States didn't.
Censorship in the Soviet Union was a persuasive phenomenon of state ideological pressure that was valid throughout the history of that country (1922-1991), although with certain ups and downs. There were two periods of relaxation: the first, after the death of the dictator Joseph Stalin in 1953, and the second during the politics of glasnost ("transparency") launched by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1986.
Absolutely all the press media within the Soviet Union were strictly controlled by the State, whether it was radio, television, books, magazines and newspapers. This was achieved through the exclusive state ownership of all facilities dedicated to production, so that its members must necessarily be employees of the State. This also extended to the fine arts, including theater, opera and ballet. Music concerts and art exhibitions could only be held in controlled places previously authorized by the State.
He thought the economy would do better by finding efficiency and wealth through the "Invisible Hand" of the market. He felt that government intervention weakened the economy. He also thought that the government would set up a system where businesses would start to band together to try to extract favors from the government, thus, the businesses would work together and not compete, which would make their product prices raise, and their product value and quality fall.
The answer really depends on whether the farmer is also the landlord or only a worker in the fields, and bearing in mind that the question refers only to Chavez’ reforms, not what is now called Chavismo, that is to say, the rule of President Maduro.
If the first, then there are chances that the landlord would feel threatened about the fact this his land could be —although not necessarily— appropriated by the State, but also, he might feel relieved to learn that his land could be more productive since there would be a lot more subsidies for farming since the oil revenues of the country would again be in the hands of the State.
If it is the second possibility, the farmer most likely would feel relieved altogether since subsidies to labor power and farming would mean greater income and better living conditions for him and his family.
