资本主义：一个爱情故事

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。

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

       一部让我看到金融危机给美国普通民众究竟带来多大灾难的电影。我想这部电影，导演想告诉我们的是：金融危机不是天灾，不是无法控制的灾难，而是由人性之贪婪引发的一场人祸。
    有人批判导演的主观，有人批判这部电影是站在利益遭到损害的人的立场上说话，但我庆幸我这社会主义一名普通的民众能看到世界上最富有的国家里身处和我一样阶级的人告诉我，他们目前的生活现状。这部电影轻轻刺痛了我对未来的憧憬，让我反思我的现在、我的生存坏境，关注我们的政治经济体制。不能不说，它就像吸尘器一样，让我这粒小灰尘明白，我们以为的安全感从来都是自以为是，当你遭受欺骗的时候，你要不承受，要不就反抗，再不就让自己成为金字塔尖的那1%的像美国高盛的主管。
    其实从来都知道这些，只是再一次展现在眼前时，从来没有料到现状如此触目惊心，如此规模之大，如此地不受控制。大部分都没觉察到，或许只有此时此刻，才会引起反思，金融危机造成的影响才会备受重视。

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？