爱情故事2009

The other day I was watching Real Time. As usual, Bill and his panel - Arianna Huffington and Andrew Sorkin in this case - talked about how the Corporate America, especially those financial elites, rip off the hard-working middle class people and get away with it with tons of taxpayers' money in their pockets. As the heat mounted, it is, of course, inevitable to raise doubts about and criticize the existing system. Then, all of sudden, I was shocked, and partly amused, by how these spouts resemble what we have been preached throughout our education. Greed, exploitation, and ultimately the populist revolt. This type of rhetoric sounds no strange to us; for this is what we are expected, if not ordered, to believe in. And yet, to the American people, particularly the younger generation, it sounds just as exotic and remote as a fashionable historic curiosity.

There are more of these moments to find in Michael Moore's documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story. Jimmy Carter's presidential statement that "we are at a turning point in our history" in that "human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns" called for the very same thing the Eight Honors and Eight Disgraces is intended to. The only difference here is that one has perished amid the laissez faire spree triggered by the president's successor, while another is ongoing in an emerging superpower experiencing an astounding economic growth and faced with increasingly polarized distribution.

Carter also rightly decried that "too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption". Ironically enough, this is exactly where Ronald Reagan thrived. By cutting taxes by a enormous margin, by packing those ideas that Carter hated and warned against into the doctrine of capitalism and the almighty power of the free market, the Republican president created a robust consumption-driven economy and garnered tremendous popularity. Historically, this was also a significant period of what Walter R. Mead, an advisor to Henry Kissinger, described as the breakdown of the blue model. Union power declined, competition intensified - just as Michael Moore lamented in the film, it was not an easy time for everybody. However, the cosmetic served well. With new policies well implemented, economic index responded with great numbers. So did the stock market, so did the financial sector; and so people say of the economy and the president's legacy. Indeed, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

But this does not solve the moral problems incurred by the ever greater gap between the wealthy and the poor. In an electoral democracy, for a policy, or more precisely -- an ideology to become legitimate it has to promote the core ideas that have been deeply rooted in this nation ever since its foundation - well known as the "American dream" - which, in its simplest form, requires two most basic elements: freedom and equal opportunities. Of course, it is no difficulty to claim freedom in a capitalism for it is already a "free market", but the concept of "equal opportunities" is not an easy case. How could everyone be equal in a system in which more capital could be gained out of capital itself? How is deregulation supposed to promote equality when the ones with more wealth is granted with access to more influence, and hence even more wealth? This is where the economists, along with their terrifying-sounding jargons, weighed in. Drawing on one after another premises that are too good - and too simple - to be true, they derived elegant models functioning perfectly in equilibriums yet inherently inconsistent with reality. But politicians, as they always do, conveniently neglected those flaws in nature and with the help of speechwriters blended the pretty conclusions into their exciting orations. The "invisible hand", what a tempting yet handy idea - it's like finding the key to the ultimate mystery of the universe - sparing us the tedious thoughts of how our society and economy really work, develop, and interact with fast changing circumstances. Capitalism and the free market, as the Cold War ended in the collapse of the Soviet Union, soon earned their unchallengeable status in the realm of economic expertise. This, I firmly believe, is the ugly but real side of the truth: people blindly come to believe in those slogan-like theories not because of prudence, but because of laziness; for it is the one of the most common human nature of us to see what we want to see.

But, how about the immoral and unchristlike worship of "self-indulgence and consumption"? It indeed sounds like a righteous warning, doesn't it? Let me put this in relatively vague words for the sake of a bit wit here. When people see and hear of the media promotions of smoking elaborately plotted and sponsored by big evil tobacco companies, as depicted in Hollywood products, in either an upbraiding or a nostalgic way, they easily buy it, assuming that's what surely is bound to happen, as though the condescending liberal media elites just reclaimed their integrity out of blue. Nonetheless, contradictory to the common ground that government and politicians are evil, hypocritical, or, at best, incompetent, when it comes to massive political propaganda people easily get dismissive, disdainfully calling them conspiracies. Anyway, were those speculations to have been true, you have got to give applause to the gentlemen behind the curtain, for they can somehow manage to manipulate people to do and believe in things that are obviously against their own interests. It is truly a tour de force, works like magic.

Back to the film, and the ideology talk partly thanks to its title. It is amazing how frequently and strongly Michael Moore stress the term "socialism". And not in a Cold-War-minded way, but in a progressive and advocating way. So advocating that it proclaims socialism is the unfulfilled dream of FDR. So, how does the landscape really looks like in the US? Is it as biased as either side insists? Trying to answer that question, another popular liberal president, Jed Bartlet, would probably say, "Give me numbers." Fair enough. Let's take a look at them:

http://filer.blogbus.com/4598556/45985561268749559s.gif
http://filer.blogbus.com/4598556/45985561268749552q.gif

This poll was conducted earlier this year. It shows that, significantly, though 58% of Americans still maintain a negative image of socialism, among Democrats and leaner a majority of people share a positive one, and that majority grows even bigger when it comes to liberals, topping the "supermajority" threshold at 61%.

Also underlined in the film is Barack Obama's ascendency in polls during the '08 presidential election, which Michael Moore arbitrarily attributed to the underlying socialism in his rhetoric and agenda. It is easy to commit the mistake of post hoc ergo propter hoc, but the exhilarated crowd was real and hard. Young people, with their compassion and idealism yet to fade, are known to be the main components of the liberal base. This hypothetical electoral map below demonstrates that fact convincingly well:

http://filer.blogbus.com/4598556/45985561268757624r.jpg

These results altogether illustrate a sharp contrast with that across the Pacific, where the pro-capitalism outrage amid the young is burgeoning seemingly as fast as the economic growth. The bottom line is that it is widely acknowledged that China's economy and growth model are in fact ill and flawed, but is capitalism the solution to all our conundrums? I am too often astounded by the extend to which some of our professors and pundits, who are supposed to think and analyze in a much more comprehensive way, appear so naive as to blame many problems on the markets not being open, free, and in essence capitalist enough. The contemporary history of the US has already showed the idealistic promises of capitalism that everyone shares an equal opportunity to work his way into the upper class are nothing but a fantasy; in reality, it is never in its purest form but other derivatives, namely, crony capitalism. Which does little good to the society as a whole but quite the opposite, creating even more inequality in the long run. In an economy that is strong and hence resilient to tentative turbulences so long as the marginal well-being stays positive, it might take decades for a bubble to burst. Nevertheless, in an over populated nation governed by a young regime dealing with various inherent social tensions, it could lead to catastrophe.

So, what does all this imply? Should we just entirely reject the Western philosophies as merely historical blunders? Of course not. To me the very point here is that we are bestowed - in an ironic way - with this dual perspective on the nature of human society, in terms of how social progressivism driven by different values eventually converge at promoting human equality and how dogmatism could be manipulated to impede that momentum and ultimately undermine our integrity. For a nation in the face of a seemingly unstainable economy, for a people shadowed by a wobbling ethical system, this is an utterly important issue.

麦克摩尔，作为一个典型的愤中，一直不遗余力地揭露美国的伤疤。在他的新片里，美国已经到了水深火热的边缘，即将像罗马帝国一样崩溃。劳动人民不能保住自己的祖宅，不能保住自己的工作，华尔街控制了政府，只有工会才可以对抗贪婪的资本家，只有“社会主义”理想的奥巴马可以救美国。影片的结尾，奥巴马胜了，似乎美国即将发生“和平演变”。
 
可是，如果我们再仔细看这部片子，我们发现，麦克用来对比美国的是欧洲和日本，并没有用最强大的社会主义国家。他并没有我们期望的那么“左”。而且，影片的最后他也说：“我绝不会离开美国！”
 
作为一个精明的导演，麦克很清楚怎样可以吸引大家的眼球，善于挖掘热点，煽动情绪。但是，我相信他自己心里很清楚，他的所谓解决方案其实并不靠谱。
 
因为，这个世界不是非黑即白，利益关系的纠结并不仅限于劳资对立。就拿片头失去房子的那家来说吧，他们在那里居住了一辈子了，为什么会被赶走？如果是祖产，应该不是因为房价过高而断供。可以合理的预测，本来夫妇俩有很低的固定月供（15年到30年。或者他们本来没有月供，因为是从长辈那里继承来的。还不上贷款的原因是因为拿这个房子的最新估值重新申请了贷款，而且最有可能的是一个前两年只付利息不付本金的浮动利率贷款。这才有男主人后来说的每月的账单都在涨，直到无法支付。麦克没有问的是：他们为什么要贷款和新贷款的用途。BBC有个电影叫《自由落体》，对次贷的各方有更详尽的描述。http://i.mtime.com/1375117/blog/2983041/。我们常说，在街头被骗的几乎都是贪小便宜的，如果没有自身的贪婪，华尔街也很难得逞，天下本没有免费的午餐。作为一个资深的制作人，实在不应该如此断章取义。
 
还有就是对几位总统的褒贬，除了罗斯福，其他的人基本上都是小丑。麦克有自己的偏见，而且乐于在影片中强调这种偏见，但是看片的人首先需要知道他有偏见，才能从他提供的信息中得出自己的分析。这里，我想大家应该去看刘瑜写的《民主的细节》，参考一下一个真正的社会学学者看待问题的角度。她有一篇文章是写麦克的《Sicko》的，其中把麦克义愤填膺提出的问题用了一句话作为反问：谁来买单？提问题永远比解决问题容易，提问题是麦克的价值所在，但他并没有解决方案。从某种意义上来讲，麦克是一个机会主义者，他通过简化问题而提出貌似直接的解决办法。如果我们完全照他的来，肯定会乱套。比如他赞扬了那位发明新药而不要专利的科学家，但同时又为飞行员和麦当劳的经理工资一样低而愤愤不平。到底知识的价值是什么标准，他自己大概也没搞清楚。
 
我们的世界里有没有绝对完美的制度？自由与平等是否永远统一？刘瑜作为一个深刻理解政治和社会结构的学者，没有试图给我们简单的解决方案，而是通过一个个小例子给我们尽可能的提供更多的信息，强调从不同角度看问题的必要性。就拿看麦克的电影来讲，她会去找自己的数据来验证麦克提出建议的可行性。拿几个悲剧人物博得同情容易，理解社会大框架下的各种矛盾才是最终理社会发展方向的前提。同样，她直言不会选奥巴马当总统，而是会选麦克凯恩。当大多数人都把目光放在一个会说口号，会发动群众的明星身上时，有几个真正理性的人会注意政客真正的价值和业绩？
 
麦克的意义在于，他意识到弱势群体的处境，利用他自己的才能，为这些群体发出声音，他让你激动。刘瑜的意义在于，告诉我们事情为什么会是这样，民主体现于每一天的一件件小事，而不是一个空洞的概念或者是包治百病的良药，她让你思考。
 
奥巴马上台已久了，可是他所声称的改变并没有达到追随者的期望，我想麦克也是失望的人之一吧。说的容易，做起来难。民主党的老巢马萨诸塞最近让一个共和党人当了州长也算是选民一种回归理性的表现。就像麦克影片里讲的，每个人都有一票，这一票代表了他们的权利和权力。如果共和党人真是一无是处，那么这只能说人民愚昧了。
对照着书看电影，算是一种新的体验，此为第一篇。

去年的九月，我们正坐在商学院里上课，教授走进来说：上课之前，请大家看看今天的日期，记住它。
那天，雷曼宣布破产，美林宣布被美银收购。那天，华尔街再一次成为世界的焦点——一个巨人笨拙地倒下，发出一声闷响，掸起一地尘埃，围观者心惊，无助地捂着眼睛抓着头发，半响说不出话来。

资本主义，自由经济，deregulation，还有，American dreams.
这就如同一场盲目而执着的恋爱，你爱得深沉爱得义无反顾爱得连自己都被自己感动了，然后突然有一天，你发现，你爱的这一切，你并不真正了解。

对，麦克摩尔就给我们讲的是这个盲目而别致的爱的故事。

我和一群女朋友，一群在商学院挣扎着理解教授们关于金融衍生产品的定义和期货期权以及其他充满创造力和想象力的金融产品的价值衡量等“学术”概念里转来转去的我们，对金融业充满着憧憬和初生牛犊不怕虎的傻气的学生们，坐在电影院里，听麦克摩尔给我们讲这个故事。

多生动啊。

和恋爱一样，这样一种爱，对体制的爱，是不能完全分清青红皂白的，是不能pin point说真的谁就evil谁就不是了。对，你可以说那些银行“欺负”了贫民，你也可以说，那些政府官员为了自己的利益，自己集团的利益，一部分程度上滥用了纳税人的钱。但是，这是一部分程度上。你不能不说的是，什么样的经济大背景下，那些决策者面对的压力和大局的考量——事发之后总要有人来收拾，收拾必然会出现资本的分配，分配就有不均。而且，人渣哪里都存在。我们为那些失去家园的贫民们表示悲哀。但如果说这就是资本主义的错——至少摩尔先生认为如此——那么，你能找到任何一种体制，一种经济体制，能够解决贫富差异的问题么？哦，别告诉我是共产主义，政治教科书上说，那是一种理想。
这理想就像永恒的爱情一样，是一种古老的传说。

美国人民信仰资本主义，信仰美国梦，就像投入一场恋爱。
于是这是美国人民，尤其是美国平民的一次失恋。
而且似乎还是初恋失恋，于是痛得这样深刻，悲恸地让人叹息。

作为观众，我要说，摩尔把这一场失恋描述得细致而深刻。
作为半个“业内人士”，这就像是一堂道德课。
而作为一个曾经在美国呆过，接触过那些中低层美国人生活的我，摩尔带给我自己的“美国梦”冲击也着实不小，把自己观察到的和在影片中看到的，由一个一个点连成了线，连成了画面，连成了我更加真实的认识，它们矫正着我的憧憬，带来了前所未有的思考。

最后，作为一个在不同制度下接受教育的留学生，由摩尔纪录片得以上映，并拿到如此多的材料和愿意透露姓名站在摄影机前做一名“目击者”的这件事本身，带给我的冲击更大。

美国人虽然失恋了。
我们却全可以从这失恋中学到这么多。
这是任何一场失恋能带给我们的——不是得到，就是学到。

刚考完“全球化和世界秩序”，不想干正事，于是上百度百科回答问题，发现有一个人提出如下问题：

“资本主义跟社会主义的最大区别？ 最好举个栗子 或者比较明显的现象 咱不要牵扯到马克思 我跟他不熟”

我想，又是个没受高等教育、不懂民主公司，不懂前沿社会主义发展和国际关系的人，受了披着社会主义外衣的权贵资本主义毒害不说，还不懂马克思基础原理。不看马克思你看什么社会主义，你看无政府主义？

冷笑后，我做出了如下回答：

资本主义是建立在私有经济上的社会制度，其经济制度以个人为单位，实行自由竞争和优胜劣汰。其一个良好的模板是在政治上实行民主制，每人一票，享受理论上平等的个人政治权利

而在经济上实行等级制，最富有的人，拥有最多生产工具的人掌握最多的经济权力（注意权力和权利的区别，前者是用来统治他人的，后者是用来维系自我的）。而对于一个社会而言，政治制度是建立在经济基础之上的，经济对政治起基础性作用，因而更多的经济权力意味着更多的政治权力，此时在资本主义下占经济统治位的群体，如企业家，金融家，就能成为社会政治的实际统治者。

因而资本主义民主具有先天不稳定性和“堕落倾向”，即金元政治，在美国，被越来越多的政治学家所批评。

政治对经济具有反作用，获得政治统治地位经济精英，会利用其权力尽可能地为自己谋取经济利益，摄取社会财富——因为社会财富是有限的，朝着精英集中化就意味着贫富的悬殊化，而“占领华尔街”正是一种针对金融资本家在政治垄断下进行经济掠夺的反抗。
 

真正的社会主义, 是在经济和政治上的全方位民主。

在政治上实现个人自由、民主选举执政代理人、权力制约和监督，即所有现行资本主义民主制的特点。同时，在经济上实行民主分配——这就是所谓的“公有制”，公有制，不是建立在非民选执政机关垄断生产工具上的，那只是极权主义或权贵资本主义，因为政府不是你选的，政府不代表你。公有制是建立在公民民主分配经济资源上的，可以是直接分配（你和你的同事直接分配公司资源，选举公司老板），也可以是间接分配（你选举议员作为你的代表，而议员来为你分配经济资源）。但原则是：每人都有对等的决定权，不根据你的职位的高低、工种而区别——一个社会主义经济的标志是“工作场所的民主”你选举你的老板，老板既对公司业绩负责，也对每一个员工的利益负责。
 
这样的在经济政治中全方位的真正的社会主义，在历史上还没出现过，但目前，在美国和德国的部分产业中开始出现，如有一家美国威斯康辛州的面包制造公司，就实行民主制，这叫“民主公司”（Democratic Company，上谷歌搜，比如这个链接http://workplacedemocracy.com/）也见于麦克摩尔的电影《资本主义——一个爱情故事》http://www.qire123.com/videos/22464vod-play-id-22464-sid-1-pid-0.html，56：55）

在那里，一个面包装配线的普通工人和公司总裁的基础工资是一样的，65000美元每年，奖金根据每人的加班时间平等估算，65000美元，是一个新手美国空军飞行员年收入的3倍
 
也有一些德国年轻人受社会主义理想的趋势，创办利益均沾、民主选举老板的公司。而最近出现的“社会企业”“微信贷”，如格莱芒银行（Grameen Bank），以穷人为主要顾客源，以主要顾客源而不是股东作为公司所有者。。。这些，都是社会主义经济的雏形。


美国民主公司官方网址：
http://workplacedemocracy.com/

维基百科对“民主公司”的定义：
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_economy


天朝现在走的是权贵资本主义道路，对真正的社会主义了解很少，所以网上现在没有关于民主公司的中文文件，只有英文原文。


记住

资本主义制度是：经济上实行私有制和等级制，政治上重视人权，实行只保障基本人权而不保障政治权力的民主制

社会主义制度是：经济上实行民主制和自由分配，同样保障私有财产，公民各取所需；政治上实行彻底的稳定的民主制。

所谓“彻底的、稳定的民主制”，就是在经济和政治上全方位的民主，民主决定社区政治事务，民主决定经济再分配——不但一个政治组织的事务应该由这个组织内的所有成员直接/间接决定，即使是一个经济组织里面的事务，也应该由组织内的所有成员直接/间接地决定。这样才是真正的社会主义。

官僚控制的国有经济，不是社会主义经济，而只是带有社会主义理想的权贵资本主义经济。

所以社会主义是需要极发达的物质条件作为基础的。站在这个角度，它必然需要社会经历资本主义的过程，所以说《资本论》预言的是正确的，真正的社会主义将在发达国家率先实现。要了解真正的社会主义，你必须看马克思，你所讨厌的，不是马克思，而是天朝政治对马克思的曲解

这个阴谋论拍滴有点蠢，michael moore是一个典型的思路混乱，又喜欢哗众取宠滴美国佬。话说我虽不偏向拥有话语权的权贵，但是一直认为对于穷人，尤其是那些只会抱怨为富不仁，整天期盼着免费午餐的穷人，也没什么好同情的，话说可怜之人必有可恨之处。。。

只不过在中国，情况又不一样。中国国民素质低下的根本不是穷人，而是那帮自恃为精英，占有着社会资源却又不履行相应社会责任的黑领们。。。哎哟，开始愤青了。。。

什么是聪明的阴谋论，可以去看一下Zeitgeist,绝对会带来一个paradigm shift.