Political and Economic Systems

The author attributes all of the following to Marxism: I. It is instigative in nature. II. It is useful beyond its advocacy of egalitarianism. III. It has merit in its demands from equitable distribution of wealth.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
All radical revolutions which are advocated in the interests of the people are commended to the people, and the people are invited to accomplish them, on the ground that majorities are capable of molding society in any manner they please. As applied to matters of legislation and government, this theory is sufficiently familiar to everybody. It has been elaborated in endless detail, and has expressed itself in the constitutions of all modern democracies. What Karl Marx did, and did for the first time, was to invest this theory of the all-efficiency of the majority with definiteness, in respect of distribution of wealth, similar to that with which it had been invested already in respect of the making of laws and the dictation of national policies.
The practical outcome of the scientific reasoning of Marx is summed up in the formula which has figured as the premise and conclusion of every congress of his followers, of every book or manifesto published by them, and of every propagandist oration uttered by them at street-corners, namely, “All wealth is produced by labor, therefore to the laborers all wealth is due” — a doctrine in itself not novel if taken as a pious generality, but presented by Marx as the outcome of an elaborate system of economics.
The efficiency of this doctrine as an instrument of agitation is obvious. It appeals at once to two universal instincts: the instinct of cupidity and the instinct of universal justice. It stimulates the laborers to demand more than they receive already, and it stimulates to demand the more on the ground that they themselves have produced it. It teaches them that the wealth of every man who is not a manual laborer is something stolen from themselves which ought to be and which can be restored to them.

What, most likely, is the political orientation of the author?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
All radical revolutions which are advocated in the interests of the people are commended to the people, and the people are invited to accomplish them, on the ground that majorities are capable of molding society in any manner they please. As applied to matters of legislation and government, this theory is sufficiently familiar to everybody. It has been elaborated in endless detail, and has expressed itself in the constitutions of all modern democracies. What Karl Marx did, and did for the first time, was to invest this theory of the all-efficiency of the majority with definiteness, in respect of distribution of wealth, similar to that with which it had been invested already in respect of the making of laws and the dictation of national policies.
The practical outcome of the scientific reasoning of Marx is summed up in the formula which has figured as the premise and conclusion of every congress of his followers, of every book or manifesto published by them, and of every propagandist oration uttered by them at street-corners, namely, “All wealth is produced by labor, therefore to the laborers all wealth is due” — a doctrine in itself not novel if taken as a pious generality, but presented by Marx as the outcome of an elaborate system of economics.
The efficiency of this doctrine as an instrument of agitation is obvious. It appeals at once to two universal instincts: the instinct of cupidity and the instinct of universal justice. It stimulates the laborers to demand more than they receive already, and it stimulates to demand the more on the ground that they themselves have produced it. It teaches them that the wealth of every man who is not a manual laborer is something stolen from themselves which ought to be and which can be restored to them.

Which of the following is the chief reason for the bourgeois intelligentsia to seek to elevate municipal socialism to a special ‘trend’?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows:

The bourgeois intelligentsia of the West, like the English Fabians, elevates municipal socialism to a special ‘trend’ precisely because it dreams of social peace, of class conciliation, and seeks to divert public attention away from the fundamental questions of the economic system as a whole, and of the state structure as a whole, to minor questions of local self-government. In the sphere of questions in the first category, the class antagonisms stand out most sharply; that is the sphere which affects the very foundations of the class rule of the bourgeoisie. Hence it is in that sphere that the philistine, reactionary utopia of bringing about socialism piecemeal is particularly hopeless. Attention is diverted to the sphere of minor local questions, being directed not to the question of the class rule of the bourgeoisie, nor to the question of the chief instruments of that rule, but to the question of distributing the crumbs thrown by the rich bourgeoisie for the ‘needs of the population.’ Naturally, since attention is focussed on such questions as the spending of paltry sums (in comparison with the total surplus value and total state expenditure of the bourgeoisie), which the bourgeoisie itself is willing to set aside for public health, or for education (the bourgeoisie must have trained workers able to adapt themselves to a high technical level!), and so on, it is possible, in the sphere of such minor questions, to hold forth about ‘social peace’, about the harmfulness of the class struggle, and so on. What class struggle can there be if the bourgeoisie itself is spending money on the ‘needs of the population’, on public health, on education? What needs is there for a social if it is possible through the local self-governing bodies, gradually, step by step, to extend ‘collective ownership’, and ‘socialistic’ production: the horse tramways, the slaughter-houses etc?
The philistine opportunism of that ‘trend’ lies in the fact that people forget the narrow limits of the so-called ‘municipal socialism’ (in reality, municipal capitalism, as the English Social-Democrats properly point out in their controversies with the Fabians). They forget that so long as the bourgeoisie rules as a class it cannot allow any encroachment, even from the ‘municipal’ point of view, upon the real foundations of its rule; that if the bourgeoisie allows, tolerates, ‘municipal socialism’, it is because the latter does not touch the foundations of its rule, does not interfere with the important sources of its wealth, but extends only to the narrow sphere of local expenditure, which the bourgeoisie itself allows the ‘population’ to manage. It does not need more than a slight acquaintance with ‘municipal socialism’ in the West to know that any attempt on the part of socialist municipalities to go a little beyond the boundaries of their normal, i.e., minor, petty activities, which give no substantial relief to the workers, any attempt to meddle with capital, is invariably vetoed in the most emphatic manner by the central authorities of the bourgeois state.
And it is this fundamental mistake, this petty-bourgeois opportunism of the West-European Fabians, Possibilists, and Bernsteinians that is taken over by our advocates of municipalisation. (Power—Robert Greene)

What is the underlying idea of the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows:

The bourgeois intelligentsia of the West, like the English Fabians, elevates municipal socialism to a special ‘trend’ precisely because it dreams of social peace, of class conciliation, and seeks to divert public attention away from the fundamental questions of the economic system as a whole, and of the state structure as a whole, to minor questions of local self-government. In the sphere of questions in the first category, the class antagonisms stand out most sharply; that is the sphere which affects the very foundations of the class rule of the bourgeoisie. Hence it is in that sphere that the philistine, reactionary utopia of bringing about socialism piecemeal is particularly hopeless. Attention is diverted to the sphere of minor local questions, being directed not to the question of the class rule of the bourgeoisie, nor to the question of the chief instruments of that rule, but to the question of distributing the crumbs thrown by the rich bourgeoisie for the ‘needs of the population.’ Naturally, since attention is focussed on such questions as the spending of paltry sums (in comparison with the total surplus value and total state expenditure of the bourgeoisie), which the bourgeoisie itself is willing to set aside for public health, or for education (the bourgeoisie must have trained workers able to adapt themselves to a high technical level!), and so on, it is possible, in the sphere of such minor questions, to hold forth about ‘social peace’, about the harmfulness of the class struggle, and so on. What class struggle can there be if the bourgeoisie itself is spending money on the ‘needs of the population’, on public health, on education? What needs is there for a social if it is possible through the local self-governing bodies, gradually, step by step, to extend ‘collective ownership’, and ‘socialistic’ production: the horse tramways, the slaughter-houses etc?
The philistine opportunism of that ‘trend’ lies in the fact that people forget the narrow limits of the so-called ‘municipal socialism’ (in reality, municipal capitalism, as the English Social-Democrats properly point out in their controversies with the Fabians). They forget that so long as the bourgeoisie rules as a class it cannot allow any encroachment, even from the ‘municipal’ point of view, upon the real foundations of its rule; that if the bourgeoisie allows, tolerates, ‘municipal socialism’, it is because the latter does not touch the foundations of its rule, does not interfere with the important sources of its wealth, but extends only to the narrow sphere of local expenditure, which the bourgeoisie itself allows the ‘population’ to manage. It does not need more than a slight acquaintance with ‘municipal socialism’ in the West to know that any attempt on the part of socialist municipalities to go a little beyond the boundaries of their normal, i.e., minor, petty activities, which give no substantial relief to the workers, any attempt to meddle with capital, is invariably vetoed in the most emphatic manner by the central authorities of the bourgeois state.
And it is this fundamental mistake, this petty-bourgeois opportunism of the West-European Fabians, Possibilists, and Bernsteinians that is taken over by our advocates of municipalisation. (Power—Robert Greene)

What is the attitude of the writer of this passage towards the socialists?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

Capitalism is a system based on the principle of individual rights and responsibilities. The bulk of economic activity is organized through private enterprise operating in a free market. Each person survives and flourishes based on his freedom to use his ability. Individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain. Market forces determine the prices of goods and services. Such a system is based on the premise of separating the state from the industry. The role of the state is to regulate and protect. Each person has a right to the product of his own work and is driven to action by the opportunity to create wealth. Collectively, we create wealth for society.

In a market system, there are personal incentives for workers to do their jobs well, and for managers to make good decisions. It now seems obvious that a market economy is vastly more productive than one controlled from the centre. The extraordinary level of material prosperity achieved by the capitalist system over the course of the last two hundred years is a matter of historical record. Socialism, on the other, is a method of organizing a society in which the means of production and distribution of goods are controlled by the state and private ownership is controlled in the interest of the state. It is based on cooperation rather than competition and utilizes centralized planning and distribution. It propounds the idea of equality of income and property. Unfortunately, socialism has only led to the concentration of economic power in unaccountable centralized institutions. Under the socialist doctrine, as is practised by some emerging countries, there is an assumption that a limited amount of wealth exists in the world and must be divided equally among all citizens.

If the wealth of the world is equally divided among people throughout the world, there will, of course, be no rich people any more. But everybody will still be poor. You cannot distribute poverty. Socialists often forget that we have to first create wealth in order to distribute it. We have seen how such an economic system of centralized planning leads to ‘ordinary citizens in political fetters with low standard of living and little power to control their own destiny’. A popular joke on socialism is that in a socialist system there is no unemployment while, at the same time, no one works; no one works, but everyone still gets a salary; and while everyone gets a salary, there is nothing to buy!
Countries that have embraced capitalism and let free markets thrive have progressed. By leveraging the power of capitalism, the world has surely made tremendous advances. The world GDP has grown six-fold in the last fifty years. We have created tremendous economic capital, albeit for a small part of the planet.

The writer seems to suggest that a system based on the premise of separating the state from the industry

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

Capitalism is a system based on the principle of individual rights and responsibilities. The bulk of economic activity is organized through private enterprise operating in a free market. Each person survives and flourishes based on his freedom to use his ability. Individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain. Market forces determine the prices of goods and services. Such a system is based on the premise of separating the state from the industry. The role of the state is to regulate and protect. Each person has a right to the product of his own work and is driven to action by the opportunity to create wealth. Collectively, we create wealth for society.

In a market system, there are personal incentives for workers to do their jobs well, and for managers to make good decisions. It now seems obvious that a market economy is vastly more productive than one controlled from the centre. The extraordinary level of material prosperity achieved by the capitalist system over the course of the last two hundred years is a matter of historical record. Socialism, on the other, is a method of organizing a society in which the means of production and distribution of goods are controlled by the state and private ownership is controlled in the interest of the state. It is based on cooperation rather than competition and utilizes centralized planning and distribution. It propounds the idea of equality of income and property. Unfortunately, socialism has only led to the concentration of economic power in unaccountable centralized institutions. Under the socialist doctrine, as is practised by some emerging countries, there is an assumption that a limited amount of wealth exists in the world and must be divided equally among all citizens.

If the wealth of the world is equally divided among people throughout the world, there will, of course, be no rich people any more. But everybody will still be poor. You cannot distribute poverty. Socialists often forget that we have to first create wealth in order to distribute it. We have seen how such an economic system of centralized planning leads to ‘ordinary citizens in political fetters with low standard of living and little power to control their own destiny’. A popular joke on socialism is that in a socialist system there is no unemployment while, at the same time, no one works; no one works, but everyone still gets a salary; and while everyone gets a salary, there is nothing to buy!
Countries that have embraced capitalism and let free markets thrive have progressed. By leveraging the power of capitalism, the world has surely made tremendous advances. The world GDP has grown six-fold in the last fifty years. We have created tremendous economic capital, albeit for a small part of the planet.

There is no gainsaying the fact that the writer

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

Capitalism is a system based on the principle of individual rights and responsibilities. The bulk of economic activity is organized through private enterprise operating in a free market. Each person survives and flourishes based on his freedom to use his ability. Individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain. Market forces determine the prices of goods and services. Such a system is based on the premise of separating the state from the industry. The role of the state is to regulate and protect. Each person has a right to the product of his own work and is driven to action by the opportunity to create wealth. Collectively, we create wealth for society.

In a market system, there are personal incentives for workers to do their jobs well, and for managers to make good decisions. It now seems obvious that a market economy is vastly more productive than one controlled from the centre. The extraordinary level of material prosperity achieved by the capitalist system over the course of the last two hundred years is a matter of historical record. Socialism, on the other, is a method of organizing a society in which the means of production and distribution of goods are controlled by the state and private ownership is controlled in the interest of the state. It is based on cooperation rather than competition and utilizes centralized planning and distribution. It propounds the idea of equality of income and property. Unfortunately, socialism has only led to the concentration of economic power in unaccountable centralized institutions. Under the socialist doctrine, as is practised by some emerging countries, there is an assumption that a limited amount of wealth exists in the world and must be divided equally among all citizens.

If the wealth of the world is equally divided among people throughout the world, there will, of course, be no rich people any more. But everybody will still be poor. You cannot distribute poverty. Socialists often forget that we have to first create wealth in order to distribute it. We have seen how such an economic system of centralized planning leads to ‘ordinary citizens in political fetters with low standard of living and little power to control their own destiny’. A popular joke on socialism is that in a socialist system there is no unemployment while, at the same time, no one works; no one works, but everyone still gets a salary; and while everyone gets a salary, there is nothing to buy!
Countries that have embraced capitalism and let free markets thrive have progressed. By leveraging the power of capitalism, the world has surely made tremendous advances. The world GDP has grown six-fold in the last fifty years. We have created tremendous economic capital, albeit for a small part of the planet.

What, according to the writer, is the essential difference between capitalism and socialism?

1. Capitalism is efficient while socialism is inefficient.
2. Capitalism breeds competition while socialism seeks cooperation.
3. Capitalism encourages individuals while state discourages individuals.

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

Capitalism is a system based on the principle of individual rights and responsibilities. The bulk of economic activity is organized through private enterprise operating in a free market. Each person survives and flourishes based on his freedom to use his ability. Individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain. Market forces determine the prices of goods and services. Such a system is based on the premise of separating the state from the industry. The role of the state is to regulate and protect. Each person has a right to the product of his own work and is driven to action by the opportunity to create wealth. Collectively, we create wealth for society.

In a market system, there are personal incentives for workers to do their jobs well, and for managers to make good decisions. It now seems obvious that a market economy is vastly more productive than one controlled from the centre. The extraordinary level of material prosperity achieved by the capitalist system over the course of the last two hundred years is a matter of historical record. Socialism, on the other, is a method of organizing a society in which the means of production and distribution of goods are controlled by the state and private ownership is controlled in the interest of the state. It is based on cooperation rather than competition and utilizes centralized planning and distribution. It propounds the idea of equality of income and property. Unfortunately, socialism has only led to the concentration of economic power in unaccountable centralized institutions. Under the socialist doctrine, as is practised by some emerging countries, there is an assumption that a limited amount of wealth exists in the world and must be divided equally among all citizens.

If the wealth of the world is equally divided among people throughout the world, there will, of course, be no rich people any more. But everybody will still be poor. You cannot distribute poverty. Socialists often forget that we have to first create wealth in order to distribute it. We have seen how such an economic system of centralized planning leads to ‘ordinary citizens in political fetters with low standard of living and little power to control their own destiny’. A popular joke on socialism is that in a socialist system there is no unemployment while, at the same time, no one works; no one works, but everyone still gets a salary; and while everyone gets a salary, there is nothing to buy!
Countries that have embraced capitalism and let free markets thrive have progressed. By leveraging the power of capitalism, the world has surely made tremendous advances. The world GDP has grown six-fold in the last fifty years. We have created tremendous economic capital, albeit for a small part of the planet.

Which of the following cannot be reasonably derived from the passage?

1. Poverty can both be equitably distributed and shared in socialism for mutual benefit of all.
2. Countries that have embraced capitalism have largely progressed and benefited from it.
3. Capitalism encourages individual excellence that helps create social wealth.

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

Capitalism is a system based on the principle of individual rights and responsibilities. The bulk of economic activity is organized through private enterprise operating in a free market. Each person survives and flourishes based on his freedom to use his ability. Individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain. Market forces determine the prices of goods and services. Such a system is based on the premise of separating the state from the industry. The role of the state is to regulate and protect. Each person has a right to the product of his own work and is driven to action by the opportunity to create wealth. Collectively, we create wealth for society.

In a market system, there are personal incentives for workers to do their jobs well, and for managers to make good decisions. It now seems obvious that a market economy is vastly more productive than one controlled from the centre. The extraordinary level of material prosperity achieved by the capitalist system over the course of the last two hundred years is a matter of historical record. Socialism, on the other, is a method of organizing a society in which the means of production and distribution of goods are controlled by the state and private ownership is controlled in the interest of the state. It is based on cooperation rather than competition and utilizes centralized planning and distribution. It propounds the idea of equality of income and property. Unfortunately, socialism has only led to the concentration of economic power in unaccountable centralized institutions. Under the socialist doctrine, as is practised by some emerging countries, there is an assumption that a limited amount of wealth exists in the world and must be divided equally among all citizens.

If the wealth of the world is equally divided among people throughout the world, there will, of course, be no rich people any more. But everybody will still be poor. You cannot distribute poverty. Socialists often forget that we have to first create wealth in order to distribute it. We have seen how such an economic system of centralized planning leads to ‘ordinary citizens in political fetters with low standard of living and little power to control their own destiny’. A popular joke on socialism is that in a socialist system there is no unemployment while, at the same time, no one works; no one works, but everyone still gets a salary; and while everyone gets a salary, there is nothing to buy!
Countries that have embraced capitalism and let free markets thrive have progressed. By leveraging the power of capitalism, the world has surely made tremendous advances. The world GDP has grown six-fold in the last fifty years. We have created tremendous economic capital, albeit for a small part of the planet.