爱情故事2009

奥巴马貌似不是社会主义者，他硬是给共和党敌对阵营逼成了，老是非此即彼选边站，一如冷战时期政府对待卡斯特罗这老地主一样，关于那笔政府救济金的发放，面对政府干预市场是社会主义行为的质疑时,有当值政府官员比喻巧妙：”如果一座房子失火，有孩子深陷呼喊，你在救人之前是否还要考虑自身的绑架嫌疑。”搞得脱口秀主持人当时语塞，现在答案是：“那火是假的，是与银行资本家勾结的执政者干的,就像伊拉克战事一样，政府喜欢因势利导，夸大事实捕风捉影，维护自身与资本利益。
幸亏那钱没像国会议员提议的那样发放给劳苦大众，否则奥巴马就一步到位成共产者了，毕竟事实是资金还是流向了资本，上层建筑要倒塌那就叫革命而非金融政变了。
美国梦的铸造旨在同一世界统一梦想，然而如今的美国早已不是冒险家们那片尚待开发的热土，它被资本意志所顶礼膜拜的贪婪开发殆尽，“富不过三代”，刚做做次贷二元方程就刨出底了。
此时美国人民才发现自己与资本拥有者还是有区别的，而且区别不小，贫富两极到没有中间值，真正资产阶级的世界要大过普罗大众，自己不过是替银行打工的有产者，并不是银行的有产者，前者是被压榨的对象而非格格林斯潘所谓的压榨者，世界不能全是有产者，必定有人要破产，而运用资产谁是银行家的对手，所以打工的有产者变成了街友，街友们一时无法适应自己的社会新身份，说：“到处是闲置丢弃的街道楼房，这等萧条还是美国吗？”于是突然发现自己的先辈们以难民的身份漂洋过海到底不是为了繁衍新型难民的，有1%的难民做的比我好，于是对这1%的好学生难民产生对立情绪，有了对立面就会产生阶级斗争，美国人大梦初醒，发现这世界还有另一种社会结构自己没见过，听说很坏，但先拿来救救难民的急也好。
PS:摩尔总是以已出发身体力行的站在一个普通美国民众的角度拍个人感触，而不是什么公共知识分子或评论员的高度，这是他成功的很大原因。

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.

Michael Moore还是麦氏的风格。看过片子，上豆瓣看了看评论，发言者寥寥，好在评分不错。

相比三枪和花木兰这样的片子，这部片子很难触动豆油们的萌点。毕竟来豆瓣论左右，哇，太意识形态，也太不 douban-stylish 了。

有人说，这是美国人的事情，老美觉醒了。有人说，靠，摩尔又在拍这种“伪纪录片”了，太意识形态。还有人干脆直接攻击说，哼，就是一左派嘛！没人爱看老愤青，好在是美国的；没人喜欢偏激，好在我们都知道摩尔拍的是“伪纪录片”。

我不知道讨论一种名为“资本主义”的社会建构和价值体系，有什么客观的方式？也不知道，在如今的中国，左派已经变成什么又丑又土又愚蠢的“妖魔”。好歹这里还有一个人敢于在美国这个谈社会主义色变的话语氛围中批评并探讨另一种可能性，好歹这是一个真的值得更多人去关注和探讨的“未来该如何”的真问题。

老麦知道，资本主义作为一种经济制度与民主作为一种政治制度与程序规范不是一码事儿，甚至美国和资本主义也曾经不是一码事儿。意识形态中无所不能的自由市场经济在今天的世界早已名存实亡。

但在中国，曾经是另一种更美好社会试验田的土地，很多人已经不知道这个常识了。所以，我们都相信，今日的美国是我们的better Golden day。

老麦是不太可能超出美国思维了，所以他能找到的正面例子是欧洲和日本，反面例子是苏联和mao中国。

正如，我们也不太能超出我们的中国思维一样，所以我们能找到的正面例子是美国，而反面例子，呃，大概就是还不够“美国”的中国吧！

想起一句话戴锦华老师的一句话，没有一笔历史遗产不是债务，也没有一部历史债务不是遗产。在历史的债务与遗产面前，我们不怕伪纪录片，怕的是连问题都不再能触达的虚无。

ps 有时候豆瓣很烦，很娘娘腔

最近網上流行一句話說，少時不努力，老大搞IT。

南方朔說，無論任何社會，中産階級都是最主要的穩定力量，他們由于多半是有點技術的上班及上工族，而且經濟條件尚可，他們的價值觀遂比較個人傾向，他們不會去煩人，也不希望被政府煩。他們權利義務分明，多半都希望就這樣平安幸福的終其一生。但這種卑微的願望，現在卻已變得愈來愈遙遠。

Moore說，美國的中產階級消失了，靠在企業做工買的起房，3年換新車的生活已經不存在了。

 

於此我恍然大悟：按美國50年前中產的標準和南方朔中產的定義，買的起房，買的起車，有點技術又個人化並希望安於此境，如今的中國大陸中產階級好像根本就不存在，南方朔說的這種人在中國跟現在美國的這種人同樣，成了Peasant，翻譯為民工我想更加確切，這就不難解釋少壯不努力，老大搞IT了，在中國除非你成為公僕OR紅頂，如同在美國你西裝革履在華爾街上班，不然你就是個Peasant。他們有American Dreanm，我們還有Chinese Dream呢，呵呵，哈哈，哈哈哈哈。

 

美國被商人掌控了，中國則被公僕和紅頂商人掌控。如此看來，中國的中產者產生於那個楊百萬的時代，終結於和世界接軌之後，前後短短10多幾年。世界也差不多，80年代出生的我們，見證了一個時代，中國的，世界的，我是指，從80年開始，美國變成了華爾街的賺錢工具，中國變成了公僕們日積月累不斷鼠竊的糧倉，蘇俄則被那些心狠手辣，眼疾手快的紅色寡頭買下來了，這個世界正在如此同步的轉化為富人和窮人的世界，讓人不經懷疑，是否冥冥中自有天命。

 

American dream就像美國人的一場戀愛，美國人失戀了，然後中國人開始追求她。中國人多久會嘗到失戀的苦果呢？

 

或許Moore給我們了一個結論，democracy。誰知道呢？

Michael Moore对于美国，大概相当于台湾的李敖。欣赏的他们的原因也是一样，言论虽然极端，但是背后总是有一大堆数据和文件来佐证。何况现在的社会，太缺少这样的声音了。我猜导演也不把自己当成一个纯粹的电影工作者。而同样的，我们几乎不能用一般的标准来衡量这部电影。

作为一个金融工作者，我目击了两年半来市场神奇的变化。世界末日曾经来过。我们可以如此健忘，难怪历史一直重复。又或者你无知到都不曾感觉到世界末日来过。就好像开始工作之前我也对LTCM一无所知，对房地产市场毫无兴趣。如果你像我曾经那样无知，请看这部电影，你会知道一些你应该知道的事情。比方说雷曼兄弟的倒闭来自于同为犹太人投行的劲敌高盛在华尔街的散播谣言。比方说AIG被美国政府解救高盛丝毫没受金融危机影响反而比从前盈利更高的主要原因是高盛与美国政府高层的密切关系。就好像LTCM事件一样，为华尔街买单的是老老实实的交税人。

百分之一的人控制百分之九十五以上的财富，这就是资本主义，没有道德可言。从个人的角度，我们总是可以尽量保证自己不是最严重的受害者，但是总是有人会受到伤害。而制约伤害的方法真的是民主吗？

给了5颗星，是因为它的时代性，值得每个人去关注。

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