我知道有很多人讀過這部小說後會萌生幹掉作者的衝動，但是閣下不必著急，總有人會比你先下手的。
其實我最初的想法只是寫一部簡單的諷刺明星的小說，然而可能因為我是一個比較傾向於現實主義的作者吧，所以寫著寫著便不能滿足於單一的明星這個主題，繼而轉向去刻畫整個社會的面貌。還有一個轉換主題的原因是我對明星的關注很少，所以可以諷刺的話題很是有限，該諷刺的話在第一章已經說得差不多了。但是明星們也不要這麼快就松一口氣，差不多並不代表全部，別想著這麼容易就蒙混過關哦（如果沒有人想幹掉作者才是怪事咧）。
抽絲剝繭以後的社會是兒童不宜的，所以共產黨說設置網路防火牆是為了保護青少年的身心健康是有一定道理的。
彭明輝先生曾說：“猜猜看，這一句話說的是那個時代？「廟堂之上，朽木為官；殿陛之間，禽獸食祿。狼心狗行之輩，滾滾當朝；奴顏婢膝之徒，紛紛秉政。以致社稷丘墟，蒼生塗炭。」是不是很像今天的臺灣？”
大陸的社會狀況，我可以負責任地說，並不比彭明輝先生所描寫的要樂觀，甚至是更糟糕。
至於香港的社會壞境，我相信香港人也冷暖自知。
目前整個大中華地區都彌漫著的一絲壓迫感與不安感，表面看似平靜，內裏暗流湧動，這和上世紀六十到七十年代的美國是何其相似啊？黑色幽默的文學就是在那動盪不安的時代裏產生的。歷史總是驚人相似的，今日我們輾轉又回到了那樣的年代。這樣的年代如果不能催生一點黑色幽默文學，那才是不可思議的。
這部小說並不像很多黑色幽默小說一樣只有一個諷刺的主題，它所諷刺的事物包羅萬象，因為它的主旨就是反映出一個最真實的社會。正因如此，它可能會得罪很多人，例如明星（在小說中的昵稱是戲子），（假）共產黨，信徒（其實我的初衷並沒有想諷刺宗教，但是不諷刺一下宗教，Richard Dawkins的書好像就白讀了），華爾街（同上，不諷刺一下華爾街，Joseph Stiglitz的書就白讀了），女生（可能是因為其中一個主角是種馬的關係吧，但是這樣的設定只是為了情節的發展，絕對沒有任何私欲，你看我這麼誠懇的眼神就知道啦），保守主義者，魯迅先生筆下的“正人君子”（也就是偽君子），北大，清華，誠哥，馬英九，李剛，《海賊王》等等。
列完這麼長的名單後，我不由得萌生起收拾包袱跑路的衝動。
篩掉這麼多人以後，可見這部小說確實是挺小眾的，可是說不喜歡它的人會覺得慘不忍睹，而喜愛它的人會覺得除了它別的小說都不堪入目。這同時還證明了能把這部小說讀下去的讀者都是十分優秀的。首先，她們/他們不會是共產黨（至少不是假共產黨），也不是像明星一樣的洗腦工具，更不會是偽善偏執的信徒或吸血的銀行家（華爾街），資本家（誠哥）和政治家（馬英九）；如果她們是女生的話，那麼她們必然有一定的批判性思考能力（The Capability of Doing Critical Thinking）而不僅是花瓶，同時還擁有海納百川的胸懷；她們/他們是方正不阿，嫉惡如仇，追求個人解放和社會公義的自由主義者（Liberalists），同時智商也較高，不會像保守主義者（Conservatives）的智商一樣往往不太夠用——根據英國《每日郵報》（Daily Mail）刊登的一篇文章，右派（Conservatives）要比左派（Liberalists）的智商低得多（See Rob Waugh, “Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study,” The Daily Mail）。
雖然這部小說囊括的內容比較廣泛，但是我可以概括它為黑色幽默的哲學小說。這裏的哲學是比較廣義的，包括社會科學（Social Science），人文學科（Humanities）和一點哲學的沉思（Philosophical Pondering）吧。
如果覺得小說還不錯的話，請給個好評哦，親（感覺自己越來越有戲子的模樣了。 **不良詞語** it LoL）。
“Hi are you a freshman at Peking U?”(你好，你是北大的新生嗎？）
“Yes I am.”（是的。）
“Do you have a **不良詞語**er?”（請問你有性伴侶嗎？）【註1】
“Do you mean do I have a lover?”（你是問我有沒有愛人？）
“No I do mean a **不良詞語**er.”（不，我說的是性伴侶。）
“You are such a freak.”（你真是一個怪胎。）
“Yes I am. May I be your **不良詞語**er?”（是啊。請問我可以成為你的性伴侶嗎？）
“別搭理那個變態了。第一次見面就問別人‘Do you have a **不良詞語**er’的哪會是什麼正常人？我們就不要談這些不愉快的事情啦。想不到剛進北大我們就遇見了同一個學院的新同學，這不能不算是緣分啊。我叫作範鳴生，很高興認識你。”範鳴生和沉默而尷尬的女生套起近乎來，絲毫沒有察覺到自己也被列進了危險人物的名單。
“請別隨便稱呼別人的外號好嗎？”男生也鬥志昂揚，爭鋒相對地回道：“我的口頭禪和我的名字根本就毫無瓜葛！我的口頭禪是依照哲學家康德（Immanuel Kant）的‘Principal of Universalizability’建立的。根據該原理，“An act is morally acceptable if, and only if, its maxim is universalizable”（假如一個行為是道德的，那麼它的準則是可以被普遍化的）。【註2】那麼怎樣的行為才能被普遍化呢？如同告子所說：‘食色，性也。’吃飯和性愛是兩個最顯而易見的，可以符合‘Principal of Universalizability’的行為。所以按照康德哲學看來，‘**不良詞語**得唔好嘥’和‘吃得唔好嘥’是兩個千古不易的道德準則。數百年前明代哲學家李贄就提出過相似的道德準則：“吃飯穿衣，即是人倫道德。”【註3】數千年前管仲的“倉廩實則知禮節，衣食足則知榮辱”也有異曲同工之妙。【註4】只可惜‘吃得唔好嘥’在歷史的聚光燈下獲得了太多光環，而‘**不良詞語**得唔好嘥’卻被埋沒在了歷史的塵埃裏。我只想把這個被遺忘在歷史長河中的道德準則重新拾起，以實際行動來使它在我身上發揚光大，使它在我身上發芽，開花與結果，最終以完美的姿態呈現於世人面前，再次為世人接受。這便是我口頭禪的由來，也是我的一個小小願望。”
“不要對我用這麼怪的稱呼，還是叫我不世之材，偉大的哲學與思想家吧。”吳廣依舊慢條斯理地說：“從歷史的角度看來，戲子在社會上的角色從來就是阿世媚俗，以娛樂去麻痹人們現實生活中的痛苦，這點和以信仰去麻痹現實痛苦的宗教是異常相似的。如果說宗教是人們的鴉片（‘It[religion] is the opium of the people’），【註7】那麼戲子就是人們的大麻（Superstars are the marijuana of the people）。戲子在歷史上的地位從來沒有像今天一樣空前高漲。為什麼？因為統治者們直到今天才明白，給被統治者娛樂是遠遠不夠的，一定要娛樂至死。當然不僅僅戲子娛樂至死，所有的主流媒體亦然。赫爾曼（Edward S. Herman）和瓊斯基（Noam Chomsky）就在其著作《製造共識》（Manufacturing Consent）裏論證過主流媒體不過是被有錢人掌控，與大公司，大銀行還有政府同流合污的丑角（‘They[the dominant media] are controlled by very wealth people or by mangers who are subject to sharp constraints by owners and other market-profit-oriented forces; and they are closely interlocked, and have important common interests, with other major corporations, banks, and government’）。【註8】而戲子不過是被丑角控制的更低等的小丑。” 作者: second_identity 時間: 2014-1-19 13:58 標題: 第一章 我們就是要拍A片（完）
【註1】英文中**不良詞語**er一詞並無炮友這個含義，請勿誤用。**不良詞語**er作為炮友這層意思乃是原創，目的是為了給lover找一個諧音詞。
【註2】Russ Shafer-Landau, The Fundamentals pf Ethics, (New York: Orford University Press, 2012), 157.
【註3】黃仁宇，萬曆十五年，（臺灣：食貨，1985），第七章 李贄——自相衝突的哲學家。
【註4】管仲，“管子-牧民，”中國哲學書電子化計畫，10月21號，2013訪問，http://ctext.org/guanzi/mu-min/zh。然而胡適則推論《管子》並非管仲所作，乃是後人偽造的。參見 胡適，中國哲學史大綱，（北京：北京大學出版社，2013），第一篇 導言。
【註5】著名的錢學森之問為：“為什麼我們的學校總是培養不出傑出人才”。參見 “溫家寶：錢學森之問對我是很大刺痛,” 新華網，更新於5月5號，2010，http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2010-05/05/c_1273985.htm
【註6】改自“為中華之崛起而讀書”。
【註7】Karl Marx, The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. Robert C. Tucker (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1978), 54.
【註8】Edward S. Herman, and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (New York: Pantheon Books, 1988), 14. 作者: 古物.帝 時間: 2014-1-19 15:58
並不能說獨立於民意之外是一件壞事，恰恰相反，“獨立之精神，自由之思想”正是一所大學的靈魂。可悲的是北大能獨立於民意之外，卻不能獨立於共產黨之外。自1949年，江山易幟，北大成為共產北大（Communist Peking U）以後，就再也沒有什麼“獨立之精神，自由之思想”。非但“獨立之精神，自由之思想”被閹割，就連它們的提倡者也視作洪水猛獸，被無情地拒之門外：蔡元培先生的墓不能進北大，胡適之先生的銅像也不能進北大。【註3】前段時間北大的死對頭清華屬下的“清華大學校史館”還出了一篇文章專門澄清其校訓裏原本就沒有“獨立精神，自由思想”，所以不存在閹割校訓一說。【註4】但是清華敢光明正大地告知眾人，如今的清華還有民國時的“獨立精神，自由思想”嗎？兩所百年學府如此戰戰兢兢，藏頭露尾，個中原因不言而喻便是那無形卻又無處不在的老大哥（The Big Brother）正在緊盯著呢！
“大奶妹，其實有時候你會不會在跌宕起伏中感悟到自己人生的負擔有點沉重，想要找個人來分擔呢？”吳廣抬頭仰望秋高氣爽的星空，情不自禁地感歎道：“加拿大哲學家索爾（John Ralston Saul）引用過哈佛大學（Harvard University）社會心理管理學一教授的話：‘（我們的）學生被教育成為功利主義者與斤斤計較的人，所以他們經常會逃離親密的家庭生活和背棄真實的自我’（“The Professor assigned to this course [of Social Psychology of Management at Harvard] admitted that ‘......Students have been taught to be utilitarians and calculators. [As a result] often they are running away from the intimacy of family life and running away from themselves”）。【註8】雖然我不會為了你背棄真實的自我，但是如果你願意的話，我可以每天都把你架在我寬大的背上，往返於接通宿舍與教室的小徑間。如果你在我的肩膀上睡去，那麼我的寶貝，就請你安心地睡吧，在你溫暖的港灣。也許直到你從甜蜜的夢中醒來，才發現那承載著你的人啊！依然奔波在宿舍與教室的小徑間。”
“有意思，”吳廣的眼中迸發出昂揚的鬥志，那大概是棋逢敵手的感覺：“不過我的推論全是可證的，而你關於我‘曲解理論’這個推論的證據又在哪里呢？蔡元培先生在其文章《我在教育界中的經驗》說過：‘對於公民道德的綱領，揭法國革命時代所標舉的自由、平等、友愛三項，用古義證明說：“......友愛者，‘己欲立而立人，己欲達而達人’是也；古者蓋謂之仁。”【註10】這裏的‘友愛’即是今天通譯的‘博愛’（Fraternity or Universal Love)，而‘**不良詞語**得唔好嘥’不正是‘博愛’之精粹嗎？現在到底是我在曲解孔子的仁，還是大奶妹你根本不懂得孔子的仁為何物呢？”
“既然你談到你表哥逃過法律制裁這件事，我不得不想起諾貝爾經濟學獎（Nobel Prize for Economics）得主斯蒂格萊斯（Joseph E. Stiglitz）就指責過那些在零八年製造了次貸危機，讓兩千萬中國人失業（“A crisis[the financial crisis in 2008] that began in American soon turned global, as tens of millions lost their jobs worldwide - 20 million in China alone - and tens of millions fell into poverty”），【註2】讓兩千四百萬美國人找不到工作（“As of March 2012, some 24 million Americans who would have liked a full-time job couldn’t get one”），讓八百萬美國家庭被迫搬出他們家還有另外數百萬在不遠的將來也會面臨被迫搬家的困境（“Some eight million families had been told to leave their homes, and millions more anticipate seeing foreclosure notices in the not-too-distant future”）的銀行家們不但沒有受到任何法律制裁，反而帶著額外的紅利瀟灑地走掉（“It was rightly perceived to be grossly unfair that many in the financial sector (which, for shorthand, I will often refer to as “the bankers”) walked off with outsize bonuses, while those who suffered from the crisis brought on by those banks went without a job”）。【註3】看來無論在世界的哪個角落，法律總是站在了統治者的那邊。”吳廣一插話果然又是一篇長篇大論。
【註1】人民網，“‘我爸是李剛’事件當事人被指提前出獄 監獄方否認，”更新於9月8號，2013，http://legal.people.com.cn/BIG5/n/2013/0908/c42510-22843937.html
【註2】Joseph E. Stiglitz, Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy, (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010), xi.
【註3】Joseph E. Stiglitz, The Price of Inequality, (London: Penguin Books Ltd., 2012), xii-1.
【註4】彭明輝，“馬英九，哭吧！”清大彭明輝的部落格，更新於7月24號，2013，http://mhperng.blogspot.ca/2013/07/blog-post_24.html
【註5】魯迅，兩地書。
【註6】臧克家，有的人。
【註7】改自“個人對於自己思想信仰的結果要負完全責任，不怕權威，不怕監禁殺身，只認得真理，不認得個人厲害”。 參見 胡適，“非個人主義的新生活，”胡適文集第二卷，歐陽哲生編，（北京：北京大學出版社，1998），564。
【註8】林覺民，與妻訣別書。
【註9】魯迅，“關於知識階級，”集外集拾遺補編。
【註10】胡適，“研究室與監獄，”胡適文集第十一卷，歐陽哲生編，（北京：北京大學出版社，1998），17。
【註11】張航，“北大擬對‘思想偏激’學生進行會商引發爭議，”鳳凰網，更新於3月24號，2011，http://news.ifeng.com/mainland/detail_2011_03/24/5346761_0.shtml 作者: second_identity 時間: 2014-1-31 15:08 標題: 第四章 為做太監而讀書（1）
加利福尼亞大學（University of California at Santa Cruz）的教授東諾夫（G. William Domhoff）的論文《是誰在統治美國：財富，收入，與權力》（Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power）顯示：西方國家中，頂層10%的富人所佔有的財富百分比分別為社會總財富的71.3%（瑞士），69.8%（美國），65.0%（丹麥），61.0%（法國），58.6%（瑞典），56%（英國），53%（加拿大），50.5%（挪威），44.4%（德國），42.3%（芬蘭），基於二零零零年的數據。【注1】
有人會反駁，美國確實強調人人生而平等（“All men are created equal”），但是這裏的平等並不是指財富的平等，而是指機會的平等。這種鬼話說出來有人信嗎？在財富不平等的前提下，機會有可能平等嗎？一個巴士司機的兒子和李嘉誠的兒子相比較，他們受教育的機會，找工作的機會，拿到同樣薪水的機會，甚至是達到同樣壽命的機會能是平等的嗎？諾貝爾經濟學得主斯蒂格萊斯（Joseph Stigilitz）在其著作《不平等的代價》（The Price of Inequality）中指出：“（財富）越是不平等的國家，其制度將越是減少機會的平等”（In fact, the pattern has been observed across countries – countries with more inequality systematically have less equality of opportunity）。【注2】
為什麼？為什麼西方國家的意識形態（ideology）與現實（reality）存在著如此巨大的落差呢？普林斯頓大學（Princeton University）教授格蘭斯（Martin Gilens）在其研究論文《不平等和民主回應》（Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness）裏闡明了個中原因：“相對於中產階級，現實中政策大局的影響力絕大部分都掌握在了富人手中”（Whether or not elected officials and other decision makers “care” about middle-class Americans, influence over actual policy outcomes appears to be reserved almost exclusively for those at the top of the income distribution）。【注3】因此，富人的財富越多，他們將有更大的能耐使得整個社會制度都向他們傾斜（也就意味著更多的不平等）。
斯蒂格萊斯更是一針見血地闡述道：“政治決定了整個經濟遊戲的規則……而政治遊戲的規則也掌握在1%的富人手中”（In earlier chapters, we saw how markets are shaped by the politics: politics determines the rules of the economic game, and the playing field is slanted in favor of the 1%. As least part of the reason is that the rules of the political game, too, are shaped by the 1 percent）。【注4】原來政府和富豪根本就是有著共同利益的統治階級？原來所謂的民主不過是統治階級內部的自娛自樂？
不少西方人已經漸漸察覺出了這樣的把戲，他們知道（民主）政治對改善這個不公的社會是毫無意義的，也就自然而然地喪失了他們的政治熱情。萊斯大學（Rice University）的教授索特（Frederick Solt）的研究表明，收入不平等對於人民的政治熱情（political interest）是有巨大負面影響的，除了高收入人群（income inequality had a strong negative effect on the political interest of those with incomes in the median quintile or below and on the political discussion and electoral participation of all but those in the richest quintile）。【注5】
“實在是太感謝了！”女記者分明是感受到了男生的真誠，不斷地點頭答謝道：“但是在我們走之前，我有一件事情想徵求一下你們的意見：既然現在我們知道蛤主席想要造反，我們就應該先問他到底是打算在習先生連任之前造反呢，還是在他連任之後造反。如果蛤主席回答要在習先生連任之後造反，我們就要窮追不捨，繼續問他支不支持習先生連任！Such a brilliant idea！這樣我們就能一次弄兩個大新聞了！我有預感，我將要成為下一個新聞界的華萊士！終有一天，我也會坐在蛤主席面前，和他談笑風生。你們覺得我這樣提問好不好啊？”
九千歲昂著頭，臉上露出一絲不悅道：“奴才，我告訴過你多少次了。當有客人在的時候，你就不需要向我下跪。這要是被外人，特別是被洋鬼子看見，又得說我們中國封建專制了！舊社會已經一去不復返了，現在我們也是文明社會的一員啊。在文明社會裏，形式上的奴役是要被廢除的。形式上的奴役固然是好的，但是不知道為何世界上的奴隸們意識到了這種我們奴隸主一直賴以生存的美妙的奴役制度，於是他們開始紛紛從這個奴役的囚籠裏掙脫出來。但是沒有受過教化的奴隸們畢竟是太天真了，sometimes naïve。他們不知道逃出了一個囚籠，迎來的卻是另一個。他們逃出了《1984》，迎來的卻是《美麗新世界》。他們逃出了國王和地主的奴役，卻把自己的身體出售給資本家，心安理得地做起資本家的奴隸來（“The continuance of this relation [between the seller and buyer of labour-power] demands that the owner of the labour-power should sell it only for a definite period, for it he were to sell it rump and stump, once for all, he would be selling himself, converting himself from a free man into a slave, from an owner of commodity into a commodity”）！【註1】 奴役的形式是可以改變的，然而奴役的本質卻是永恆不變的。但是奴役歸奴役，我們畢竟是進入了文明社會，奴役也要依照法律和尊重奴隸的基本人權啊，對不對？Slaves are people too！形式上的奴役是不能要了，現在我們講求的是一種精神上的奴役，就如同形式上的太監是不復存在了，但是精神上的太監仍然俯拾皆是啊！所以我說奴才啊，以後你就不必真的跪在我面前，只要你在精神上向我下跪就好了。”
已故美國作家，威斯康星大學（University of Wisconsin at Madison）教授黎奧泊德（Aldo Leopold）在其文章《像大山一樣思考》（Thinking Like a Mountain）中闡述道：“每一個生命（或許包括死去的生命）都會留心那呼喚著自己的東西。對於鹿兒來說，那是通往水草豐美的小徑的提示，對於松樹來說，那是午夜狂風驟雨，過後滿地殘枝的預警，對於美洲土狼來說，那是拾到殘羹剩飯的希冀，對於牧場主來說，那是銀行帳戶的財政赤字的威脅，對於獵人來說，那是避免子彈擊中獵物獠牙的挑戰。然而在這些明顯的，亟需的奢求和恐懼背後卻隱藏著更深刻的道理，這只有巍然聳立的大山才知道。只有那不隨時光流逝的大山才能客觀地傾聽著狼的哀嚎”（Every living thing (and perhaps many a dead one as well) pays heed to that call. To the deer it is a reminder of the way of all flesh, to the pine a forecast of midnight scuffles and of blood upon the now, to the coyote a promise of gleanings to come, to the cowman a threat of red ink at the bank, to the hunter a challenge of fang against bullet. Yet behind these obvious and immediate hopes and fears there lies a deeper meaning, known only to the mountain itself. Only the mountain has lived long enough to listen objectively to the howl of a wolf）。【註1】
還有，邱毅直指“這次事件等於把臺灣的議會政治破壞，重回街頭暴力，這對臺灣民主是一種倒退。”臺灣主持人陳文茜更是狠批這次學運是“民主之恥”。【註5】這點我也不敢苟同，認為他們言過其實。何謂民主？民主就是“人民的意志”（the will of the people）。【註6】難道你能說這次學運沒有代表人民的意志嗎？根據東森新聞雲的網路調查顯示，約百分之五十左右的線民對這次學運是持擁護態度的。【註7】當然學生有遊行示威的權利，政府也有採取清場行動的權利。二零一一年，在“佔領華爾街”行動中，美國政府也是毫不留情地清場啊（“Just over a week after Occupy Wall Street protesters were tossed out of Zuccotti Park”）。【註8】有的無恥文人看見國民黨清場，學生頭上留了幾滴血，就高喊著“六四”。這是“六四”嗎？不是。要看看什麼才是真正的“六四”嗎？一九三二年，美國老兵在華盛頓示威，美國政府開槍；一九七零年，美國學生在肯特大學進行反戰示威，美國政府開槍。這就是真正的“六四”。
有人說，“我只是翹課來裝一下逼（顯擺一下），順便發點圖片上臉書炫耀一番，說不定還能約個炮友呢！你還真以為我是‘民主鬥士’嗎？我就連《服貿協議》上面寫了什麼都不知道！你看那個傻逼second_identity在網上發表政治小說，I don't give a shit。為什麼啊？因為在立法院前面‘談民主’，可以翹課，有免費飯盒吃，還能順便找下炮友什麼的。但是傻子都知道在second_identity的小說後面留言談民主是不可能找到炮友的好嗎？我只是來裝逼而已，想不到裝逼是要死人的啊！”小朋友，想要打炮的話請讓媽媽帶你上東莞哦。抗爭就要有流血的準備；通向自由之路從來都是由鮮血澆灌而成的。流幾滴血就哭天搶地的，你知道你們崇尚的甘地為了追求印度獨立，一輩子被逮捕和被送進監獄就足足有十三次嗎？【註9】你太弱了，一點都不夠看。言歸正傳，即使沒有群眾基礎，學運參與者的言論自由的權利仍然是不能被剝奪的，無論他的訴求是多麼激進（例如這次表面上反黑箱操作，背地裏搞臺灣獨立的學運——如果你不同意這個觀點，後面會有詳細的論證）。是的，即使作為一名大陸人，我也認為臺灣獨立的言論是一種天賦人權。 作者: second_identity 時間: 2014-4-10 10:30 標題: 像大山一樣思考臺灣學運（3）
從理論上來說，作為一個左翼自由主義者——左翼意味著民主（“If ‘left’ means anything anymore,” Joel Rogers writes, “it means ‘democracy’），【註10】而自由主義意味著個人解放——我不但應該支持臺灣獨立的言論，甚至要支持臺灣獨立，如果它是基於一定民意基礎的話。不但如此，我還要支持西藏獨立，新疆獨立，香港獨立，和中國任何一個省份的獨立。這還不夠，我也必須要支持蘇格蘭（Scotland）獨立，琉球群島獨立，車臣共和國獨立，魁北克（Quebec）獨立，德州（Texas）獨立，夏威夷獨立，阿拉斯加獨立，應該說世界上每個地區的人民都保留了進行獨立的基本權利。如果這一切真的能夠發生，也許我們就能達到老子那“雞犬之聲相聞，老死不相往來”的小國寡民的理想社會。
有一位戴著寬邊眼鏡的長者會說，老子還是太天真了，sometimes naïve，相信很多人也是怎樣認為的，但是不得不說，我倒是十分崇尚那樣的理想社會。魁北克確實搞過兩次獨立公投，而蘇格蘭（Scotland）在今年九月也要搞公投，但是這些畢竟是個例。日本有可能讓琉球群島搞公投嗎？俄羅斯有可能讓車臣共和國搞公投嗎？美國有可能讓它的任何一個州搞公投嗎？不要忘了一百多年前，美國南方搞獨立的時候，林肯（Abraham Lincoln）總統是怎麼說的：“如果我可以通過保留奴隸制度來挽救聯邦，我會那樣做；如果我可以通過廢除奴隸制度來挽救聯邦，我會那樣做；如果我可以通過解放一部分而保留另一部分奴隸來挽救聯邦，我也會這樣做”（If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that ）。【註11】上一年超過十萬人聯名要求德州（Texas）獨立，美國政府也是斷然拒絕。【註12】再舉一個臺灣人切身的例子，如果有一天原住民要求臺南獨立，臺灣的漢人（包括本省和外省人）會給他們公投的權利嗎？你們臺灣人一邊打壓原住民反壓迫求自由的權利，一邊控訴大陸打壓你們反壓迫求自由的權利，這樣會不會偽善了一點？
第三，follow the money，也就是追著金錢（的痕跡）去做判斷。我們要看知識份子去做某件事情，他有沒有從中得益。如果有，我們就先得在心裏對他打一個折扣。例如這次的學運領袖，他們看似從這場運動中收到很多傳票，吃了很多虧，但實際上他們撈取了巨大的政治資本，他們是從中得益的。至少我敢說他們以後想要成為一個黨的核心成員（無論是藍黨還是綠黨），不會是一件難事。相反地，那些翹課去為學運領袖擦屁股的普通學生才是不求名利的“國之棟樑”好嗎？只可惜他們腦子太笨，被利用了。
Chomsky, N. (2013, November 19). Interview by Komp Catherine. Media control and indoctrination in the United States , Retrieved from http://wwwuth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/19815-media-control-and-indoctrination-in-the-united-states?tmpl=component&print=1
Dahl, R. A. (2006). On political equality. New Haven: Yale University.
Dalzell, R. F. (2013). The good rich and what they cost us. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Gilens, M. (2005). Inequality and democratic responsiveness in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69, Retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/~piirs/events/PU%20Comparative%20Conf%20May%202007%20Gilens.pdf
Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon Books.
Jones, A. S. (2009). Losing the news: The future of the news that feeds democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
McChesney, R. W. (2000). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times. New York: The New Press.
Solt , F. (2008). Economic inequality and democratic political engagement. American Journal of Political
Science, 52(1), Retrieved from http://www.unc.edu/~fredsolt/papers/Solt2004MPSA.pdf
Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality. London: Penguin Books. 作者: second_identity 時間: 2014-4-19 09:23 標題: Economic Inequality: A Real Threat to America’s Democracy/English（1）
The well-known phrase “all men are created equal” written by one of the founding fathers of the U.S., Thomas Jefferson, is not only on the Declaration of Independence of America, but has also become an intrinsic value of the American society. While the American people believe that their nation was born out of democracy and equity, the reality of the U.S. today usually contradicts that belief. Therefore, the American people have wisely shifted their faith from the emphasis of equality of condition to the focus on equality of opportunity (Dalzell, 2013, p.159). Unfortunately, there is no such thing as equality of opportunity apart from equality of condition. As Stiglitz (2012) points out, “countries with more inequality systematically have less equality of opportunity” (p.18). Those two concepts can never be separated; they are interconnected. As a result, it should not be a surprise that the American people’s faith in equality of opportunity or so-called the “American Dream” has also failed. Then the only thing left to the American people is to force themselves to believe that the rich who gain their fortune from the society will finally give it back. The American people even help the rich cut their taxes in order to make sure the rich become richer and return more to the society, which is not dark humor at all since 63 per cent of Americans believe “the United States benefits from having a class of rich people” (Dalzell, 2013, p.163). However, Dalzell emphasizes that this is also a delusion: the generous rich are atypical while the majority of them are just selfish. The reason Americans have modified their faith again and again to coexist the ideology of equity and democracy with the reality of inequality is because they would not want to give up believing that America is always “the great bastion of democracy and equality” (2013, p.159-163). It is time to stop such a delusion by starting to admit that not only is economic inequality inconsistent with democracy, but it “could [also], ultimately, undermine American democracy” as Janet Yellen, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, points out (cited in Dalzell, 2013, p.157).
This paper will argue that economic inequality is a threat to America’s democracy for three main reasons: first, the mainstream media is largely controlled by the rich and therefore they only look at the society through the perspective of the rich and at the same time ignore the rest (Chomsky, 2013); second, economic inequality has great negative influence toward people’s political involvement except for the rich’s; and third also the most important reason, economic inequality itself and the economic ideology of capitalism that promotes economic inequality are in nature inconsistent with the political ideology of democracy.
In a totalitarian state, government’s control over media is a threat to the country’s democracy, but in a liberal democracy such as the U.S., the media is also controlled by a few people but merely in a more concealed way. The concealment is most of the reason why many American people are still not aware of the real situation, not to mention that they would realise how the control over media by a few has gradually corrupted their democratic society. McChesney (2000) points out that “if we are serious about democracy, we will need to reform the media system structurally” (p. ix). This is exactly the relation between democracy and current media industry: they can never coexist. Even though journalists are taught in school to be honest and objective in order to serve the interest of the whole public, such an ideology has never been achieved in realty because there is no way journalists can gain “independence from corporate and commercial pressure” (McChesney, 2000, p.49). The rich and powerful destroy media independence basically in two ways. First, they have owned the major media directly and second, they influence the media through advertisement injections. In their famous work, Herman and Chomsky (1988) point out the fact that mainstream media companies are dominated by the very rich or by the people who are bought over by “owners and other market-profit-oriented forces”, and therefore the media is interconnected and “have important common interests with other major corporations, banks, and governments” (p.14). Before the news is running on media, they would already get self-censored to make sure not to do any harm to their owners and allies.
The problem of monopoly over media has not been solved as time goes by, but on the contrary, it has worsened. As McChesney (2000) specifies, 呃帖既 publishing firms have dominated the whole U.S. market; five music companies are controlling 87 per cent of industry; six media corporations have monopolized 80 per cent of “cable television systems” nationwide; and 呃帖既 companies have dominated about 75 per cent of “cable channels and programming” (p.18). Ted Turner, previous vice chairman of one of the most powerful media empires Time Warner, points out the fact himself saying “all the cable companies in the nation” are controlled by handful persons (cited in McChesney, 2000, p.18). Except for the concentrated ownership over media, the rich and enormous corporations also take control over media by throwing big money into advertisements. To look at the U.S. advertising industry in a macro perspective, a total of $200 billion is thrown into the whole advertising market while $120 billion of the total goes to the media in 1998 alone. If to look at the industry in a smaller scale focusing on one individual case, The Walt Disney Company puts $140 million into manufacturing the movie The Lion King while using $60 million for the advertisement. “The movie is almost incidental,” says an “industry analyst” (cited in McChesney, 2000, p.39). From both of macro and micro levels, the advertising money being thrown in media is enormous and impressive. It is understandable how significant the influence of big corporate advertisers is toward the media. 作者: second_identity 時間: 2014-4-19 09:24 標題: Economic Inequality: A Real Threat to America’s Democracy/English（2）
Since the media is owned by a few very rich and dominated by a few enormous corporations, it should not be a surprise when the mainstream media violates the ethics of journalism in order to serve the interests of elites. McChesney (2000) provides some examples to show the “[limitation] of contemporary journalism as a democratic agency” (p.58). In 1996 when Gary Webb, a journalist of the San Jose Mercury News, exposed “the CIA’s connection to drug dealing in U.S. inner cities,” and the African-Americans required an answer, all the mainstream media including “the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times” attacked the Mercury News with one voice (McChesney, 2000, p.59). The reason was simple: if this piece of news was true, it meant the major media had been covering this up for dozens of years, and the ideology of free press was just a delusion. The result could not be more obvious: the Mercury News retracted the tale and fired Gary Webb. Such an incident was not exceptional. Other similar incidents have taken place in the media industry such as the retraction of the CNN report in 1998 on “the possible use of sarin, a nerve gas, by the U.S. military on deserters in the Vietnam War” and more famously the biased reports by all major media before and during the Iraq War (McChesney, 2000, p.59-60).
When the media is corrupted and only spreads certain information in which they want the commons to believe, the U.S. democracy seems difficult to continue to stand up. There is less and less distinct difference between what totalitarian states and some liberal democracies such as U.S. have been doing toward their media. It looks like they are just achieving the same goal by different means. McChesney indicates, “as Jefferson and Madison put it, unless all citizens have easy access to the same caliber of information as society’s wealthy and privileged, self-government cannot succeed” (Jones, 2009, p.28). Why is it the case? Dahl (2006) points out the reason that “gaining enlightened understanding” is one of the fundamental elements of an “ideal democracy” (p.9). It can be said that it is a common sense for many intellectuals throughout the history that a democracy is just a delusion when the free access of information is blocked by a few rich and powerful. Economic inequality is the basis for the rich to acquire the privilege to keep certain information undercover which they do not want the public to be aware of. It corrodes all the foundations of a democracy including “effective participation, final control of the agenda, and fundamental rights” of gaining the information they need in order to make wise decisions (Dahl, 2006, p.9). Not only does economic inequality corrupt the media, but also corrodes people’s political engagement.
Solt has done research to explain the relation between economic inequality and citizens’ political engagement; and in his paper, Solt first tries to analyze which historical explanation over this issue is most justified. The history of political scientists uncovering the relation between economic inequality and political engagement all started from Brody in 1978. The original studies were set up to figure out the reason for citizens’ declined electoral involvement in the developed countries (Solt, 2008, p.54). Over decades, different theories, including the relative power theory, the conflict theory and the resource theory, have been established to explain such an issue. According to the relative power theory, income inequality negatively influences the poor’s involvement in politics because the relative wealthy and powerful people insistently win over various issues or even able to stop those problems coming out in public. As a result, the poor will gradually realise the political game is not for them (Solt, 2008, p.49). According to the conflict theory, the opposite result would be in favor. It would be argued that as economic inequality grows, both of the rich and the poor will have to be forced to pay attention on the increasing disputed issues over “distributive politics”, which will ultimately increase the political engagement of all the people (Solt, 2008, p.49). Lastly, according to the resource theory, to what extent citizens involve into political activities is a result of “individual’s income”: the poor tend to get less involved while the rich do the exact opposite (Solt, 2008, p.49-50). The findings of Solt’s research are only coincident with the power relative theory: “economic inequality depresses political engagement, and especially that of people with lower incomes” (2008, p.57).
According to the research of Solt, “income inequality had strong negative effect on the political interest”, “political discussion”, and “electoral participation” of the lower-middle class but not of the upper class (2008, p.54). The result for sure contradicts many people’s belief in democracy. The Meltzer-Richard model tells that a democracy should be able to adjust economic inequality: the lower and middle classes would be pros for “redistributive policies” when inequality grows because “greater inequality reduces the median income” (cited in Solt, 2008, p.57). This model correctly points out what most people understand democracy: a democracy state is supposed to be fair in a way that it is representative for the interest of majority of the population. When something goes wrong, as it often does, including the growing gap between the rich and the poor which creates harm to the majority, the majority are supposed to get more engaged into politics making to adjust such a mistake and should be able to succeed in theory. As McChesney (2000) points out, “when the conditions of democracy are fruitful, there will be considerable pressure to reduce economic inequality” (p.283). After all, a democracy should represent the interests of the majority. This common-sense hypothesis is like what the conflict theory claims. However, such hypothesis rarely happens in reality. 作者: second_identity 時間: 2014-4-19 09:24 標題: Economic Inequality: A Real Threat to America’s Democracy/English（3）
Solt (2008) indicates how inequality may erode the democratic system: economic inequality gives the rich more power relative to the poor (p.57). Not only is the majority not able to defeat a few very rich over redistributive policies, but such policies cannot even “be debated within the political process regardless of whether poorer citizens would care to raise them” (2008, p.57). Gilens (2005) also comes to the same conclusion in his study of “inequality and democratic responsiveness”: the political game is only for the wealthy while the middle-class citizens – not to mention the poor – are largely neglected (p.794). Economic inequality just seems to corrupt almost every aspect of the U.S. democracy. That explanation of the corruption on media and political engagement just looks superficial. Is there a deeper reason if not the ultimate why economic inequality is like a forever trouble-creator for democracy? Maybe there is.
There may be a fundamental inconsistency between the economic ideology of capitalism and the political ideology of democracy. In order to take a clearer look, the story has to be traced back to the Age of Enlightenment. In the late 1700s, democracy was believed to be a classless society since it was “widely accepted that if a person had to work for another person, that person could never be a political equal” (McChesney, 2000, p.284). Democracy was not only a political but also economic ideology in the old days. However, the traditional economic side of democracy gradually got abandoned, and with the involvement of capitalism it has become today’s liberal democracy. As C. B. Macpherson points out, liberal democracy, a mixture of capitalism and democracy, is “the combination of egalitarian politics with inegalitarian economics” (cited in McChesney, 2000, p.284). The question is: can liberal democracy really work since it combines two naturally inconsistent fundamental elements? Today, the answer is more or less obvious: capitalism and democracy do not coexist and one must win over. And the winner, without any surprise, is capitalism. Capitalism corrupts democracy in a couple ways: first, capitalism must exist along with a class society within which the few wealthy people will definitely have the strongest if not the dominated political power, which violates the majority-rule ideology of democracy; second, capitalism also erodes the “democratic spirit” by assuming that all humans are selfish and pressuring people to compete and only look after themselves regardless what happens to others (McChesney, 2000, p.284).
The logic here is that capitalism has always been in favour with free market, small government, globalization and so on in order to gain more freedom for “commercial activities”, by which a class society must follow. Capitalism in nature contradicts “the core tenets of democracy” for the reason that just like feudalism overthrown by capitalism, “capitalism [itself] is [also] invariably a class society” in which a rich few own the large amount of wealth of the community (McChesney, 2000, p.285). The wealth they own can be exchanged into political power (at least under a capitalist society) which helps them to protect their wealth and pushes them to a further advantageous position by destroying “the efforts of the many to strive for a more egalitarian society” (McChesney, 2000, p.285).
On the other hand, capitalism also violates the core values of democracy. The “democratic spirit” is supposed to encourage people to care about the good of their community because the good of individuals and the good of community are largely overlapped in a democracy theologically speaking. However, capitalism would claim the opposite: individual’s good is unrelated with the good of community and as a result, individuals are encouraged to chase their own welfare regardless their actions may create harm for the community as a whole (McChesney, 2000, p.285). Finally, it can be summed up that capitalism and democracy are fundamentally inconsistent because capitalism not only corrodes the structure but also the spirit of democracy. Even though McChesney would not want to reject the capitalist system as a whole, he does emphasize that “for those who truly believe in democracy, it is imperative to reduce social and economic inequality” (2000, p.285). However, he should not ignore that fact he has already pointed out: capitalism must go along with economic inequality. That is why capitalism is also one of the main factors that corrupts America’s democracy.
To conclude the paper, it should be emphasized again that this paper has argued that economic inequality will threaten America’s democracy due to three major reasons: 1, the mainstream media only present the view of the rich while ignoring the rest because the rich few have been controlling them through ownership or advertisements; 2, economic inequality negatively influenced people’s political engagement except for the rich’s; and 3, economic inequality itself and the economic ideology of capitalism that promotes economic inequality are in nature inconsistent with the political ideology of democracy.
Bibliographies
Chomsky, N. (2013, November 19). Interview by Komp Catherine. Media control and indoctrination in the United States , Retrieved from http://wwwuth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/19815-media-control-and-indoctrination-in-the-united-states?tmpl=component&print=1
Dahl, R. A. (2006). On political equality. New Haven: Yale University.
Dalzell, R. F. (2013). The good rich and what they cost us. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Gilens, M. (2005). Inequality and democratic responsiveness in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69, Retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/~piirs/events/PU%20Comparative%20Conf%20May%202007%20Gilens.pdf
Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon Books.
Jones, A. S. (2009). Losing the news: The future of the news that feeds democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
McChesney, R. W. (2000). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times. New York: The New Press.
Solt , F. (2008). Economic inequality and democratic political engagement. American Journal of Political
Science, 52(1), Retrieved from http://www.unc.edu/~fredsolt/papers/Solt2004MPSA.pdf
Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality. London: Penguin Books. 作者: second_identity 時間: 2014-4-22 07:14 標題: 答網友兼再談美國（1）
你說“美國民主從來就沒有想過要建立中產階級社會”，這點我認為一半是對的，一半是錯的。一方面，就如你所說，“在美國無論富人還是窮人，沒人在要求財富均等”，“美國大概是世界上最鄙視均貧富的國家了”，這點我是認同的。談論社會主義在美國是違反“政治正確性”（political correctness）的，就像談論兩岸統一在臺灣違反“政治正確性”一樣。但是另一方面，美國人確實又堅信平等，認為中產階級社會是美國民主的優越性之一（其實民主這個意識形態就包含了平等的價值觀在裏面）。就像威廉斯學院（Williams College）的教授（Robert Dalzell）在他的著作《那些“好富豪”讓我們失去的東西》（The Good Rich and What They Cost Us）中指出，“當我們（美國人）在堅信民主和平等的時候，我們確也發現了現實社會往往和我們的信念難以達成一致。所以我們修改了我們的信念，聲稱我們在乎的其實是機會的平等（也就是美國夢）……”（While we hold fast to our faith in democracy – in equality – we do recognize that reality rarely if ever conforms to that faith. So we modify it by asserting that what we really care about is equality of opportunity……）。【注1】Robert Dalzell還指出，美國人【始終不願意放棄那“美國是平等和民主最堅強的堡壘”的信仰（注：這裏和下文的黑框裏顯示的都是我的另一篇文章，《經濟不平等：美國民主的重大威脅》裏的段落，這裏不再另作注釋）】。美國人一邊以他們的平等還有中產階級社會為傲，一邊卻反對財富均等，這看起來難道不矛盾嗎？確實是矛盾而且複雜的，我們不能簡單地把美國人概括為支持或者反對平等。為什麼會出現這樣的矛盾呢？這一切都要從源頭，也就是美國的制度開始分析。
我在《經濟不平等：美國民主的重大威脅》裏提到的，伊利諾伊大學（University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign）的教授McChesney在他的著作《富媒體，窮民主》（Rich Media, Poor Democracy）中指出，“在十八世紀末期的歐洲和北美洲，民主制度經常被認為等同於‘沒有階級的社會’”（Prior to the late eighteenth century, in Europe and North America, democracy often was considered synonymous with classless or one-societies）。【注2】“沒有階級的社會”，看起來是不是很像社會主義？確實如此。【那時候民主不單是一個政治上的而且是經濟上的意識形態】，那時候民主政治不單主張政治上的平等，而且還主張經濟上的平等。【然而，傳統民主的有關經濟的分支逐漸被遺棄了，然後和資本主義結合，形成今天的自由主義的民主政體（liberal democracy）。就像C. B. Macpherson所說的，自由主義的民主政體，也就是資本主義和民主政治的結合體，是“平等的政治（制度）與不平等的經濟（制度）的融合”（cited in McChesney, 2000, p.284）。】美國的制度就是一個自由主義的民主政體，這個把“平等的政治（制度）與不平等的經濟（制度）融合”的怪胎，【融合了兩種本質上互為矛盾的元素。】究竟是要平等還是不要平等呢？這恐怕就連美國人自己都被迷惑了。 作者: second_identity 時間: 2014-4-22 07:16 標題: 答網友兼再談美國（3）
第二，你說，“均貧富的政策只會導致社會群體的競爭力創造力下降”。這點我並不能認同。競爭力和創造力最強盛的恐怕要數西方的發達國家了，可是它們的貧富差距恰恰是所有國家中較低的（在資本力量比較集中的美國，貧富差距會相對大一點，這點可以查找各國GINI係數的資料）。我認為競爭力和創造力主要是看一個國家的生產力水準，而過大的貧富差距不但不會促進競爭力創造力，反而會成為阻礙。斯蒂格萊斯在他的著作《不平等的代價》（The Price of Inequality）中就提到，“失業（的問題）可以歸咎於社會總需求（也就是人民消費水準）的減少，而某種程度上，社會總需求的減少，還有美國經濟的衰退，都可以歸咎於貧富差距的懸殊”（Unemployment can be blamed on a deficiency in aggregate demand; in some sense, the entire shortfall demand – and hence in the U.S. economy – today can be blamed on the extremes of inequality）。【注3】他還說，“在一個貧富懸殊的民主政體裏，其政治（體制）也將會失衡”（In a democracy where there are high levels of inequality, politics can be unbalanced, too）。【注4】從中可以看出，不平等不但對經濟，還有政治都存在負面的影響。這兩段只是我隨便節選的斯蒂格萊斯對於經濟不平等的批判。從他著作的題目，《不平等的代價》（The Price of Inequality）可以看出，他的整本書裏都是類似的批判。斯蒂格萊斯作為一個功成名就的諾貝爾經濟獎得主，世界銀行前任首席經濟學家，他完全沒有必要去寫這樣一部不討人喜歡（至少不討統治階級喜歡）的大著作，但是他這樣做了，“雖千萬人吾往矣”，他肯定有一些不得不說的話，其中的參考價值必定是頗大的。你也可以找來看看。當然他還寫了一些別的批判美國經濟制度的書，例如《大崩盤》（Freefall），但我還是首推《不平等的代價》。
第三，“美國夢”是假的，只不過是美國統治階級的洗腦宣傳罷了。這時肯定有人會跳出來質問道，“洗腦宣傳只不過是共產國家的下流手段，我們自由之燈塔，人類之希望，世界上最最最偉大光榮正確的國家美利堅怎麼可能使用和共產國家一樣卑鄙無恥的伎倆呢？”然後高歌一首《我的美國心》和《今夜我們都是美國人》。很可惜，斯蒂格萊斯殘酷地戳破了這樣天真的幻想，“百分之一的（美國）權貴成功地塑造了大眾的認知（使大眾相信他們和權貴們有著共同的利益），這證明了思想的可塑性。當別的國家這樣做的時候，我們稱呼它為‘洗腦’與‘宣傳’”（The fact that the 1 percent has so successfully shaped public perception [and made the public believe they have shared interests with the 1 percent] testifies to the malleability of beliefs. When others engage in it, we call it “brainwashing” and “propaganda”）。【注5】當美國這樣做的時候呢？斯蒂格萊斯沒有說，又或許他已經說了。 作者: second_identity 時間: 2014-4-22 07:17 標題: 答網友兼再談美國（4）
其實在前面的文章《民主之後呢》裏，我已經引述過斯蒂格萊斯的論點，“（財富）越是不平等的國家，其制度將越是減少機會的平等”（countries with more inequality systematically have less equality of opportunity）。【注6】【這兩個理念（機會平等和物質平等）永遠不能被分開，它們是緊密聯繫的。】我剛才已經指出，“在資本力量比較集中的美國，貧富差距會（比別的西方發達國家）相對大一點。”既然如此，從理論上講，美國的社會流動性也應該比歐洲國家的要低。真是這樣嗎？斯蒂格萊斯在《大崩盤》（Freefall）裏肯定了這個猜想，“在美國，雖然有少數人可以成為戲劇般的例外，但是統計數據顯示貧窮的美國人（在社會中）向上流動的機會比‘老歐洲’（也就是英法德等國）還要低”（But a closer look at the U.S. economy suggests that there are some deeper problems: a society where even those in the middle have seen incomes stagnate for a decade, a society marked by increasing inequality; a country where, tough there are dramatic exceptions, the statistical chances of a poor American making it to the top are lower than in “Old Europe”）。【注7】美國夢破滅了。
【注1】Robert E. Dalzell, The Good Rich And What They Cost Us, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), 159.
【注2】Robert W. McChesney, Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times, (New York: The New Press, 2000), 284.
【注3】Joseph E. Stiglitz, The Price of Inequality, (London: Penguin Books Ltd., 2012), 85.
【注4】Ibid, 89.
【注5】Ibid, 146.
【注6】Ibid, 18.
【注7】Joseph E. Stiglitz, Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy, (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2010), xxii.
【注8】魯迅，“爬和撞，”魯迅全集第五卷，王海波編，（北京：人民文學出版社，2005），278。 作者: second_identity 時間: 2014-4-22 07:17 標題: 答網友兼再談美國（5）
例如，你說，“至於主義，則是這些解決方法被證明行之有效以後，由學者歸納成主義。”其實這並不對。主義只是在“理論上”講得通，而“實際上”能不能實現，又是另一回事。例如亞當斯密斯（Adam Smith）的自由市場（free market）理論斷言，“如果每個人都被自私欲所驅使，那麼這不但帶來個人的成功，還會帶來社會的幸福於國家的富強”（pursuit of self-interest leads not only to individual success but contributes to the well-being of society and the wealth of the nation）【注1】。這樣的理論看起來很美好，但是自由市場這個理論的實際運作卻給全世界帶來一場又一場災難。“今天，即使是（自由市場理論）最虔誠的傳教士，Alan Greenspan，美國聯邦儲備銀行的前主席也不得不承認（這個理論的）邏輯是有瑕疵的，然後他的懺悔來得太遲了，因為許多人已經被（自由市場理論）帶來的惡果所波及（Today, even the high priest of that ideology, Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board during the period in which these views prevailed, has admitted that there was a flaw in this reasoning – but his confession came too late for the many who have suffered as a consequence）。【注2】所以，解決“實際上”的問題和談“理論上”的主義還是有明顯區別的。
飛機安全降落後，機艙內突然響起了一把帶有磁性的甜美的女性聲音：“女士們，先生們，歡迎抵達成都雙流國際機場，本地時間為中午十二點三十分，溫度是二十一攝氏度...... Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Chengdu Shuangliu International Airport, the local time is 12:30 p.m., and the temperature is 21 degrees Celsius ……”
