Question

Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

This confusion concerns nothing less than the concept of socialism itself. It may mean, and is often used to describe, merely the ideals of social justice, greater equality and security which are the ultimate aims of socialism. But it means also the particular method by which most socialists hope to attain these ends and which many competent people regard as the only methods by which they can be fully and quickly attained. In this sense socialism means the abolition of private enterprise, of private ownership of the means of production, and the creation of a system of "planned economy" in which the entrepreneur working for profit is replaced by a central planning body. There are many people who call themselves socialists although they care only about the first, who fervently believe in those ultimate aims of socialism but neither care nor understand how they can be achieved, and who are merely certain they must be achieved, whatever the cost. But to nearly all those to whom socialism is not merely a hope but an object of practical politics, the characteristic methods of modern socialism are as essential as the ends themselves. Most people, on the other hand, who value the ultimate ends of socialism no less than the socialists, refuse to support socialism because of the dangers to other values they see in the methods proposed by the socialists. The dispute about socialism has thus become largely a dispute about means and not about ends-although the question whether the different ends of socialism can be simultaneously achieved is also involved. This would be enough to create confusion. And the confusion has been further increased by the common practice of denying that those who repudiate the means value the ends. But this is not all. The situation is still more complicated by the fact that the same means, the "economic planning" which is the prime instrument for socialist reform, can be used for many other purposes. We must centrally direct economic activity if we want to make the distribution of income conform to current ideas of social justice. "Planning", therefore, is wanted by all those who demand that "production for use" be substituted for production for profit. But such planning is no less indispensable if the distribution of incomes is to be regulated in a way which to us appears to be the opposite of just. Whether we should wish that more of the good things of this world should go to some racial elite, the Nordic men, or the members of a party or an aristocracy, the methods which we shall have to employ are the same as those which could ensure an equalitarian distribution. It may, perhaps, seem unfair to use the term socialism to describe its methods rather than its aims, to use for a particular method a term which for many people stand for an ultimate ideal. It is probably preferable to describe the methods which can be used for a great variety of ends as collectivism and to regard socialism as a species of that genus. Yet, although to most socialists only one species of collectivism will represent true socialism, it must always be remembered that socialism is a species of collectivism and that therefore everything which is true for collectivism as such must apply to socialism. Nearly all the points which are disputed between socialists and liberals concerns the methods common to all forms of collectivism and not the particular ends for which the socialists want to use them; and all the consequences with which we shall be concerned in this book follow from the methods of collectivism irrespective of the ends for which they are used. It must also not be forgotten that socialism is not only by far the most important species of collectivism or "planning"; but that it is socialism which has persuaded liberal-minded people to submit once more to that regimentation of economic life which they had overthrown because, in the words of Adam Smith, it puts governments in a position where "to support themselves they are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical".



The statement that the author of the passage would support the most is:

• A. The development of society, if left to individuals, would be impossible as each individual would exploit opportunities for plundering and exploiting one's fellow citizens.
• B. The development of society is best done by individuals working for selfish interests within a free economic environment that collectively ends up improving the condition of society, since the outcomes of each action of individuals are shared by the members of the society.
• C. In the absence of a strong government, society would degenerate into anarchy as each individual tries to achieve success at the cost of one's fellow citizens.
• D. Individuals would create mechanisms to put a system in place that would have rules and regulations so that the society does not break down into chaos.

Hint:

Separate what the passage actually objects to, central economic planning, from what it never criticizes, basic rule of law, and match the option that fits the second, not the first.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

This question asks which claim about how a society develops fits best with the passage's own argument, not with free-market theory in general. The key distinction the passage draws throughout is between two different things: a basic system of law and order that stops people from harming each other, and a centrally PLANNED economy that replaces the market with a "central planning body." The author's warning, in the closing lines, is aimed only at the second thing, calling it a path to government that becomes "oppressive and tyrannical."

1. Development left entirely to individuals would be impossible, since each individual would plunder and exploit fellow citizens.: This fits the passage's underlying logic. The author never argues that people need no rules at all, only that the specific method of central economic planning is dangerous. A basic system that stops people from plundering each other is a matter of law and order, which the passage does not object to, unlike full central planning of production and distribution.
2. Best done by individuals working for selfish interest inside a free economy, with shared benefits.: This sounds attractive, but it assumes a free economy runs safely with no rule-based check on individuals at all, which goes further than anything the passage claims. The passage is silent on whether unregulated self-interest alone is safe.
3. Absence of a strong government leads to anarchy, so a strong government is needed.: This option calls for a "strong government," which is exactly the kind of concentrated power the passage warns turns "oppressive and tyrannical." It contradicts the passage's caution rather than following it.
4. Individuals would create their own rules and regulations to avoid chaos.: This is plausible in general, but the passage gives no basis for individuals spontaneously designing a full regulatory system on their own. It is a broader claim than anything the text supports.

The option that best matches the passage's real distinction, basic order against plunder is fine, central economic planning is dangerous, is the first one, so it is correct.

Let's summarize:

• The passage objects to centrally planned economies, not to all forms of law and order.
• The first option only claims that some framework is needed to stop plunder, which fits this distinction.
• The "strong government" option clashes with the passage's own warning about concentrated power turning tyrannical.

So the correct answer is the option about plunder without any framework.