Passage
For decades, socialism has been a pervasive bogeyman laying siege at the periphery of the American psyche. Policies and candidates alike are dismissed out of hand by pronouncing them "socialist," the term sufficing to preclude further consideration. However, such reactions to any topic ought to give us pause: have we truly judged an idea as unworthy, impractical, or unjust? Or do we simply demonstrate an unreflective fear of a label?Initial prejudice notwithstanding, legitimate scrutiny is warranted. Perhaps the gravest threat of socialist programmes to capitalist America is their perceived unfairness-that the rewards of labor or industry will be siphoned from those who rightfully own or generate them and bestowed upon those who did not contribute to their production.Shall we accept without question, however, the assumptions intrinsic to such notions of "rightful" ownership, or more generally, those of fairness itself? In fact, capitalists and socialists will likely agree on the broad outlines of what fairness entails. The objection to redistribution of wealth rests on the idea that it takes from the more deserving and gives to the less-if not to the lazy or the layabout. Given equality of opportunity, why should he who toils be denied the right of harvest? Why should he who idles be afforded an equal reward?Nonetheless, this claim of initial social equality is precisely what socialism rejects as illusory. Let us suppose that everyone in society begins life upon equal footing. None are afforded a greater portion of opportunity, but all are competitors in open tests of skill over time. By merit, coupled with the vicissitudes of fortune, some ascend to the heights of success, others plummet to the depths of failure, still more inhabit some middle ground. Equality is shattered, but justly, and from an early uniformity of status rise differences in wealth, garnered according to the abilities and enterprise displayed by each person.As time passes, however, the wealth or destitution of one generation is bequeathed to the next, and then inequality becomes ingrained. What was before an earned difference of outcome is now an unearned difference of potential. One individual has an advantage that another lacks-not gained through striving and perseverance but inherited through accident of birth.Such effects only compound over time. Inevitably, dynasties of wealth accrue by which a few through mere circumstance enjoy economic mastery over the many, who face through the tyranny of chance an undeserved impediment. The socialist's claim, then, is that complaints against redistribution of wealth fail in light of the very concern for fairness upon which they are founded.This same concern has led various leaders throughout history to implement socialism. For instance, eleventh-century Chinese statesman Wang An-shih instituted state control of the economy "with a view to succoring the working classes and preventing them from being ground into dust by the rich." This noble goal met with only temporary success, however, as the system later fell to governmental corruption, private greed, and untimely droughts and floods.Are the dismissive reactions towards socialism then justified? Not as such. Capitalism has many virtues, but it is equally liable to exploitation. In post-industrial America, governmental reforms and regulations on commerce and industry were required to redress the systemic injustices perpetuated by dynastic wealth, as well as to protect the welfare of a multitude bound to wages insufficient to secure life's necessities. Perhaps the lesson to be drawn is that a "pure" form of either capitalism or socialism will ultimately prove destructive. Rather than embrace or reject one system from the outset, we must avoid a focus on labels and instead inquire which ideas, and in what combination, best promote the justice whose value we profess.
-The author describes socialism as "a pervasive bogeyman laying siege at the periphery of the American psyche" as part of a claim that:

Question

Passage
For decades, socialism has been a pervasive bogeyman laying siege at the periphery of the American psyche.  Policies and candidates alike are dismissed out of hand by pronouncing them "socialist," the term sufficing to preclude further consideration.  However, such reactions to any topic ought to give us pause: have we truly judged an idea as unworthy, impractical, or unjust?  Or do we simply demonstrate an unreflective fear of a label?Initial prejudice notwithstanding, legitimate scrutiny is warranted.  Perhaps the gravest threat of socialist programmes to capitalist America is their perceived unfairness-that the rewards of labor or industry will be siphoned from those who rightfully own or generate them and bestowed upon those who did not contribute to their production.Shall we accept without question, however, the assumptions intrinsic to such notions of "rightful" ownership, or more generally, those of fairness itself?  In fact, capitalists and socialists will likely agree on the broad outlines of what fairness entails.  The objection to redistribution of wealth rests on the idea that it takes from the more deserving and gives to the less-if not to the lazy or the layabout.  Given equality of opportunity, why should he who toils be denied the right of harvest?  Why should he who idles be afforded an equal reward?Nonetheless, this claim of initial social equality is precisely what socialism rejects as illusory.  Let us suppose that everyone in society begins life upon equal footing.  None are afforded a greater portion of opportunity, but all are competitors in open tests of skill over time.  By merit, coupled with the vicissitudes of fortune, some ascend to the heights of success, others plummet to the depths of failure, still more inhabit some middle ground.  Equality is shattered, but justly, and from an early uniformity of status rise differences in wealth, garnered according to the abilities and enterprise displayed by each person.As time passes, however, the wealth or destitution of one generation is bequeathed to the next, and then inequality becomes ingrained.  What was before an earned difference of outcome is now an unearned difference of potential.  One individual has an advantage that another lacks-not gained through striving and perseverance but inherited through accident of birth.Such effects only compound over time.  Inevitably, dynasties of wealth accrue by which a few through mere circumstance enjoy economic mastery over the many, who face through the tyranny of chance an undeserved impediment.  The socialist's claim, then, is that complaints against redistribution of wealth fail in light of the very concern for fairness upon which they are founded.This same concern has led various leaders throughout history to implement socialism.  For instance, eleventh-century Chinese statesman Wang An-shih instituted state control of the economy "with a view to succoring the working classes and preventing them from being ground into dust by the rich."  This noble goal met with only temporary success, however, as the system later fell to governmental corruption, private greed, and untimely droughts and floods.Are the dismissive reactions towards socialism then justified?  Not as such.  Capitalism has many virtues, but it is equally liable to exploitation.  In post-industrial America, governmental reforms and regulations on commerce and industry were required to redress the systemic injustices perpetuated by dynastic wealth, as well as to protect the welfare of a multitude bound to wages insufficient to secure life's necessities.  Perhaps the lesson to be drawn is that a "pure" form of either capitalism or socialism will ultimately prove destructive.  Rather than embrace or reject one system from the outset, we must avoid a focus on labels and instead inquire which ideas, and in what combination, best promote the justice whose value we profess.
-The author describes socialism as "a pervasive bogeyman laying siege at the periphery of the American psyche" as part of a claim that:

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The author describes socialism as "a pervasive bogeyman laying siege at the periphery of the American psyche," portraying people as afraid of ideas thought to be socialist. As such, "[p]olicies and candidates alike are dismissed out of hand by pronouncing them 'socialist,' the term sufficing to preclude (rule out) further consideration" (Paragraph 1). Therefore, the author suggests that in dismissing socialist candidates and policies in this way, people do not truly examine socialistic ideas to evaluate them. Hence, the author's description of socialism as "a pervasive bogeyman laying siege at the periphery of the American psyche" is part of a claim that socialistic ideas are seldom critically evaluated. By contrast, the author does not connect that description of socialism to any of the following claims: most Americans are unconcerned about socialist ideas (Choice A). The author states that "[p]erhaps the gravest threat of socialist programmes to capitalist America is their perceived unfairness-that the rewards of labor or industry will be siphoned from those who rightfully own or generate them and bestowed upon those who did not contribute to their production" (Paragraph 2). Therefore, the author depicts Americans as concerned about socialist ideas because they fear that such ideas lead to economic injustice. fears about socialistic policies are not reflected by the reality of socialism in practice (Choice C). The author suggests that policies should not be "dismissed out of hand" due to fears about socialism (Paragraph 1). However, this contention is based on a claim that ideas should be evaluated without prejudice, rather than on a claim about the reality of socialism in practice. objections to socialism are baseless (Choice D). The author claims that "legitimate scrutiny is warranted" regarding socialism (Paragraph 2), implying that it is reasonable to look critically at socialist ideas. Additionally, the author later suggests that "a 'pure' form of either capitalism or socialism will ultimately prove destructive" (Paragraph 8), implying that there are reasonable objections to socialism.

Passage For Decades, Socialism Has Been a Pervasive Bogeyman Laying Siege