西方還活著的，也許是最重要思想與行動(dòng)學(xué)者的Noam Chomsky把美國(guó)為什么會(huì)從六〇年代的黃金時(shí)期變成現(xiàn)在這樣說得清清楚楚。

Noam Chomsky幾十年的奮斗影響的人中包括很多可以或已經(jīng)在改變西方的反思者（包括Edward Snowden）。

如果你關(guān)心時(shí)事。如果你想明白美國(guó)真正的權(quán)力中心。如果你想了解為什么民主制度演變成這樣。那么，這是一部必須看的紀(jì)錄片。

精英政治，民主政治，集權(quán)政治，少數(shù)精英政治，多數(shù)暴政……我們不敢說哪一種更好，但是歷史的車輪碾過，無論是古羅馬共和的消失，還是世界各國(guó)的工人運(yùn)動(dòng)，都有著血淋淋的過往。未來可以被決定嗎，歷史是偶然還是必然？我們只是在發(fā)展的過程中，在后現(xiàn)代社會(huì)到來之際，希望可以越來越清晰，可是呢，我們知道，隨著技術(shù)、經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展，我們要面臨的問題只會(huì)越來越多。
無處不在的監(jiān)聽…武器、恐怖主義…不僅僅是美國(guó)夢(mèng)，而是世界夢(mèng)藥丸??……

復(fù)習(xí)一下《美國(guó)夢(mèng)之安魂曲》中粗略論述的“concentration of wealth and power”
總論述為A vicious circle: Concentration of wealth yields concentration of power, particularly so as the cost of election skyrockets, which kind of forces the political parties into the pocket of major corporations. And this political power quickly translates into legislation that increases the concentration of wealth.

Principle#1: Reduce Democracy
Principle#2: Shape Ideology
Principle#3: Redesign the economy
Principle#4: Shift the burden
Principle#5: Attack Solidarity
Principle#6: Run the Regulators
Principle#7: Engineer Elections
Principle#8: Keep the Rabble in Line
Principle#9: Manufacture Consent
Principle#10: Marginalize the population

Bertrand Russell was asked why he spent his time protesting against nuclear war and getting arrested on demonstrations rather than continuing to work on the serious philosophical and logical problems which have major intellectual significance? He said: “Look, if I and others like me only work on those problems, there won’t be anybody around to appreciate it or be interested.”

花了半天的時(shí)間看完了美國(guó)紀(jì)錄片《美國(guó)夢(mèng)之安魂曲》（Requiem for the American Dream）。該片由學(xué)者諾姆·喬姆斯基（NOAM CHUMSKY）制作。這是2015年4月份出品的片子，但是，在中國(guó)可以看到的視頻網(wǎng)站中只找到了沒有中文字幕的這個(gè)視頻鏈接：http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTU3MDcwNjU2OA==.html

看了一下豆瓣評(píng)論，發(fā)現(xiàn)大家都很不感冒，更感社會(huì)現(xiàn)實(shí)的凄慘和大家思想狀態(tài)的不明。

該片論述了美國(guó)社會(huì)為了制造一個(gè)多數(shù)人受剝削壓迫、進(jìn)而為少數(shù)富人服務(wù)的社會(huì)所奉行和執(zhí)行的規(guī)則：
規(guī)則（1）減少民主（reduce democracy）。美國(guó)憲法的宗旨就是：保護(hù)少數(shù)人的利益不被大多數(shù)人剝奪。
        
        規(guī)則（2）意識(shí)形態(tài)塑形（shape ideology）。
 
規(guī)則（3）重新設(shè)計(jì)經(jīng)濟(jì)系統(tǒng)（redesign of the economy）:調(diào)整貿(mào)易結(jié)構(gòu)，用意非常明顯，就是讓各國(guó)和所有勞動(dòng)者之間產(chǎn)生競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。企業(yè)成功的手段是通過：制造工人的不安全感（job insecurity）。

1950, 美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)依靠實(shí)業(yè)生產(chǎn)：28%來自加工產(chǎn)業(yè)，11%來自金融。50年代和60年代，是美國(guó)制造業(yè)發(fā)展的黃金時(shí)期，也是財(cái)富分配比較公平的時(shí)期。普通工人可以得到一份工作，買車買房，孩子上學(xué)。

2010: 美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)11%來自生產(chǎn)加工， 21%來自金融。通用電器50%的利潤(rùn)來自把錢挪來挪去，而不是來自從事生產(chǎn)。

 這樣做的結(jié)果是，在2007年，40%的企業(yè)利潤(rùn)進(jìn)了金融機(jī)構(gòu)的腰包。不可避免的產(chǎn)生了2008年金融危機(jī)，也不可避免地，美國(guó)政府用納稅人的錢填補(bǔ)嗜血銀行的虧空。

        規(guī)則（4）轉(zhuǎn)嫁成本（shift the burden）: 富人交更少的稅甚至逃稅，窮人交更多的稅。

        規(guī)則（5）打擊團(tuán)結(jié)（attack solidarity）: 通過減少政府開支和私有化進(jìn)程，剝奪50年代和60年代人民曾經(jīng)擁有的免費(fèi)教育等公共服務(wù)。結(jié)果，到今天，美國(guó)州立大學(xué)50%的經(jīng)費(fèi)依靠收取學(xué)費(fèi)，使得貧困學(xué)生還未就業(yè)就負(fù)債累累。

規(guī)則（6）自行制定規(guī)則（run the regulators），相當(dāng)于銀行家寫銀行法。難怪沒人能夠控制得了金融危機(jī)。罪犯管理犯罪，怎么能夠不犯罪。

規(guī)則（7）設(shè)計(jì)選舉（engineering elections）

規(guī)則（8）控制反抗（ keep the rabble in line）。1920年的美國(guó)工人運(yùn)動(dòng)被鎮(zhèn)壓了。1930年，工人運(yùn)動(dòng)取得了成績(jī)。但是，從二戰(zhàn)之后，這些過去的成績(jī)都消失殆盡了。到現(xiàn)在，美國(guó)私企中，只有7%的職工是工會(huì)成員。

規(guī)則（9）制造一致贊同:（manufacture consent）: 今天這個(gè)時(shí)代，武力和硬性的壓迫很多時(shí)候已經(jīng)不合時(shí)宜的，那些控制壓迫我們的人很聰明，現(xiàn)在通過制造消費(fèi)文化來控制大眾。有閑暇的時(shí)候，年輕人不再去圖書館，而是去逛商場(chǎng)、去看電視、去玩手機(jī)。這樣，把大眾弄成迷迷糊糊的任人宰割的羔羊。

規(guī)則（10）把大眾邊緣化（marginalize the population）

        無論如何，不要忘記下面的東西：

亞當(dāng)·史密斯說，勞動(dòng)力的自由流動(dòng)是經(jīng)濟(jì)平衡發(fā)展的基礎(chǔ)。

        諾姆·喬姆斯基說，無論如何，美國(guó)仍是全世界最自由的國(guó)家之一，過去人民組織起來進(jìn)行反抗取得過成績(jī)，人民應(yīng)該繼續(xù)這樣的努力，也必將取得成績(jī)。

霍華德·津恩（Howard Zinn）說：“無數(shù)默默無聞的人們所做的無數(shù)點(diǎn)點(diǎn)滴滴的努力是任何重大歷史進(jìn)步的基礎(chǔ)。過去如此，將來仍然如此?！保╓hat matters is countless small deeds of unknown people that lay the basis for the significant ends that enter history. They are the ones who have done things in the past, and they are the ones who have to in the future.）

在學(xué)校時(shí)寫的短作文，雖然有點(diǎn)小學(xué)生考試的感覺，但還是放上來留著。說不定哪天還可以交個(gè)作業(yè)什么的。 【滑稽】
    順便，其實(shí)我不是很喜歡這種把其他經(jīng)濟(jì)/哲學(xué)家的理論作為大眾常識(shí)，把自己的理論強(qiáng)加給別人的方式。
--------------------------------------------------
    After watching “Requiem for the American Dreams”, I was very shocked by Noam Chomsky’s statement that the inequality of the society comes from the extreme rich, who are only 1% of the population in America. In his theory, the concentration of wealth yields concentration of power, and those small number of wealthier people would merely protect the minority of themselves. However, the America has always proclaimed and promoted that it strives to establish a democracy and equality society. Now people would ask: “If can democracy really lead to equality to all people in the world? And why was majority of social wealth held in a very few so-called elite class?
In my opinion, unequal-social-wealth distribution is not a good thing for either the society or the people. Democracy will not automatically bring about reasonable social allocation. The group of middle-class people, just like us, actually only demand for a well-being life. All they need is to have their lives to be safer and sufficient. They do not have that much desire to participate political affairs. However, people should turn their attention more to the intentions of the politicians, as well as the social responsibilities and moralities of the rich entrepreneurs.
    Exploitation and profit-oriented drive separate each group of people who possess different social wealth, and that causes the formation of the different social classes in the society and generates the inequality; however, at the present stage, we have no any other choices. The people who have more assets and more capital are able to make more money in an exponent degree. In the future, it is better to somewhat limit the increasing rate of wealth in the rich or drastically change the tax rates for different groups in lieu of their incomes. As long as we keep this policy for long, the real equality and democracy society will eventually come true.
The film gives us 10 principles of how the American society developed in the past years; however, it also leaves us a question: what should we do to realize the equality within a democratic society? How and what should we do? We should probably take some time and think about the big question coming from the movie.