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".



From the passage, it may be inferred that the author is a supporter of:

• A. the ideals of socialism and does not care much about the means required to achieve them.
• B. ends as portrayed by supporters of socialism but is sceptical of the efficacy of the means advocated to reach those ends.
• C. the ends of socialism, since the means required to achieve those ends always involve collectivisation and centralization.
• D. a strong and powerful government as a means to achieve the ends of socialism, since there is no debate on the desirability of the aforementioned ends.

Hint:

Check the passage's closing tone, the Adam Smith quote about tyranny, to see whether the author objects to socialism's goals or its methods.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
We must infer the author's own stance, using tone and word choice, not just facts stated about other groups.

Step 2: Key Approach:
Look at where the author's own voice is strongest, usually the closing lines of a passage, and check whether that voice criticizes the goals of socialism or the tools used to reach them.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
The passage ends by quoting Adam Smith on how centralised power makes governments "oppressive and tyrannical," and says socialism led "liberal-minded people to submit... to that regimentation of economic life which they had overthrown." Regimentation and tyranny are both about method and power, never about the goal of fairness or security itself. The author is careful to keep this criticism aimed at the tool, not the target the tool is meant to serve.
Nowhere does the author call equality, justice, or security bad goals. In fact the passage opens by naming those goals, social justice, greater equality, security, as the "ultimate aims of socialism" without any negative comment attached. The author's discomfort is entirely with handing an entrepreneur's decisions to "a central planning body," which is a statement about method, not about whether fairness is worth pursuing.
This pattern, accepting the goal while doubting the tool, rules out the option that says the author does not care about means at all, since caring about means, at length, is most of what the passage does. It also rules out the two options that treat collectivisation as necessary or safe, since both misread the closing warning as agreement rather than caution. An author who ends a passage on a quote about tyranny is not endorsing the tool that produces it.

Step 4: Final Answer:
The author supports socialism's stated ends but is doubtful the proposed means can achieve them without unacceptable cost to individual freedom, which is exactly the split the correct option describes.
\[ \boxed{\text{Supports the ends, sceptical of the means}} \]