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".



According to the author, those who agree to the aims of socialism would:

• A. refuse to support socialism because of possible consequences of the methods advocated to achieve those ends.
• B. agree on the collectivisation and centralisation of economic activities since both require strong and powerful governments.
• C. have disagreed if only they had known that the only way to achieve the equalitarian ends of socialism required centralisation and collectivisation of economic activities.
• D. None of the above.

Hint:

The passage splits people who agree with socialism's aims into two opposite camps over the methods, so check whether any single option can cover both.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the Passage:
The author separates socialism's aims (equality, justice, security) from socialism's methods (planning, collectivisation), and says the real argument in society is about the methods, not the aims.

Step 2: Key Approach:
Find every sentence in the passage that describes a group of people who "agree to the aims," then check whether these sentences describe one consistent reaction or more than one.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
The passage names at least two groups who agree with the aims. First: "those to whom socialism is not merely a hope but an object of practical politics," for whom the methods "are as essential as the ends themselves." These are committed socialists who accept the standard collectivist toolkit. Second: "most people... who value the ultimate ends of socialism no less than the socialists, refuse to support socialism because of the dangers... in the methods." These are people who like the goal but walk away once the method is on the table.
These two groups react in opposite ways to the same set of aims: one accepts the methods as essential, the other rejects those very methods over their dangers. A question that asks generally about "those who agree to the aims," without narrowing to one of these two groups, cannot be answered by only one of the first three options, since each one only fits a part of this larger group and leaves the other part unaccounted for.
Check option 1 again on its own: it correctly describes the second group, but is silent about, and effectively contradicts, the first group of committed socialists who do not refuse support. Option 2 invents a claim that is not made anywhere, that agreeing on aims should lead to agreeing on centralisation. Option 3 invents a hypothetical (that people would have disagreed if only they had known) that the passage never raises at all.
Because none of the three specific claims can stand for the whole group described in the passage, and because the question is phrased broadly rather than about one specific subgroup, the only option left standing is "none of the above."

Step 4: Final Answer:
The correct choice is "None of the above," since the passage shows a split reaction, not one uniform reaction, among those who agree with socialism's aims, and the question does not restrict itself to either half of that split.
\[ \boxed{\text{None of the above}} \]