爱情故事2009

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

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.

其实，我是摩尔大叔的粉丝，他之前的几部，我都看得津津有味。只是，从 "Bowling for Columbine" (2002), "Fahrenheit 9/11" (2004), "Sicko" (2007)　到这一部《资本主义：一个爱情故事》，我必须承认，大叔江郎才尽了。
 
大叔的那种有些幽默感的讽刺(让我称其作comical satire)，我曾经非常喜欢。这一次，他又试图炮制一部comical satire, 只是不知是我厌倦了，还是这次大叔耍得水平不够，幽默好冷，讽刺方面也不具之前那种直刺心肺的力量。
 
可能年龄大些了，阅历多些了，就更能头脑清晰、对事物作出客观的判断，大叔的作品我现在看来，实在是过于偏激、煽情和挑斗，逻辑混乱又太把自己当回事。这部片子中又有一些他强行采访未果的镜头，让我有些忍俊不禁。也许，像有些豆友所指出的，大叔这次选择了过为宏大的题目，实在“螳臂当车”。
 
Michael Moore　富于自我审视和批判的精神，这一点也许比一般美国人强，但作为一个电影人，他的水准好像一直没有提高。这部影片但愿不是他电影生涯的最低点。
 
下次看到Michael Moore的新作，我会好好考虑到底要不要看。
 
评分：6.5 out of 10

2011.9.25

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.

这片子跟华氏911一比，差了不止3条街。缺了阴谋论，看上去就很乏味，以至于后半段简直令人昏昏欲睡。对资本主义的血泪控诉，就这点桥段，都不好意思写进我国的政治教材啊（话说按今天的眼光看，80年代的中学政治教科书很像另类科幻，什么牛奶倒大海，什么证交所多过米店，竟然都一一应验了）。说实话，我真的很想推荐老麦看一看我国80年代的中学政治教科书，虽然分析我国的事情不怎么靠谱，但是找资本主义的茬，那还是相当地一针见血啊。

其实华尔街，多好的阴谋论题材啊，但看到老麦对函数的导数满头黑线，就知道这不是他可以驾驭的了（不如请宋鸿兵来当顾问）？于是剩下的就只有感情宣泄了；美国本来是很好的，都是布什/鲍尔森良心让狗吃了，只要信天主信民主（党）以及巴马，于是乎就万事大吉了。红脖子智商固然低，但也没有这么好忽悠的吧。而且话说巴马上台已经两年了，那下次再怎么拍呢？看情形是要搞”党内出了佩洛西这样的走资派“之类的桥段了。

既然对问题没有深入的分析，老麦开出的药方也是可笑的。”罗斯福多活几年就好了“，算是解决方案？要知道罗斯福的social security现在都快破产了唉。人人有工作，人人有房子住，人人有医疗，哪个不需要花钱的啊？当然罗斯福有可能办得到，您老自己在开头就说了，那是因为欧洲日本都被还原成2D了嘛。

说老实话，搞福利国家北欧可以，日本可以，但是美国不可以，因为美国是老大，天塌下来也只能硬顶着，养懒人的下场就是老大地位不保，这个是一点办法都没有的事情。

喂喂，最后摇滚版的ED是虾米意思啊？欺负美宣部的同志们没有听过国际歌是吧？伟大导师教导我们，革命不是请客吃饭，自发的，盲目的，没有xx党领导的，那个啥啥啥，终归是要失败的。哼着小曲就想改天换日，那是门也没有的。现如今只有我国纪念的51劳动节和38妇女节，想当初都是芝加哥工人的滚滚人头啊。