原題為 Plutonomy and the Precariat: On the History of the US Economy in Decline 羅其云譯

 

　　"占領(lǐng)運(yùn)動(dòng)"一直以來(lái)的發(fā)展令人極度興奮。事實(shí)上我還沒(méi)看過(guò)先例。我?guī)缀跸氩黄鹑魏晤愃频氖录?。如果它所建立起的人與人的牽系和關(guān)聯(lián),能持續(xù)不斷地穿透我們眼前這漫長(zhǎng)而黑暗的時(shí)代-因?yàn)槿魏蔚膭倮嫉脕?lái)不易-就可以證明它是美國(guó)歷史上一個(gè)非常了得的事件。

　　說(shuō) "占領(lǐng)運(yùn)動(dòng)"是史無(wú)前例的事實(shí)是正確不過(guò)的。畢竟，這是一個(gè)史無(wú)前例的時(shí)代-也就是說(shuō)美國(guó)的歷史以70年代做為轉(zhuǎn)捩點(diǎn)以來(lái),它本身是一成不變也不為過(guò)。這 國(guó)家從建國(guó)殷始，幾世紀(jì)以來(lái)一直是一個(gè)發(fā)展中的社會(huì)，用的方法也不都是光明正大。但普遍的是超著財(cái)富，工業(yè)化，發(fā)展和希望的路前進(jìn)。人們非常一致的期待是 這條路可以一直地走下去。就是在非常黑暗的時(shí)期都是如此。

　　我正好年紀(jì)大的還有大蕭條的記憶。開(kāi)始的幾年，大概是30年代中期，雖然那時(shí)的處境客觀的看來(lái)是比現(xiàn)在惡劣多了，但是人們的精神面貌卻是迥然不同。有一種"我們的日子會(huì)變好"的想法，就是在失業(yè)的人群中-也包括我的一些親戚都有，感覺(jué)"事情會(huì)好轉(zhuǎn)"。

　　當(dāng) 時(shí)有激進(jìn)的工會(huì)組織活動(dòng)，特別是"工業(yè)組織會(huì)"。幾乎動(dòng)員到"坐地"罷工的地步，這可把商界嚇壞了，從商業(yè)報(bào)道中可以看出，因?yàn)?坐地"罷工就等于是奪取 工廠的管理權(quán)以及工人當(dāng)家作主的前一步.工人接管工廠正巧今天也是計(jì)劃中之事,這點(diǎn)大家要牢牢記住.還有新政的立法在群眾的壓力下也開(kāi)始了.盡管生存艱 辛,但是有一種共識(shí)"我們一定會(huì)脫困而出".

　　如今卻大大不同.許多人有一種悖逆的無(wú)助和絕望感覺(jué),這在美國(guó)歷史上也是新鮮事,這現(xiàn)象還很普遍.

　　工人階級(jí)方面

　　30年代的失業(yè)工人能期待他們的工作會(huì)回來(lái).如果你是今天工廠中的工人-今天的失業(yè)率大約和大蕭條時(shí)旗鼓相當(dāng)-而目前的趨勢(shì)下去,你原有的工作是不會(huì)回來(lái)的.

　　這 變化始于70年代.其中有多方面的因素.一個(gè)突出的關(guān)鍵,照經(jīng)濟(jì)史學(xué)家　羅伯特.布任納的解釋,主要就是制造業(yè)的利潤(rùn)的下滑.還有別的許多原因.就造成了 經(jīng)濟(jì)上的巨大變革-把幾百年來(lái)以工業(yè)化和發(fā)展為前進(jìn)方向倒轉(zhuǎn)成"去工業(yè)化和去發(fā)展"的模式.當(dāng)然,制造業(yè)在海外的盈利還是巨大的,只是對(duì)工人沒(méi)有什么好處 罷了.

　　緊跟著來(lái)的就是顯著的在經(jīng)濟(jì)上從生產(chǎn)人們所需和能使用的生產(chǎn)業(yè)變成了金融投機(jī).經(jīng)濟(jì)的金融化從此開(kāi)始了.

　　1970 以前,銀行只是銀行.它們所做的就是國(guó)家資本主義經(jīng)濟(jì)下所該做的:它們從賬戶的未使用的資金轉(zhuǎn)到幫助家庭買房或供孩子上大學(xué)這樣潛在有意義的事情 上.1970徹底改變了這些.那之前,打自大蕭條以來(lái)沒(méi)有發(fā)生過(guò)金融危機(jī).50和60年代的發(fā)展是巨大的.那是美國(guó)歷史上的最高點(diǎn),也可能是經(jīng)濟(jì)史上的最 高點(diǎn).

　　還有那時(shí)候的平等性.最低的20百分比和最高層的20百分比過(guò)的一樣好.許多人過(guò)起了合理的生活-就是美國(guó)所說(shuō)的"中產(chǎn)階級(jí)",其 它國(guó)家則稱之為"工薪階級(jí)"-這是千真萬(wàn)確的事.60年代加速前進(jìn).那些年的熱心參與行動(dòng),僅僅是短短的10年,確實(shí)在多方面恒久地文明化了這個(gè)國(guó)家.

　　70年代的來(lái)臨,突然發(fā)生了巨變:去工業(yè)化,生產(chǎn)外包,向金融化傾斜,金融機(jī)構(gòu)迅速膨脹.我還要說(shuō)明,50和60年代在數(shù)十年后稱之為高科技的經(jīng)濟(jì)方面還是有所發(fā)展的:比如電腦,互聯(lián)網(wǎng)和IT革命,那時(shí)主要是國(guó)家主導(dǎo)的.

　　70年代起始的發(fā)展形成一套惡性循環(huán).它導(dǎo)致財(cái)富的集中慢慢地匯聚到金融圈的手中.這對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)是沒(méi)有幫助的-它還可能會(huì)傷害經(jīng)濟(jì)-但它確實(shí)造成財(cái)富的極度集中.

　　政策和金錢方面

　　財(cái)富的集中造就了權(quán)力的集中.而權(quán)力的集中催生了立法,更助長(zhǎng)和升級(jí)了這種惡性循環(huán).這些立法適用于兩黨,又驅(qū)使了新的財(cái)政措施和稅收政策,還有公司管理的規(guī)定和去規(guī)則化.和這并生的是選舉費(fèi)用的飆升,后者更使得政黨受制于大企業(yè).

　　政黨慢慢在變質(zhì). 本來(lái)個(gè)人在國(guó)會(huì)想進(jìn)身當(dāng)一委員會(huì)的主席,靠的是他的資歷.現(xiàn)在是假以時(shí)日,為了高升必須開(kāi)始把錢投入黨的金庫(kù)里,這題目的主要的研究者有湯姆.佛格森.這就更將整個(gè)體系推向大企業(yè)方面(尤其是金融業(yè)).

　　這 個(gè)循環(huán)導(dǎo)致了財(cái)富極度的集中,主要在百分之0.1的人手中.同時(shí),對(duì)大多數(shù)人來(lái)說(shuō),它又帶來(lái)了一個(gè)停滯甚至是衰退的時(shí)代.人們藉著人為的方式,如加長(zhǎng)的工 作時(shí)間,大量的借貸和背債,還有的依賴引起最近房地產(chǎn)泡沫一樣的虛漲的房產(chǎn)價(jià)值來(lái)勉強(qiáng)度日.很快地,工作的長(zhǎng)時(shí)已經(jīng)超過(guò)了日本和歐洲等許多工業(yè)化的國(guó)家. 大多數(shù)人的停滯衰敗的時(shí)代和財(cái)富極度集中的時(shí)代是并存的,政治體系于是消解了.

　　本來(lái)公共政策和公眾的意志"總是有距離的,現(xiàn)在是呈幾何級(jí) 數(shù)增長(zhǎng)了.你現(xiàn)在可以看的很清楚.來(lái)看看華盛頓人人關(guān)注的題目:赤字.對(duì)大眾來(lái)說(shuō),赤字真正是不被當(dāng)成主要的問(wèn)題的.它也確實(shí)不算是個(gè)議題.真正的議題應(yīng) 該是"失業(yè)"."赤字委員會(huì)"存在但卻沒(méi)有一個(gè)"失業(yè)委員會(huì)".就赤字的議題來(lái)說(shuō),老百姓是有他們的看法的.看看歷次的民意測(cè)驗(yàn),絕大多數(shù)的人贊成對(duì)富裕 者課高稅,就在經(jīng)濟(jì)停滯衰退,社會(huì)福利縮減的時(shí)候,富人的稅卻大大縮水.

　　赤字委員會(huì)的辦法很可能需要走向它的反面.占領(lǐng)運(yùn)動(dòng)大可提供它的群眾基礎(chǔ)為赤字找到擊倒它的匕首.

　　財(cái)富階級(jí)和無(wú)以立足的無(wú)產(chǎn)者

　　占領(lǐng)運(yùn)動(dòng)中占99百分比的人民大眾,活的很艱辛,情況還可能更糟.這次可能是一場(chǎng)無(wú)法逆轉(zhuǎn)的衰退.對(duì)那百分之1或者是更少的百分之0.1的人,情況倒是蠻好的.他們比以往更富有,更有權(quán)力,可以對(duì)政治翻云覆雨,藐視群眾.他們所關(guān)心的就是把一切延續(xù)下去,為什么要變呢?

　　以花旗銀行為例.幾十年來(lái),花旗集團(tuán)是主要投資銀行企業(yè)中最腐敗中的一個(gè),不斷地靠納稅人的錢救贖,始于雷根時(shí)期開(kāi)始幾年,現(xiàn)在又有問(wèn)題.我不想細(xì)說(shuō)它的腐敗,總之是非常驚人的.

　　2005年,花旗給投資者出了一個(gè)小冊(cè)子,叫做"財(cái)富管理:購(gòu)買奢侈品,詮釋全球的不平衡".它鼓勵(lì)投資者把錢放進(jìn)一種"財(cái)富管理指數(shù)"里.小冊(cè)子還說(shuō),"世界分成兩大陣營(yíng)--有財(cái)富可管理者和其余者".

　　有 財(cái)富可理者是指那些富人,有能力購(gòu)買奢侈品者,以為這就是世界的中心.它說(shuō)"財(cái)富管理指數(shù)"比股市的表現(xiàn)還好.其他的人就讓他們飄在那兒,我們并不關(guān)心他 們,我們也不是真正需要他們.他們的存在只是為了一個(gè)強(qiáng)有力的國(guó)家,那會(huì)保護(hù)我們,等我們有麻煩的時(shí)候,可以伸出援手.除了這點(diǎn)之外,他們就沒(méi)有什么用 了.現(xiàn)在他們被稱做"無(wú)以立足的無(wú)產(chǎn)者"-活在社會(huì)的外圍的飄蕩脆弱的人群.只是現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)不能叫"外圍"了,因?yàn)?他們已經(jīng)是美國(guó)社會(huì)非常顯著的一部分 了,世界其它地方也是一樣.而這些被認(rèn)為是好事.

　　在格林斯潘被稱做"圣人亞倫",而且還被專業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)者大聲贊美成歷史上最偉大的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家 之一的時(shí)候(這是在股市崩盤之前,而他對(duì)崩盤應(yīng)負(fù)主要責(zé)任),就在克林頓時(shí)代的國(guó)會(huì)作證說(shuō)明,他所引導(dǎo)之下的奇跡般的偉大經(jīng)濟(jì).他說(shuō)這種經(jīng)濟(jì)的成功訣竅在 于他稱之為"勞動(dòng)者不安全性的增長(zhǎng)". 如果勞動(dòng)者有不安全感,如果他們處于不穩(wěn)定的外緣位置,他們就不會(huì)提出要求,他們得不到更好的待遇,他們的福利也不會(huì)有所增加. 當(dāng)我們不需要他們的時(shí)候,我們就可以請(qǐng)他們走路. 這就是被技術(shù)性的稱做"健康經(jīng)濟(jì)"的事實(shí). 他也為此受到吹捧.

　　這個(gè)世界確實(shí)分劃成了兩個(gè)-一個(gè)富人的和一個(gè)流動(dòng)外緣無(wú)產(chǎn)者的世界,用占領(lǐng)運(yùn)動(dòng)的形象化語(yǔ)言來(lái)說(shuō),那就是百分之1和百分之99的差別. 這并不只是數(shù)字而已,而是事實(shí)如此.現(xiàn)在,富人經(jīng)濟(jì)才是受關(guān)注的焦點(diǎn),他們也希望這樣持續(xù)下去.

　　如 果如他們所愿,70年代顛倒了的歷史就無(wú)法逆轉(zhuǎn)了. 我們是朝著那條路走. 現(xiàn)在,占領(lǐng)運(yùn)動(dòng)成了第一個(gè)真正的,主要的和大眾支持的可以改變這一切的對(duì)抗力量. 但我們必須認(rèn)清事實(shí), 這場(chǎng)斗爭(zhēng)將是十分艱巨和漫長(zhǎng)的.不會(huì)明天就取得勝利.你必須建構(gòu)起一套可持續(xù)性的辦法, 面對(duì)困難堅(jiān)定奮戰(zhàn)一贏取最后的勝利. 有很多的事情等著我們?nèi)プ?

　　關(guān)于工人接管工廠

　　我曾說(shuō)過(guò),30年代工人最有效的行動(dòng)就是就地罷工. 原因很簡(jiǎn)單,就是它是工人接管的前奏.

　　整 個(gè)70年代,雖然在衰退中,還是有幾件重要的事件發(fā)生. 1977年,"美國(guó)鋼鐵"決定關(guān)閉他在俄亥俄州,約克斯城一家主要的工廠. 工人沒(méi)有就此遣散, 工人團(tuán)體和社區(qū)一起出面,想從公司手中買下工廠,將它交給工人來(lái)管,成為一個(gè)工人管理,工人負(fù)責(zé)的地方.可惜,他們最后沒(méi)有成功. 但當(dāng)時(shí)如果有足夠的群眾支持,他們應(yīng)該會(huì)贏的. 其中細(xì)節(jié),為工人和社區(qū)工作的律師 卡爾.阿爾培羅維茲 和 斯陶頓.臨德 曾敘述的很詳細(xì).

　　從它激發(fā)后續(xù)的其它行動(dòng)來(lái)說(shuō),它雖敗猶榮. 如今,整個(gè)俄亥俄州還有其它地方,遍布了成百上千的由工人和社區(qū)共同擁有"甚至成了工人管理的實(shí)業(yè), 有的規(guī)模還不算小.這是真正革命的基礎(chǔ). 這就是革命的起源.

　　一 年以前,波士頓一個(gè)近郊也發(fā)生了同樣的事情. 一家跨國(guó)公司要把它的一家還盈利而且經(jīng)營(yíng)的不錯(cuò);搞高科技的分公司關(guān)閉. 它只是未達(dá)到他們所預(yù)期的利潤(rùn)罷了. 工作人員和工會(huì)想把它買過(guò)來(lái),自己來(lái)經(jīng)營(yíng).這家跨國(guó)公司可能礙于情面,還是把它關(guān)了.想買的一方?jīng)]想到這個(gè)結(jié)果, 如果他們有足夠的群眾支持,或者他們有像占領(lǐng)運(yùn)動(dòng)的力量做后盾,他們可能會(huì)成功的.

　　還有其它類似的事件發(fā)生. 有一些,還不是小事. 不久以前, 奧巴馬總統(tǒng)把石油工業(yè)收歸國(guó)有, 它本來(lái)就是應(yīng)該由公眾所擁有的. 這類的事情是可以做的, 他們是這么干的: 重組之后交回原原擁有者,或者是相關(guān)的擁有者, 回到傳統(tǒng)的老路上.

　　另外一種可能是把它交到工作人員的手中-本來(lái)他們就是擁有者-把它變成工人擁有,工人管理的主要工業(yè)體系, 這體系是經(jīng)濟(jì)的主要部分, 讓它生產(chǎn)民之所需的東西, 而有很多東西是人民所需要的.

　　我 們都知道也應(yīng)該知道美國(guó)的高速交通在世界上是很落后的,問(wèn)題還很嚴(yán)重. 這不僅影響人民的生活,對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)影響也大. 我有個(gè)人的經(jīng)驗(yàn).幾個(gè)月前, 我正好在法國(guó)演講, 必須從南部的亞維寧城坐火車到巴黎的戴高樂(lè)機(jī)場(chǎng), 等長(zhǎng)于華盛頓到波士頓的距離,只用了2小時(shí). 我不知道你們坐過(guò)美國(guó)這段路線, 它還是和60年前我和我妻子第一次坐時(shí)一樣的速度. 這真是羞恥啊.

　　歐洲做得到的,這里應(yīng)該也做得到. 我們的技術(shù)工人有能力完成. 只要大眾齊力來(lái)支持, 它就會(huì)對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)改變很大.

　　再 談點(diǎn)更不可思議的. 這么好的方法不用, 奧巴馬當(dāng)局派了他的交通部長(zhǎng)去西班牙簽了一項(xiàng)建設(shè)美國(guó)高速鐵路的合同. 這本來(lái)可以在我們的工廠關(guān)閉的工業(yè)沒(méi)落區(qū)完成的. 我想不出這么做經(jīng)濟(jì)上的理由. 有工人階級(jí)不被重視的原因, 還有就是沒(méi)有動(dòng)員群眾的力量. 所以事情就變成這樣.

　　氣候變化和核武方面

　　我一直談的是國(guó)內(nèi)的問(wèn)題. 但在國(guó)際方面. 有兩項(xiàng)非常危險(xiǎn)的事態(tài)在發(fā)展, 那好像陰影一樣籠罩在我們所討論的一切問(wèn)題之上. 人類歷史是頭一遭遇上了危及人類生存的真正威嚇.

　　一個(gè)是自1945年以來(lái)一直懸在那的, 我們能躲過(guò)它真是一項(xiàng)奇跡. 這就是核戰(zhàn)和核武器的威脅. 這問(wèn)題的討論不多. 實(shí)際上,這當(dāng)局的政策和它的同盟國(guó)將它的威脅升級(jí)了. 如果我們還不采取行動(dòng), 一切就太晚了.

　　另外一點(diǎn)就是環(huán)境災(zāi)難. 幾乎世界上每一個(gè)國(guó)家都采取了阻止讓它惡化的措施, 美國(guó)所采取的措施主要是將威脅升級(jí). 美是主要國(guó)家中唯一的一位不但不采取任何積極步驟去保護(hù)環(huán)境, 它根本還就不聞不問(wèn). 它還扯后腿.

　　由商界肆無(wú)忌憚的連結(jié)龐大的宣傳機(jī)器, 想要說(shuō)服人們,公開(kāi)宣稱 "環(huán)境變化只是一場(chǎng)騙局". 說(shuō)"為什么要關(guān)注這些科學(xué)家?"

　　我們真的掉回到黑暗時(shí)代, 這不是一個(gè)笑話. 如果這是發(fā)生在一個(gè)歷史上最強(qiáng)大和最富有的國(guó)家,那這場(chǎng)災(zāi)難是不可逆轉(zhuǎn)的,至少是一,兩代的時(shí)間, 我們談再多的問(wèn)題還是沒(méi)有用的. 我們迫切地需要采取細(xì)致而且可持續(xù)的行動(dòng).

　　前進(jìn)的道路充滿了障礙,荊棘,困頓和失敗. 這是不可避免的. 除非去年在這個(gè)國(guó)家和全球各地的那股精神(指占領(lǐng)運(yùn)動(dòng))能繼續(xù)成長(zhǎng)而爆發(fā)成社會(huì)和政治世界的主要力量, 對(duì)擁有美好而令人憧憬的未來(lái)的機(jī)會(huì)是很渺茫的.

 

　　The Occupy movement has been an extremely exciting development. Unprecedented, in fact. There"s never been anything like it that I can think of. If the bonds and associations it has established can be sustained through a long, dark period ahead -- because victory won"t come quickly -- it could prove a significant moment in American history.

　　The fact that the Occupy movement is unprecedented is quite appropriate. After all, it"s an unprecedented era and has been so since the 1970s, which marked a major turning point in American history. For centuries, since the country began, it had been a developing society, and not always in very pretty ways. That"s another story, but the general progress was toward wealth, industrialization, development, and hope. There was a pretty constant expectation that it was going to go on like this. That was true even in very dark times.

　　I"m just old enough to remember the Great Depression. After the first few years, by the mid-1930s -- although the situation was objectively much harsher than it is today -- nevertheless, the spirit was quite different. There was a sense that "we"re gonna get out of it," even among unemployed people, including a lot of my relatives, a sense that "it will get better."

　　There was militant labor union organizing going on, especially from the CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations). It was getting to the point of sit-down strikes, which are frightening to the business world -- you could see it in the business press at the time -- because a sit-down strike is just a step before taking over the factory and running it yourself. The idea of worker takeovers is something which is, incidentally, very much on the agenda today, and we should keep it in mind. Also New Deal legislation was beginning to come in as a result of popular pressure. Despite the hard times, there was a sense that, somehow, "we"re gonna get out of it."

　　It"s quite different now. For many people in the United States, there"s a pervasive sense of hopelessness, sometimes despair. I think it"s quite new in American history. And it has an objective basis.

　　On the Working Class

　　In the 1930s, unemployed working people could anticipate that their jobs would come back. If you"re a worker in manufacturing today -- the current level of unemployment there is approximately like the Depression -- and current tendencies persist, those jobs aren"t going to come back.

　　The change took place in the 1970s. There are a lot of reasons for it. One of the underlying factors, discussed mainly by economic historian Robert Brenner, was the falling rate of profit in manufacturing. There were other factors. It led to major changes in the economy -- a reversal of several hundred years of progress towards industrialization and development that turned into a process of de-industrialization and de-development. Of course, manufacturing production continued overseas very profitably, but it"s no good for the work force.

　　Along with that came a significant shift of the economy from productive enterprise -- producing things people need or could use -- to financial manipulation. The financialization of the economy really took off at that time.

　　On Banks

　　Before the 1970s, banks were banks. They did what banks were supposed to do in a state capitalist economy: they took unused funds from your bank account, for example, and transferred them to some potentially useful purpose like helping a family buy a home or send a kid to college. That changed dramatically in the 1970s. Until then, there had been no financial crises since the Great Depression. The 1950s and 1960s had been a period of enormous growth, the highest in American history, maybe in economic history.

　　And it was egalitarian. The lowest quintile did about as well as the highest quintile. Lots of people moved into reasonable lifestyles -- what"s called the "middle class" here, the "working class" in other countries -- but it was real. And the 1960s accelerated it. The activism of those years, after a pretty dismal decade, really civilized the country in lots of ways that are permanent.

　　When the 1970s came along, there were sudden and sharp changes: de-industrialization, the off-shoring of production, and the shift to financial institutions, which grew enormously. I should say that, in the 1950s and 1960s, there was also the development of what several decades later became the high-tech economy: computers, the Internet, the IT Revolution developed substantially in the state sector.

　　The developments that took place during the 1970s set off a vicious cycle. It led to the concentration of wealth increasingly in the hands of the financial sector. This doesn"t benefit the economy -- it probably harms it and society -- but it did lead to a tremendous concentration of wealth.

　　On Politics and Money

　　Concentration of wealth yields concentration of political power. And concentration of political power gives rise to legislation that increases and accelerates the cycle. The legislation, essentially bipartisan, drives new fiscal policies and tax changes, as well as the rules of corporate governance and deregulation. Alongside this began a sharp rise in the costs of elections, which drove the political parties even deeper into the pockets of the corporate sector.

　　The parties dissolved in many ways. It used to be that if a person in Congress hoped for a position such as a committee chair, he or she got it mainly through seniority and service. Within a couple of years, they started having to put money into the party coffers in order to get ahead, a topic studied mainly by Tom Ferguson. That just drove the whole system even deeper into the pockets of the corporate sector (increasingly the financial sector).

　　This cycle resulted in a tremendous concentration of wealth, mainly in the top tenth of one percent of the population. Meanwhile, it opened a period of stagnation or even decline for the majority of the population. People got by, but by artificial means such as longer working hours, high rates of borrowing and debt, and reliance on asset inflation like the recent housing bubble. Pretty soon those working hours were much higher in the United States than in other industrial countries like Japan and various places in Europe. So there was a period of stagnation and decline for the majority alongside a period of sharp concentration of wealth. The political system began to dissolve.

　　There has always been a gap between public policy and public will, but it just grew astronomically. You can see it right now, in fact. Take a look at the big topic in Washington that everyone concentrates on: the deficit. For the public, correctly, the deficit is not regarded as much of an issue. And it isn"t really much of an issue. The issue is joblessness. There"s a deficit commission but no joblessness commission. As far as the deficit is concerned, the public has opinions. Take a look at the polls. The public overwhelmingly supports higher taxes on the wealthy, which have declined sharply in this period of stagnation and decline, and the preservation of limited social benefits.

　　The outcome of the deficit commission is probably going to be the opposite. The Occupy movements could provide a mass base for trying to avert what amounts to a dagger pointed at the heart of the country.

　　Plutonomy and the Precariat

　　For the general population, the 99% in the imagery of the Occupy movement, it"s been pretty harsh -- and it could get worse. This could be a period of irreversible decline. For the 1% and even less -- the .1% -- it"s just fine. They are richer than ever, more powerful than ever, controlling the political system, disregarding the public. And if it can continue, as far as they"re concerned, sure, why not?

　　Take, for example, Citigroup. For decades, Citigroup has been one of the most corrupt of the major investment banking corporations, repeatedly bailed out by the taxpayer, starting in the early Reagan years and now once again. I won"t run through the corruption, but it"s pretty astonishing.

　　In 2005, Citigroup came out with a brochure for investors called "Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances." It urged investors to put money into a "plutonomy index." The brochure says, "The World is dividing into two blocs -- the Plutonomy and the rest."

　　Plutonomy refers to the rich, those who buy luxury goods and so on, and that"s where the action is. They claimed that their plutonomy index was way outperforming the stock market. As for the rest, we set them adrift. We don"t really care about them. We don"t really need them. They have to be around to provide a powerful state, which will protect us and bail us out when we get into trouble, but other than that they essentially have no function. These days they"re sometimes called the "precariat" -- people who live a precarious existence at the periphery of society. Only it"s not the periphery anymore. It"s becoming a very substantial part of society in the United States and indeed elsewhere. And this is considered a good thing.

　　So, for example, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, at the time when he was still "Saint Alan" -- hailed by the economics profession as one of the greatest economists of all time (this was before the crash for which he was substantially responsible) -- was testifying to Congress in the Clinton years, and he explained the wonders of the great economy that he was supervising. He said a lot of its success was based substantially on what he called "growing worker insecurity." If working people are insecure, if they"re part of the precariat, living precarious existences, they"re not going to make demands, they"re not going to try to get better wages, they won"t get improved benefits. We can kick "em out, if we don"t need "em. And that"s what"s called a "healthy" economy, technically speaking. And he was highly praised for this, greatly admired.

　　So the world is now indeed splitting into a plutonomy and a precariat -- in the imagery of the Occupy movement, the 1% and the 99%. Not literal numbers, but the right picture. Now, the plutonomy is where the action is and it could continue like this.

　　If it does, the historic reversal that began in the 1970s could become irreversible. That"s where we"re heading. And the Occupy movement is the first real, major, popular reaction that could avert this. But it"s going to be necessary to face the fact that it"s a long, hard struggle. You don"t win victories tomorrow. You have to form the structures that will be sustained, that will go on through hard times and can win major victories. And there are a lot of things that can be done.

　　Toward Worker Takeover

　　I mentioned before that, in the 1930s, one of the most effective actions was the sit-down strike. And the reason is simple: that"s just a step before the takeover of an industry.

　　Through the 1970s, as the decline was setting in, there were some important events that took place. In 1977, U.S. Steel decided to close one of its major facilities in Youngstown, Ohio. Instead of just walking away, the workforce and the community decided to get together and buy it from the company, hand it over to the work force, and turn it into a worker-run, worker-managed facility. They didn"t win. But with enough popular support, they could have won. It"s a topic that Gar Alperovitz and Staughton Lynd, the lawyer for the workers and community, have discussed in detail.

　　It was a partial victory because, even though they lost, it set off other efforts. And now, throughout Ohio, and in other places, there"s a scattering of hundreds, maybe thousands, of sometimes not-so-small worker/community-owned industries that could become worker-managed. And that"s the basis for a real revolution. That"s how it takes place.

　　In one of the suburbs of Boston, about a year ago, something similar happened. A multinational decided to close down a profitable, functioning facility carrying out some high-tech manufacturing. Evidently, it just wasn"t profitable enough for them. The workforce and the union offered to buy it, take it over, and run it themselves. The multinational decided to close it down instead, probably for reasons of class-consciousness. I don"t think they want things like this to happen. If there had been enough popular support, if there had been something like the Occupy movement that could have gotten involved, they might have succeeded.

　　And there are other things going on like that. In fact, some of them are major. Not long ago, President Barack Obama took over the auto industry, which was basically owned by the public. And there were a number of things that could have been done. One was what was done: reconstitute it so that it could be handed back to the ownership, or very similar ownership, and continue on its traditional path.

　　The other possibility was to hand it over to the workforce -- which owned it anyway -- turn it into a worker-owned, worker-managed major industrial system that"s a big part of the economy, and have it produce things that people need. And there"s a lot that we need.

　　We all know or should know that the United States is extremely backward globally in high-speed transportation, and it"s very serious. It not only affects people"s lives, but the economy. In that regard, here"s a personal story. I happened to be giving talks in France a couple of months ago and had to take a train from Avignon in southern France to Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris, the same distance as from Washington, DC, to Boston. It took two hours. I don"t know if you"ve ever taken the train from Washington to Boston, but it"s operating at about the same speed it was 60 years ago when my wife and I first took it. It"s a scandal.

　　It could be done here as it"s been done in Europe. They had the capacity to do it, the skilled work force. It would have taken a little popular support, but it could have made a major change in the economy.

　　Just to make it more surreal, while this option was being avoided, the Obama administration was sending its transportation secretary to Spain to get contracts for developing high-speed rail for the United States, which could have been done right in the rust belt, which is being closed down. There are no economic reasons why this can"t happen. These are class reasons, and reflect the lack of popular political mobilization. Things like this continue.

　　Climate Change and Nuclear Weapons

　　I"ve kept to domestic issues, but there are two dangerous developments in the international arena, which are a kind of shadow that hangs over everything we"ve discussed. There are, for the first time in human history, real threats to the decent survival of the species.

　　One has been hanging around since 1945. It"s kind of a miracle that we"ve escaped it. That"s the threat of nuclear war and nuclear weapons. Though it isn"t being much discussed, that threat is, in fact, being escalated by the policies of this administration and its allies. And something has to be done about that or we"re in real trouble.

　　The other, of course, is environmental catastrophe. Practically every country in the world is taking at least halting steps towards trying to do something about it. The United States is also taking

　　steps, mainly to accelerate the threat. It is the only major country that is not only not doing something constructive to protect the environment, it"s not even climbing on the train. In some ways, it"s pulling it backwards.

　　And this is connected to a huge propaganda system, proudly and openly declared by the business world, to try to convince people that climate change is just a liberal hoax. "Why pay attention to these scientists?"

　　We"re really regressing back to the dark ages. It"s not a joke. And if that"s happening in the most powerful, richest country in history, then this catastrophe isn"t going to be averted -- and in a generation or two, everything else we"re talking about won"t matter. Something has to be done about it very soon in a dedicated, sustained way.

　　It"s not going to be easy to proceed. There are going to be barriers, difficulties, hardships, failures. It"s inevitable. But unless the spirit of the last year, here and elsewhere in the country and around the globe, continues to grow and becomes a major force in the social and political world, the chances for a decent future are not very high.