GRE 阅读

miracle010UID：3878096

One of the principal themes of Walzer’s critique of liberal capitalism is that it is insufficiently egalitarian. Walzer’s case against the economic inequality generated by capitalism and in favor of “a radical redistribution of wealth” is presented in a widely cited essay entitled “In Defense of Equality.”
The most striking feature of Walzer’s critique is that, far from rejecting the principle of reward according to merit, Walzer insists on its validity. People who excel should receive the superior benefits appropriate to their excellence. But people exhibit a great variety of qualities—“intelligence, physical strength, agility and grace, artistic creativity, mechanical skill, leadership, endurance, memory, psychological insight, the capacity for hard work—even moral strength, sensitivity, the ability to express compassion.” Each deserves its proper recompense, and hence a proper distribution of material goods should reflect human differences as measured on all these different scales. Yet, under capitalism, the ability to make money (“the green thumb of bourgeois society”) enables its possessor to acquire almost “every other sort of social good,” such as the respect and esteem of others.
The centerpiece of Walzer’s argument is the invocation of a quotation from Pascal’s Pensees, which concludes: “Tyranny is the wish to obtain by one means what can only be had by another.” Pascal believes that we owe different duties to different qualities. So we might say that infatuation is the proper response to charm, and awe the proper response to strength. In this light, Walzer characterizes capitalism as the tyranny of money (or of the ability to make it). And Walzer advocates as the means of eliminating this tyranny and of restoring genuine equality “the abolition of the power of money outside its sphere.” What Walzer envisions is a society in which wealth is no longer convertible into social goods with which it has no intrinsic connection.
Walzer’s argument is a puzzling one. After all, why should those qualities unrelated to the production of material goods be rewarded with material goods? Is it not tyrannical, in Pascal’s sense, to insist that those who excel in “sensitivity” or “the ability to express compassion” merit equal wealth with those who excel in qualities (such as “the capacity for hard work”) essential in producing wealth? Yet Walzer’s argument, however deficient, does point to one of the most serious weaknesses of capitalism—namely, that it brings to predominant positions in a society people who, no matter how legitimately they have earned their material rewards, often lack those other qualities that evoke affection or admiration. Some even argue plausibly that this weakness may be irremediable: in any society that, like a capitalist society, seeks to become ever wealthier in material terms disproportionate rewards are bound to flow to the people who are instrumental in producing the increase in its wealth.
21.        The primary purpose of the passage is to
(A) argue that Walzer’s critique of liberal capitalism is the cornerstone of Walzer’s thinking
(B) identify and to deprecate the origins of the intellectual tradition championed by Walzer
(C) present more clearly than does the essay “In Defense of Equality” the distinctive features of Walzer’s politico-economic theories
(D) demonstrate that Walzer’s critique of liberal capitalism is neither original nor persuasive
(E) outline and to examine critically Walzer’s position on economic equality
22.        The author mentions all of the following as issues addressed by Walzer EXCEPT:
(A) proper recompense for individual excellence
(B) proper interpretation of “economic equality”
(C) proper level of a society’s wealth
(D) grounds for calling capitalism “the tyranny of money”
(E) exchangeability of money for social goods
23.        The argumentation in the passage turns importantly on the question of what should be the proper relation between
(A) “liberal capitalism” (line 2) and “bourgeois society” (lines 20-21)
(B) “reward” (line 8) and “recompense” (line 17)
(C) “sensitivity” (line 15) and “the ability to express compassion” (lines 15-16)
(D) “distribution of material goods” (lines 17-18) and “redistribution of wealth” (lines 4-5)
(E) “social goods” (line 37) and “material goods” (line 41)
24.        The passage provides sufficient information to answer which of the following questions?
(A) What weight in relation to other qualities should a quality like sensitivity have, according to Walzer, in determining the proper distribution of goods?
(B) Which quality does Walzer deem too highly valued under liberal capitalism?
(C) Which are the social goods that are, according to Walzer, outside the reach of the power of money?
(D) What practical steps does Walzer suggest be taken to relieve the economic inequality generated by capitalism?
(E) What deficiencies in Walzer’s own argument does Walzer acknowledge?
25.        The author implies that Walzer’s interpretation of the principle of reward according to merit is distinctive for its
(A) insistence on maximizing everyone’s rewards
(B) emphasis on equality
(C) proven validity
(D) broad conception of what constitutes merit
(E) broad conception of what constitutes a reward
26.        The author’s interpretation of the principle that “we owe different duties to different qualities” (lines 28-29) suggests that which of the following would most probably be the duty paired with the quality of veracity?
(A) Dignity
(B) Trust
(C) Affection
(D) Obedience
(E) Integrity
27.        The author implies that sensitivity is not a quality that
(A) is essential in producing wealth
(B) wealthy people lack
(C) can be sensibly measured on a scale
(D) characterizes tyrannical people
(E) is owed a duty in Pascal’s sense



Walzer 关于自由资本主义评论的一个主要的观点是：自由资本主义极度不平等。Walzer观点中的对由资本主义产生的不平等和其提倡的“更激进的财富分配”在“In defense of Equality<保卫平等权>”这篇文章中被多次引用。
Walzer的评论中一个鲜明的特点是：他并不是反对根据贡献的多少给与相应的奖励，Walzer更加注重奖励的合理性。人们应该根据各自拥有的特长给与相应的奖励。但是每个人拥有不同种类的特长—“智力，体力，身手敏捷和行为得体，艺术创造力，机械维修能力，领导力，忍耐力，记忆力，心里洞察力，努力工作的热情-甚至是很好的工作态度，敏感性，以及展示同情的能力”。 每一种能力都应该得到其相应的回报，因此财富的分配比例就应该体现每个人的不同的能力配比。 但是，在资本主义社会中，赚钱的能力（资本主义社会的“绿色大拇指”）使得这项能力的拥有者可以拿到了社会上几乎所有的财富，比如他人的尊重和赞赏。
  Walzer观点的主旨是他引用了Pascal’s Pensees的一个观点， 这个观点总结起来就是：“暴政就是不择手段的得到别人应该得到的东西”。Pascal认为不同的人拥有不同的能力和责任。所以喜爱是对魅力的正常反应，恐惧是对武力危险的正常反应。从这个观点出发，Walzer把资本主义定义为对财富的暴政（或者说是赚钱能力者的暴政）。Walzer提倡限制这种暴政以及恢复那些可以使“财富限制在财富范围内”的真诚的品质。Walzer认为的理想社会是： 在这个社会中和财富无关的社会品德将不会被给与财富的奖励。
   Walzer的观点很难以理解。 毕竟，为什么那些和制造财富不相关的能力不能给与财富形式的奖励呢？ 以Pascal的观点来看， 给与拥有“敏感性”和“同情的能力”的人和给与拥有“努力工作热性”的人同样的物质奖励难道不是一种暴政吗？当然，Walzer观点，不论其有多么的不足， 确实是指出了资本主义的一个严重的缺陷—就是， 它将社会上的重要位置都给了这样一群人， 这些人， 不管他们的财富来的是多么的合理合法，他们通常都缺少其他一些优点，比如使得别人尊重和喜爱的特质。有些人甚至认为这个缺陷是无法弥补的：在任何一种社会中，比如资本主义社会， 想要变得更富有就被认为是打破了这样一种财富分配的平衡：制造财富中起重要作用的人应该得到更多的财富。（资本家在压榨剩余劳动力）




Egalitarian：平等主义的
Radical：激进的; 彻底的; 根本的
Bourgeois：资产阶级的，资本家的; 商人根性的，市侩的; 无教养的，鄙俗的; 贪图享受的;
Esteem：尊敬，敬重; 认为，以为; 考虑; 估价
Invocation：祈祷; 乞求; 乞灵; 乞求神助;
Tyranny：暴虐; 专横; 暴行
Infatuation：热恋，迷恋
Abolition：废除; 废止; （常用A-） <美史>废除死刑; 〈美〉废除黑奴制度;
Irremediable：不可收拾; 不能改正的，不可补救的; 无可补救;
Plausibly：似真地;
Instrumental：仪器的; 乐器的; 有帮助的; 起作用的;