The excerpt below is from the communist manifesto by karl marx and friedrich engels. which political leader ascribed most closely to their vision for society? “when, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. if the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. in place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” 1 1. karl marx and friedrich engels, the communist manifesto (project gutenberg ebook 61, january 25, 2005), accessed september 11, 2013, a. nelson mandela during the african independence movements b. mohandas gandhi during india’s fight for independence c. vladimir lenin during the russian revolution d. kwame nkrumah during ghana’s nonviolent political revolution

  C.Vladimir Lenin during the Russian Revolution

Explanation:   One of the greatest ideological followers of Marx and Engels was definitely Lenin. All the other three political leaders in the fight for justice, independence and greater equality used non-violent methods of struggle, but although there was a violence somewhere and somehow, these leaders proclaimed non-violence.  On the other hand, Lenin fully followed the teachings of Marx and Engels, and what was written in the Communist Manifesto, that the armed struggle was completely permissible and legitimate in the class struggle, even necessary in the Revolution to achieve a classless society. As such, the bourgeois class is marked as the cause of all division, antagonism and the exploitation of other classes, and therefore, at all costs, even at the cost of armed conflict, should be overthrown and abolished.

all of the above.

had this on a quiz and got it right.

the articles of confederation only set up the continental congress at the federal level. there were no executive or judicial branches except within the states. the states were allowed to keep every right that was not specifically given to congress. the bonding of the states was through a 'firm league of friendship' that best served as a defense agreement against invasion. states were not allowed to use taxes as a way to discourage treaties, and states were extremely limited in their dealings with foreign nations.

not many historians today talk about the strengths of the articles of confederation, likely because of how unpopular the document quickly became. the articles did set the legislative body, congress, as the highest power in the nation because of the fear of monarchy. congress had the sole power to declare war, assign treaties, entertain foreign relations, and operate post offices. disputes between states and territorial issues were to be brought to congress. the document also stipulated that canada was allowed to enter the union if they desired.

there were more weaknesses than strengths under the articles of confederation. the lack of power given to the continental congress strangled the federal government. the articles gave congress the power to pass laws but no power to enforce those laws. if a state did not support a federal law, that state could simply ignore it. congress had no power to levy taxes or regulate trade. without a federal court system or executive leader, there would be no way to enforce these laws, either. amending the articles of confederation would also require a unanimous decision, which would be extremely difficult.