Answer:
b. Critics of the government were murdered or imprisoned.
Explanation:
Here is an in-depth explanation for my answer. These have neither dates nor real evidence to back them up, so you will have to find any sources to back up my claims on your own. You're also free to disagree or edit my take of Stalin's totalitarianism; my aim here is just to give a starting point for you to build off of and make your own.
a. Peasants owned land that they could farm.
- Communism and really socialism as a whole brought forth an idea that there should be no privately owned land; any and all land was owned by the federal government, and people simply used it. So, even with little historical knowledge on Stalinism, we can assume this answer is incorrect.
b. Critics of the government were murdered or imprisoned.
- Under Stalinism, there was no room for critique of government. Any party leaders and any critics of Stalinism with goals set on exposing corruption and flaws in current Soviet society were later found dead or jailed, peasants were imprisoned and put into forced labor if they went against the state and also sometimes killed off if they were thought of as spies. In the end, Stalin attempted complete removal of any opposition he may have faced, and used fear tactics to control the Soviet Union as its dictator.
c. Voters could choose between candidates from two political parties.
- Voters could not find any candidats that weren't already killed off by Stalin, so there was no one to vote for other than Stalin himself. Sure, they could vote, but there wasn't a political party other than Stalin's that could grab the brainwashed public's vote.
d. The government set up a court system based on truth and justice.
- If there was a court system to be found in the Soviet Union at the time, it was so unnoteworthy it may as well have not existed in the first place. The "court system" under Stalin rule was basically just an extension of Stalin's power, and Stalin always made sure that any decision was made with his consent or with his consent in mind.
Explanation:
In Africa, failure to address housing issues has led to the continued growth of slums and poorly serviced informal settlements on the urban periphery, where between 75% and 99% of urban residents in many African cities live in squalid slums of ramshackle housing.
Like many other countries in the world, South Africa is in the throes of an unprecedented housing crisis. It faces a growing challenge in providing all citizens with access to suitable or adequate housing despite the Constitution stating that ‘everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing’ and that the ‘state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right.
According to Statistics, South Africa’s Household Survey 2017, 12.1% (1789 million households) of South Africa’s 14.75 million households lived in informal housing in 2011 with Gauteng having 20.4% households living in informal settlements, North West, 18.5% and the Western Cape, 15.1%. Limpopo has the smallest percentage with 4.5% and the Eastern Cape has 6.5%.
The U.S. Constitution established America’s national government and fundamental laws, and guaranteed certain basic rights for its citizens. It was signed on September 17, 1787, by delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, presided over by George Washington. Under America’s first governing document, the Articles of Confederation, the national government was weak and states operated like independent countries. At the 1787 convention, delegates devised a plan for a stronger federal government with three branches–executive, legislative and judicial–along with a system of checks and balances to ensure no single branch would have too much power. The Bill of Rights–10 amendments guaranteeing basic individual protections such as freedom of speech and religion–became part of the Constitution in 1791. To date, there have been a total of 27 constitutional amendments.
The political, economic, and military strength of the Union was much greater than that of the Confederacy. However, the war did last four years. The Confederacy proved itself resilient on many occasions. Throughout the war the tide constantly shifted, and with that so did the political, economic, and military strength of either side. Although each side had its share of military successes, in the end, the superior Northern economy, centralized government and overwhelming manpower would eventually lead to victory. In mid 1863, both the Union and the Confederacy could have won the war although; the Confederacy lacked the industry, or manpower to wage a long war with the Union.
The Union was far more industrialized than the South. The North possessed 80% of total U.S. industry. In addition, most Confederate industry was located in the Upper South-particularly in Virginia. The Confederacy lost a great deal of potential industry and manpower when West Virginia, Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland joined the Union instead of the Confederacy. The loss of these states to the Union was as much a testament to shrewd northern politics (Maryland) as it was to opposition within the states (West Virginia). Confederate industry, especially with the loss of these states, was unable to compete with the Union.
In addition to the South's lack of industry, most capital was invested in slaves and land-both of these are non-liquid. The South's lack of a large supply of liquid capital made it difficult for Southerners to buy munitions for the war effort. As a result of the South's lack of liquid capital the North enjoyed a decided advantage..
Glad to help :)
-liyah❤
