资本主义：一个爱情故事

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.

我想我在精神上某处应该是上升了一个层次，如果我开始为了记录片而不是剧情片流眼泪的话。

只是，作为一个不跟经济专业沾边的局外人，一个流离在美国的异乡人，为了被腐蚀的美国梦大放悲歌，难免有些自作多情。我怀着这样又激动又惭愧的情绪无处抒发，因为我知道，无论是已看过的还是将要看的，说它好还是说它坏的，很少再会有人跟我有一样的感触了。

五星给Michigan。

影片一开始，他说我生在Flint, Michigan, GM的总部所在地。这个时候我身在Dearborn, Michigan, Ford的总部所在地。我在这里三年了，三年间我无数次地听人说，不要去东边的底特律啊，那是美国最乱的一个城市；也不要去北边的Flint啊，那是美国第二乱的城市。我们是异乡人嘛，听到这些话的时候只需要乖乖地做出惊恐的表情，而不用体会他们背后的悲凉。我也无数次听人说，以前这里如何是美国的工业重镇、经济支柱，福特大楼如何风光，底特律大街上人潮熙攘。异乡人，我们同样只需要叹息一声“来的不是时候”，所有属于他们的悲哀、痛惜就由他们去吧。

可是影片里的michigan看得我心痛了。那些废弃的工地，破旧的遗址，那些被赶出家门的大胖子工人看得我心痛了。我从来不知道长成一个大胖子，笨重地搬着家具，放火烧掉，然后低低地骂着人，有这样让人心痛的力量。

给Michael Moore。

都说他是主观的纪录片导演。可我热爱他固执的主观。啊，他也是一个大胖子，在美国随处可见的那一种，拥有撼动人心的力量。我喜欢他的叙事方式，怎么严肃也遮掩不住的幽默，对经典轻轻的致敬和重重的玩弄。至于他身上那些刺眼的永恒存在的激进，大抵是真的勇士才能做得出的。作为旁白的声音也很好听，胖子都有好听的声音。

在底特律中心的大楼下，他被警卫拦住，他说我是Michael Moore，我拍了这么多年的电影还从来没有说我哪里不能进；他拖着他肥胖的身躯在华尔街拉上犯罪现场的拦幅，拿着大喇叭喊你们都是罪犯。我不禁在想中国的名导们都在做什么。嗯我听说了，他们在拍纯爱文艺片和所谓灾难伦理片。意义在哪里？力量在哪里？我们不需要更多温情了啊。

给Blockbuster。

有一件伤心的巧事。我家电影一直是在Blockbuster租的，这部也不例外。我租下这部不久，就突然有人告诉我Blockbuster，美国最大最老资格的影片出租公司，申请破产保护了。我对破产的Lehman Brothers没有过什么感情，对GM也没有太多感情。在金融危机这么久以后，Blockbuster成了我最不忍卒读的一个。我常去那里租电影，因为他们有很多家门店遍布周围，更因为他们有异常热心的店员，总是忙不迭地过来跟我们介绍电影，比冷冰冰的寄来寄去的Netflix好很多。遇到的每一个人都看起来那么乐观，那么健谈，啊，还有，喜欢Denzel Washington和Leonardo DiCaprio，每个人都是。我总想，他们是因为经常看电影才这么心情舒畅呢，还是心情足够舒畅了才被招来做店员？

这件事情以后，我似乎不敢再去那里了。我怕看到任何忧伤的面孔，或是紧闭的门，或是不再出现的人。我只有把看过的电影默默寄回去，再等着下一部默默寄来。

给所有拒绝留下又不要离开的人。

影片最后他说，I refuse to live in a country like this - and I'm not leaving. 我不要在这样一个国家生活，可我不会离开的。拒绝留下又不要离开，这是每个深爱这片土地的人的困境。我看到更多更多的人，愤怒着，叫嚣着，辱骂着，却更安心地留着。

给你们。

其实还挺触目惊心的。最简单的一句话就是，买了房子之后尽早还贷款，因为美国银行已经改了法律条款，可以提高loan rate的。而且千万千万不要refinance ur house，不然落得个倾家荡产流离失所可就不是好玩儿的了。当然，除非你也想像片子中的老兄们听到的国会议员建议那样做，耍无赖就是不走。

其实当Obama当选之后导演的态度大转变就让我厌恶到不行。这总统这么厉害这么优秀，成效在哪里呢？我们怎么都还没有看见。最后争取自己权益的还不是咱们working class自己嘛？

我这一辈子是不想去美国的，老师在那里实在是没办法混，这一点看我在这里的美国同事们有多开心就知道了

最后的国际歌还挺那什么的～～
咱们工人有力量

片子本身还有些不够客观，依然带了太多的Michael Moore自身的观点，远远没有<Food Inc.>好。

最后说一句，可以看一看的，哪怕是抱着审视和怀疑的态度去看。

       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。