|
????民眾抗議活動正在全世界風(fēng)起云涌：美國的占領(lǐng)華爾街運動，希臘、西班牙、倫敦和歐洲其他地區(qū)的示威活動，中國農(nóng)村的暴力群體性事件，以及“阿拉伯之春”革命。然而，涉及這些活動，最重要的一個事實在于，抗議無關(guān)乎金錢或不平等。倘若果真如此，處理起來反而會更容易一些。相反，這些活動與抗議者所感受的不公有關(guān)，反映了一個更深刻，更激烈的問題。 ????目前，職業(yè)示威者、工會，以及不愿意放過任何一個折磨公司高管機會的其他人開始接管抗議活動，美國的抗議怒火或許很快就會黯淡下去。但正是這場抗議活動引發(fā)的星星之火讓我們有了全新的、有意義的發(fā)現(xiàn)。這場抗議活動的根源似乎在于抗議者的感受，他們認為自己沒有獲得公平的機會，來分享經(jīng)濟繁榮的成果?？棺h者堅信，大型公司，特別是各大銀行，操縱經(jīng)濟體系為其自身謀利，而令普通民眾承受苦難。 ????抗議者感受到的這種不公正是他們?nèi)缃衽豢啥舻恼嬲?。沒錯，許多華爾街高管是賺了很多錢，但還有些人賺的錢要比他們多得多，比如對沖基金經(jīng)理人。然而，沒有人跑到康涅狄格州郊區(qū)，去這些經(jīng)理人的辦公室外露營抗議。就這一點來說，美國熱愛沃倫?巴菲特，就像它過去熱愛當(dāng)時的首富山姆?沃爾頓一樣。擁有億萬身家的同胞自身并沒不會讓人們怒火中燒。 ????即便經(jīng)濟上的不平等也不足以驅(qū)使人們走上街頭。30多年來，美國的不平等指數(shù)一直有增無減。期間的大部分時間內(nèi)，富人越來越富，窮人也越來越富，但富人致富的速度更快。雖然貧富差距在拉大，但只要所有人的境遇都在改善，不滿情緒就不會爆發(fā)。跟經(jīng)濟困難時期通常的狀況一樣，最近這次衰退期內(nèi)的平等指數(shù)其實下降了。如果不平等是問題所在， 2007年的時候人們應(yīng)該比今天更加憤怒。 ????現(xiàn)在的新情況是，近幾年來，中低收入者的經(jīng)濟狀況并未像高收入者那樣獲得持續(xù)改善。衰退發(fā)生后，就業(yè)機會增幅之緩慢前所未有，讓許多人感到他們被剝奪了應(yīng)有的改善生活的機會。從更廣泛的層面來說，中低收入者覺得自己正在遭受懲罰，盡管他們并沒有做錯任何事情，而那些在他們看來應(yīng)該為整個混亂局面負責(zé)的人（即銀行家們）反而獲得了緊急援助，而且還在賺大錢。這種不公正令人義憤填膺。 ????同樣的不安定因素也出現(xiàn)在世界各地的抗議活動中，盡管具體表現(xiàn)形式有所不同。它們或許是明目張膽的腐敗行為（比如中國和中東），或許是遭到踐踏的社會契約（比如歐洲）。無辜者慘遭懲罰，有罪者獲得獎賞。兩種情況并存，令人無法容忍。 ????就美國而言，這樣的論斷有失偏頗，在某種程度上甚至完全錯誤。參與占領(lǐng)華爾街抗議運動的大多數(shù)人或許不知道，作為納稅人，他們實際上受益于針對銀行的救助行動。他們可能已經(jīng)忘記了，數(shù)以百萬計的美國人現(xiàn)在之所以被取消房屋的贖買權(quán)，正是因為他們當(dāng)初心甘情愿，甚至迫不及待地辦理了超出其負擔(dān)能力的抵押貸款業(yè)務(wù)。一些抗議者則非常無知。比如，有位抗議者在回答《紐約時報》（the New York Times）的采訪提問時說，他從沒聽說過沃倫?巴菲特這個人。另外一位抗議者則向全國公共廣播電臺（NPR）抱怨稱，“我們正在為救助行動買單?！边€有一位對《紐約時報》說，維珍美國 （Virgin America）是一家很好的航空公司，因為它“正致力于太陽能飛機的研發(fā)?！?/p> ????這一切都沒關(guān)系。人們知道或不知道什么，并不重要。唯一重要的是他們的切身感受。 ????幾年前，在一個風(fēng)云人物匯集的私人會議上，一位CEO直陳美國富人和中產(chǎn)階級長期以來的財富分歧傾向。會議主持人亨利?基辛格評論稱，這一局面有可能引發(fā)“一場社會和政治災(zāi)難”。這種論斷或許看起來有點危言聳聽，但他說得完全正確。當(dāng)時欠缺的只是強烈的不公正感，而現(xiàn)在這個條件已經(jīng)具備。 ????即使占領(lǐng)華爾街運動最終偃旗息鼓，但引發(fā)這場抗議的火種卻不會就此消失。我們應(yīng)該把這場運動視為一個警告。滅頂之災(zāi)距離我們還很遙遠，而且并非不可避免的。但我們距離那一天確實又更近了一步。 ????譯者：任文科 |
????he most important fact to realize about the rash of popular protests around the world -- Occupy Wall Street in the U.S., demonstrations in Greece, Spain, London, and elsewhere in Europe, violent uprisings in rural China, even the revolutions of the Arab Spring -- is that they aren't about money or inequality. If they were, they'd be easier to deal with. They're about perceived injustice, which reflects a deeper, fiercer problem. ????The spark of the U.S. movement may soon be obscured as it's taken over by career protesters, labor unions, and others who enjoy any chance to torment corporate managers. But the spark is where we find what's new and meaningful, and it seems to have emanated from a feeling by the protesters that they aren't getting a fair shot at prosperity. They believe that big companies, specifically major banks, have rigged the system to their own benefit and to the suffering of ordinary people. ????That perceived injustice is the real root of today's rage. Yes, many Wall Street executives make tons of money, but plenty of hedge fund managers, for example, make far, far more, yet no one is camping outside their suburban Connecticut offices. For that matter, America loves Warren Buffett, just as it loved Sam Walton when he was the country's richest man. Fellow citizens making billions do not by themselves get many people riled. ????Even economic inequality isn't enough to send mobs into the street. Inequality in the U.S. has been increasing for over 30 years. During most of that period the rich were getting richer, and the poor were getting richer, but the rich were getting richer faster. Though the gap was widening, the lid stayed on discontent as long as everyone was moving ahead. Inequality actually diminished in the recent recession, as it usually does in tough times. If inequality were the problem, people would be less upset today than they were in 2007. ????What's new is that those with medium and lower incomes have not been getting richer for several years, while those with high incomes have been, and the unprecedented slowness of post-recession job growth has left many feeling deprived of their rightful opportunity to improve their lot. More broadly, they feel they're being punished even though they did nothing wrong, while those whom they blame for the whole mess -- the bankers -- got bailed out and are raking it in. Infuriating injustice. ????The elements are the same in protests worldwide, whether the specific grievance is blatant corruption, as in China and the Middle East, or violation of the social compact, as in Europe. The innocent are punished while the guilty are rewarded. That combination is intolerable. ????In the U.S. this narrative is flawed and in some ways plain wrong. Most of the Occupy Wall Street protesters probably don't know that they, as taxpayers, actually made money from the bank bailout. They may be forgetting that millions of Americans are being foreclosed on because they willingly, even eagerly, took out mortgages they couldn't afford. Some protesters are simply clueless, like one who responded to a question from the New York Times by saying he'd never heard of Warren Buffett, or one who complained to NPR that "we're paying for the bailout," or one who told the Times that the airline Virgin America is a good company because it's "working on creating solar planes." ????It doesn't matter. What people know or don't know isn't important. All that counts is what they feel. ????At a private meeting of movers and shakers a few years ago, a CEO presented the facts on the long-term diverging fortunes of the wealthy and the middle class in the U.S. Henry Kissinger, who was chairing the meeting, observed that the situation held the makings of "a social and political cataclysm." It seemed an overly dramatic pronouncement, but he was right. Only a feeling of powerful injustice was missing, and now it's here. ????Even if Occupy Wall Street should evaporate, the fuel that's feeding it will not. Think of it as a warning. Cataclysm is a long way off, and it certainly isn't inevitable. But we're a little bit closer. |
????
最新文章