Reading Comprehension
Verbal Ability

 Back to Questions

Common Information

In the pantheon of great thinkers, Karl Marx certainly ranks as one of the most influential, even if it has been said that no thinker has ever had his words more badly misrepresented, by supporters and detractors alike, than Karl Marx. After Marx, no social discipline was safe from an assault by Marxist thinkers. However, while the views and insights brought to bear by Marxists have helped to illuminate relationships in some disciplines, the Marxist worldview has been less successful when applied to certain human interactions.

For example, Marxist perspectives on global power relations have been assailed by many critics. Because Marx himself was especially concerned with economics, his followers have tended to elevate economic concerns, including the class struggle and control over the means of production, over all other areas. Thus, when analyzing the balance of power on a global level, key concepts such as nationalism, security, and the state are virtually ignored by Marxist scholars.

On a theoretical level, it may be useful to strip away these concepts to more closely examine certain other dynamics at work, but the Marxist view often fails to describe what actually happens in the real world. Consider the strong nationalism evident in Poland, even after generations of one-party Communist rule.

Also, the Marxist devotion to capitalism leads to simplifications on the world stage. Marxist political scientists typically refer to the "world capitalist system" when analyzing interactions among nations, but this definition has less and less relevance when applied to the variety of economies at work in the world. Where do countries with transitional or developing economies such as China, Russia, and North Korea fit into this schema? Ultimately, a Marxist view of global interactions sacrifices a great many crucial concepts at the altar of one overarching economic perspective. Some critics have likened such a view to an analysis of Shakespeare’s Hamlet that neglects to discuss the protagonist and his motivations.

Q.

Common Information Question: 2/4

The author of the passage most probably discusses Poland in order to:

 A.

refute an argument about the viability of Communism as an economic system

 B.

highlight an example of a country in which Communism has failed to take hold

 C.

demonstrate how theoretical descriptions of nationalism conform to real world examples

 D.

provide an illustration of a deficiency in the viewpoint held by certain scholars

 E.

prove that Marxist scholars have been unable to accurately describe the real world

 Hide Ans

Solution:
Option(D) is correct

This a logical structure question. Why, it asks, does the author mention Poland? The answer lies in these lines: "On a theoretical level, it may be useful to strip away these concepts to more closely examine certain other dynamics at work, but the Marxist view often fails to describe what actually happens in the real world.

Consider the strong nationalism evident in Poland, even after generations of one party Communist rule." Poland is an example of how the Marxist view "fails to describe what actually happens in the real world," which is whatchoice D says.

Choices A and B are wrong because the purpose is not to discuss Communism.

Choice C is the opposite of what the passage says.

Choice E goes too far because the example doesn’t necessarily prove anything.


(1) Comment(s)


Pooja Gaikwad
 ()

I don't understand why 'E' has been marked incorrect. The Poland incident proves that they are 'unable to accurately describe' what actually happens in the real world. And in 3rd Paragraph it has been mentioned clearly-'but the Marxist view often fails to describe what actually happens in the real world'