a really large tombstone
According to Marx, the proletariat would revolt against and overthrow the owners of the means of production , i.e. the bourgeoisie. The victory of the proletariat would mean that, for the first time in history, one group of people would not be oppressing an other. This new society would be called Communism. The new society would indirectly transition to Communism via a socialist stage, where class distinctions remained in existence and power while the means of the production, being socialised, would break down the existing social distinctions in society.
You would find pyramids in Egypt and Middle America.
This depends on how one considers:The preferences of special interests;The composition of social welfare and how it is weighed;The meaning of 'sacrifice' with respect to the latter.For example, if the preferences of special interests match with that of society, assuming society can have aggregated preferences, then no loss would be possible, since doing what special interests wanted would match society. Even if this were not the case, it may still be possible that the preferences of special interests do not directly conflict with society or even that such conflict is preferable; if these were true, then there would not be a 'loss' in a strict sense. Finally, if the last three points don't hold, then it could still be that what special interests may desire in the short-term is, in the long-run, disastrous and, therefore, it is not truly a sacrifice to be forced into doing the 'good thing' for society.
Marx believed that the proletariat, or working class, would ultimately overthrow the capitalist system and establish a classless society. He believed this would happen because the proletariat, being the majority and facing exploitation and oppression under capitalism, would become conscious of their collective power and unite to bring about social change. Marx argued that the inherent contradictions of capitalism would lead to its downfall, paving the way for a more equitable and just society.
An anthropologist or a sociologist would most likely study Chinese culture. Anthropologists would focus on the cultural practices, traditions, and beliefs of Chinese society, while sociologists would examine the social structures, institutions, and interactions within Chinese communities.
It would go up like a pyramid :)
2000000
As both are dead we cannot ask them. Society was very different in their times, todays society would be confusing to them.
i don't like these expectations
no, because of modern science, it would only kill Mexicans and Arabs
your dad's house is ugly. that's what a herois . okay/ good (:
Shakespeare was the Steven Spielberg and JJ Abrams of his day. He would have found an outlet for his genius.
In todays modern notation of Roman numerals: VIII-XI-MCMXCI Note that the ancient Romans would have probably wrote out the equivalent of 1991 quite differently to that of todays notation.
If Greek Gods are real (I don't believe them but they are cool), it would be Pandora, Ares, or Demeter
You would have to have a command of the Latin language but it is the equivalent of XCV in todays notation of Roman numerals.
The shadow formed would be tetrahedrons with an nostalgic way of cooperating with the society at that time.
In todays modern notation of Roman numerals: 1472 = MCDLXXII But the ancient Romans would have notated the equivalent of 1472 quite differently to how we would do it today.