Facts

Insight

Impact

Monologues

Thinking

Alone

The perfect translation should be concise, accurate and understandable, reflecting the meaning of the source text.

The idea

recorded

Thinking

Alone

03.29.2024

No.06

** **

** **

** **

GBA Commentary x Produced by IIA

"Hope" and "Despair":Multi-faceted America and its Future "

How to Understand American Society

Prof.

Zheng

Yongnian

Please translate the following text into English. Please ensure the sentence is grammatically correct and fluent. Return the content only. Thanks!

Everlasting

years

PREFACE

Reel 06 Editor's Note

How to Make Sense of American Society? Do We Ever Really “Get” America?

It can be argued that no article or book can fully and objectively describe the United States because books are written by people, and people have positions and backgrounds. Professor Zheng Yongnian points out that the United States has many "faces"—in addition to the previously discussed "Native America" and "Global America," there are many other "Americas" from a narrative perspective—such as "Free America," "Real America," and "Inequality America."

** **

In renowned economist Professor Angus Deaton's new 2023 book The Economic Problem of the United States:An immigrant economist's relentless exploration of the Dark Places of Inequality lays bare the despairing underside of the American Dream. This piece deconstructs the deep seated reasons why inequality in the United States is impossible to solve: inequality is not just a reality in America, it is a necessity for the way American institutions work. While the US has the means to build a welfare state comparable to those of Europe, the country’s ruling elite prizes “equality of opportunity” over “equality of outcome,” meaning that unlike most other developed countries, America’s institutions require the existence of a large underclass.

In such a society, there will always be those who play ''God'' and those who play ''Devil''. An equal U.S. is impossible to achieve.

最近中信出版社的一位编辑问我是否可以为出版社即将出版的经济学家安格斯·迪顿（Angus Deaton）教授2023年的新著《美国的经济问题：一位移民经济学家对不平等之地的不倦探索》写一篇评论短文。迪顿教授的文字我看过不少，包括他的前一本书《绝望的死亡与资本主义的未来》（ Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism ）。《美国的经济问题》的英文版（ Economics in America: An Immigrant Economist Explores the Land of Inequality ），我早些时候已经初看了一遍，看了中文译稿之后，答复编辑说，写一篇评论需要一些时间，但可以先写一段推荐语。其实，写一篇评论文章并不难，但我并不想局限在评论迪顿教授的这本书，而是想借这个机会思考一下我们 Understanding U.S. society: An academic and policy question

Suicidal Death and the Future of Capitalism (photo):network

01 Do we really "understand America"?

在美国社会生活过多年，并且也一直在长期观察美国社会，最近我一直在思考如何思考和理解美国社会的问题。 For years, we have advocated for "understanding China", hoping that the world can understand China, but in the same way, we ourselves need to understand the world, especially America.

For many years, China and the United States have quarreled constantly. At times, the relationship has been strained, creating great uncertainty for both countries and the world. Although there are many contributing factors, misunderstandings between the two sides are actually a more significant issue.

对很多人来说，读有关美国的书无疑是读懂美国的主要途径。不过，事情并非那么简单 Books are written by people with individual perspectives and backgrounds. If you don't understand the perspectives and backgrounds of the writers, it will result in the "blind men and an elephant" effect. 同样，如果人们不理解迪顿的研究立场和著述背景，那么很有可能把迪顿的“理解”转化成为我们的“误解”；而且，越是像迪顿那样的获得诺贝尔奖等级的学者越能在我们这边造成影响。无论在经济学界还是在整个社会科学界，因为我们没有自己的原创性理论，更没有我们自己的“英雄”，西方学者很容易演变成为我们的“英雄”。 Especially in today's China, the worship of "heroes" of Western theories has reached an extreme level. This is a great era that requires great ideas; we don't have them ourselves, so we have to "turn" to the West. 在很大程度上说，这几乎是近代以来的一个“永恒性”现象。

回到迪顿的著述。迪顿不仅对经济学作出了实质性的贡献，而且也一直在启蒙美国社会，在美国社会具有巨大的影响。《绝望的死亡与资本主义的未来》一书当年被评为《纽约时报》《华尔街日报》的畅销书并不令人惊讶。在人们的眼中，经济学家的文字大都服务于他们自己的那个小圈子的，常以“数学”和“模型”来表达自己的思想，对常人来说既难以理喻，更苦涩无聊。但迪顿的著述则不然。 Western economists who can be considered great all turned to concern with real problems after they had demonstrated their virtuosity, and it was precisely their concern for social reality that gave their thought eternal validity. 无论是《绝望的死亡与资本主义的未来》还是《美国的经济问题》都是这样的思想性著作。

Deaton's text packs a punch, but what packs an even bigger punch is the profound level of reflection his text invites on the question, "What is going on in American society?" 2024年2月25日，美国的共产主义者在多地集聚，通过线上线下会议的形式讨论美国革命共产主义者的成立，布鲁克林的与会者还参加了美国革命共产主义者的首次游行示威。类似的社会政治现象更给我们以无穷的遐想，强化着一些人关于美国“衰落”“内战”“解体”“崩溃”等的想象。但正如我们下面需要解释的那样， Dutton and similar works merely represent one side of the US, or an “America of despair,” if you will, and not the other faces of the United States. 如果只关切到这一面，那么我们所看到的既不是“总体美国”，更不是“真实美国”。

Angus Deaton, who won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on consumption, poverty and welfare (photo:Xinhuanet

02 Deaton:America is a land of "despair"

如果从叙事的角度来看美国，到底有几个“美国”呢？且不说我们之前讨论过的“本土美国”和“全球美国”之分，仅仅是美国内部也不难看到不同的美国叙事。几年前，美国进步派作家乔治·帕克（George Packer）写了一篇题为《一分为四的美国》的文章，发表在《大西洋月刊（ The Atlantic ）》（2021年7、8月号）上。文章从20世纪的70年代起笔，描绘了美国的四种面貌、四种讲述美国故事的方式。 According to Parker himself, these four narratives represent four types of Americans, and today's American society is torn apart by the irreconcilable contradictions in the four narratives. These four narratives include:1. Free America 2. Smart America 3. Real America 4. Just America, or Unjust America

在帕克的“不公正美国”那里，美国俨然是一个固化的等级制度，就像是种姓制度一样；而“真正美国”的核心是蓝领工人，由“白人+基督教+民族主义”组成，2008年共和党副总统候选人莎拉·佩林（Sarah Palin）既是“真正美国”的代表，也是“真正美国”的代言人。在这个范畴内，迪顿所叙事的美国无疑是部分的“不公正美国”和部分的“真正美国”。只不过迪顿没有像帕克所描述的群体那样具有极端的意识形态性罢了，而是把重点置于美国的“不平等”上，其书的副标题直接把美国形容成为一片“不平等之地”（The Land of Inequality）。实际上，他的前一本书更是把美国说成为“绝望”之地。迪顿是英国人，出生在苏格兰，同时也在英格兰接受了教育，然后在1983年搬到了美国新泽西州的普林斯顿。迪顿很快就看到了两个美国。诚如他所言， The profound awe in which I hold the achievements of American scholars and writers and the wealth and opportunity that America represents（特别是对移民及其孩子而言）。时至今日，这种敬畏犹在我心”； On the other hand, he also saw the dark side of the United States."Various inequalities in the United States are more serious than almost anywhere else on earth."

In terms of how Deaton narrates the American economy, the 1983 context and the context of the "immigrant economist" are most crucial to him. 很显然，迪顿“长大成人”时的英国是战后凯恩斯主义的英国，属于福利社会和政府责任大扩张时期；而当迪顿到了美国的时候，英美两国开启了新自由主义经济政策，即美国的里根革命和英国的撒切尔革命。迪顿到了美国后所关切的便是“新自由主义”的美国，而非战后“凯恩斯主义”的美国。 Neoliberalism has had much the same economic effect in both the UK and the US – widening inequality, leading in turn to much the same result – a rise in populism. 因此，人们可以认为，即使是迪顿不离开英国，如果他研究新自由主义下的英国，也同样有可能产生具有同样冲击力的思想。

迪顿的“不平等美国”叙事几乎是尽人皆知，不仅美国人知道，全世界人都知道。正如作者所引用的那样，根据2022年《福布斯》排行榜，埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）拥有2190 亿美元，杰夫·贝索斯（Jeff Bezos）拥有1710 亿美元。美国家庭净资产的中位数为12.17万美元，约为《福布斯》排行榜上位居第四位的比尔·盖茨（Bill Gates）财富净值的千分之一。美国收入最高的10%的人口拿走了总收入的将近一半，而收入排名在后50%的人口仅拿走了总收入的14%。这些数据自然说明了美国巨大的收入（或物质）不平等，以及富人和穷人之间、富人和其他人之间的收入鸿沟。 The author notes, “American society is much darker today than it was when I immigrated here in 1983.” 。今天，当美国从以往的“中产社会”演变成为“富豪社会”之后，类似迪顿那样的“不平等”“不公正”“绝望”叙事在美国极其普遍。

Deaton also points out that very many Americans do resent these inequalities and see them as a symptom of what has gone wrong with their country, perhaps even as the root cause of what has gone wrong. They believe that today’s huge inequalities of income and wealth are unfair: no one needs or deserves to be as rich as the richest people, and democracy is incompatible with such inequalities.

但是，问题在于，既然美国人讨厌这种情况，那么为什么不去改变这种情况？正如美国人不喜欢枪杀，但不去管制枪支那样。这个问题是迪顿或者研究“不公平”的学者（无论是经济学家还是其他领域的社会科学家）所想回答的。 Scholars in this camp all believe that the United States actually has the capacity to do better, but it has not. Why not?

Protesters rally in New York City Hall Park in November 2022, demanding an increase to the minimum wage (photo credit:Shutterstock

03 Why "inequality"

Difficult to address in the U.S.?

没有人设想一个完全公平的社会。 Inequality is natural because "some of it is a help rather than a hindrance; because opportunities are real and people are different in their ability to take advantage of them." 但是，美国社会有太多让人不明白的地方。“与欧洲相比，美国并不那么执着于帮助那些无法或未曾受益于这些机会的人。事实上，许多人认为二者是相互联系的： Without the distraction of security, people are fully engaged, which is when they are most effective; and that engagement makes the need for security much less. 再者，“在美国，无论是在历史上还是在今天，缺乏安全保障都与种族紧密相连，这是一个长期存在的问题，而美国人对种族问题的看法与其他富裕国家截然不同”；但“即便如此，对弱势群体的保障如此之缺乏，以及与之相应的严酷政治现实，仍使我大为震惊。更令我惊骇莫名的，是我的一位新同事（公开）宣称‘政府是窃贼’。在我长大成人的那个国家，我、我父母和我们的朋友都认为政府是仁慈的，是困难时期的朋友。我发现自己很难相信一位杰出的学者会如此愤世嫉俗，如此崇尚自由主义。时至今日，我仍然对他这种情绪化的观点难以苟同，但我已经渐渐了解到，美国的州和联邦政府经常会不遗余力地帮助富有的猎食者掠夺普通人，让后者更加穷困，而不是保护后者。 The US political system is certainly not above manipulation and it has indeed produced great wealth and privilege for some, but that ‘some’ has ceased to be the many.

迪顿在书中讨论了很多有意思的事情。其中一个就是有关最低工资制的事情。他发现，尽管大约70%的美国人认为联邦最低工资应该提高，但国会未能通过相关立法。迪顿把此归咎于“游说力量在华盛顿的强大势力”。在实践层面， The federal minimum wage has been set at $7.25 per hour since July 2009, but many states have raised their own minimum wage rates. 共有29个州的每小时最低工资水平高于联邦最低工资，从伊利诺伊州的8.25美元到华盛顿州的12美元不等，西雅图市和旧金山市的最低工资达到了每小时15美元。再如医疗保障问题。美国的医疗保障体系消耗了国民收入的近五分之一，超过其他任何一个富裕国家在医疗方面的花费。除美国外的富裕国家为每位公民提供医疗保险，且其公民的整体健康状况也优于美国人。

自然，问题远远不止这些，也不是那么简单。即使在经济领域，一些看似简单的问题在研究过程中变得十分复杂，甚至困难。迪顿举了诸多例子。例如，在很长时间里， Minimum wage research has become something of a taboo subject in U.S. academia, with much of American society (including academia) critical or even hostile toward minimum wage studies. 无怪乎迪顿发出了“为什么经济学家还没解决这个看似如此简单直接的问题？”的责问。

In this 2019 press conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi joined Democratic colleagues and activists to push for increasing the federal minimum wage. (Photo:Internet

04 "Social Darwinism Version 2.0"

This is not hard to understand. Didion’s account represents a segment of the American population and a segment of American reality. If Didion is describing what he sees as the problem of America, or a desperate side of America, America also offers a bright side, or a vision of hope. Of course, there is no shortage of counter-narratives to Didion’s, from what Parker calls the “liberal” narrative to the “smart America” narrative.

其实，在我看来，“自由主义”和“聪明美国”可以是一体的，正如“真实美国”和“不公正美国”是一体的那样。 **“自由主义美国”是“聪明美国”的平台，只不过这个平台是开放的，向全世界的聪明人开放。**这也是美国的现实。 America's strength is its open and free platform: an open education and talent system, an open business system, and an open financial system. 美国最发达的几个区域包括波士顿湾区、纽约湾区和旧金山湾区，移民和外国人口占了40%。在硅谷，外国人口更是占了60%，美国人反而是绝对的少数。也不难理解，硅谷三分之二以上的独角兽企业为一代和二代移民所拥有。当我们说“美国制造”的时候，其实是各国“聪明人”在美国的制造。但同时， Liberalism and "Smart America" are not at odds with "Real America" or "Unjust America" but, rather, are Two sides of the same coin, because the “smart America” success story was also the tragic story of “loser” America—the many, the most, the majority.

也就是说，迪顿回答了部分问题，但没有回答另一半，甚至更为重要的问题。Inequality is both a reality and a necessity of how the American system works. 这一点已经在马克思时代就已经回答清楚了，并且马克思早就超越了经济学的解释，而指向了资本主义制度及其基础——私有制。就经济思想而言，在西方思想史上，既有从卢梭、马克思起源的对资本主义的批评，也存在着从亚当·斯密（Adam Smith）到哈耶克（Friedrich Hayek）的对资本主义的颂扬。法国思想家卢梭于1755年出版《论人类不平等的起源和基础》。在该书中，他探讨了社会不平等的原因及克服的方法，认为生产的发展和私有制的产生，使人类脱离了“自然状态”，产生了贫富不均的社会现象。在这里， Rousseau proposed two original ideas:First, economic development is a product of modern market economy; second, similarly,"inequality" is also a product of the development of the "market economy" in the West. 马克思基本上继承了这个分析传统，一生都在致力于构建一个公平社会，其《资本论》更是迄今为止探讨人类不平等的巨著。但另一方面，从古典自由主义到新自由主义，西方思想更是在巩固、发展和强化对资本主义意识形态的论证，甚至推向了极端化。尽管人们使用着“自由”的概念， Rather than a more liberal one, the shift from classical liberalism to neoliberalism has involved a more conservative discourse—one in which some are more free, and others less so.

Statue of Rousseau in Panthéon Square in Paris, France (Photo source:Getty Image）

If one balances the different accounts, it is not difficult to account for the “exceptionalism” of American capitalism. 例如，尽管无论从经济发展水平还是技术手段而言，美国是最有能力发展成欧洲类型的福利社会制度的，但美国的统治精英偏偏不想发展成欧洲类型的社会。 For American conservatism,"what you have is what you have earned", while for Europeans,"what you have is what you should have." 因此，尽管美国在世界各地强调人权，但美国人的人权观与欧洲人的相去甚远。在美国，尽管宪法规定“人人平等”，但实际上是不平等的。 When it comes to "equality," the United States emphasizes "equality of opportunity" rather than "equality of outcome," which is valued by Europeans. Because "opportunities" are unequal, the outcomes cannot be equal either. The system of the United States, both in theory and in practice, needs a segment of the population to be "poor."

因此，To a great extent, one can understand American society today as a "Social Darwinism 2.0," operating on the principle of "survival of the fittest." “社会达尔文主义2.0版”表现为原始资本主义2.0版（见 [ 《美国进入“原始资本主义2.0版对我们意味着什么？》 ]( 一文）。随着原始资本主义2.0版的崛起，美国再次进入了“资本主宰社会”（society in capital）的阶段。 In this form, it is easy to observe the coexistence of the two phenomena:On the one hand, it is economic development based on technological progress, and on the other hand, it is a governance crisis based on social differentiation.

我经常在想，较之其他任何概念，熊彼特对资本主义分析的概念“创造性毁灭”更能理解今天的美国社会。人们也可以像理解歌德（Göthe）的《浮士德》的方式来理解美国社会的现状和发展 In a society where "destruction" leads to "creation," one person's "destruction" is another group's "creation." 在这样一个社会中，总有人要扮演“神”的角色，也总有人要扮演“魔鬼”的角色。

GBA Commentary x Produced by IIA

Meditations

No.06

Inequality is both a reality in America and a necessity for the way the American system functions. America emphasizes "equality of opportunity" rather than "equality of outcome." Since "opportunity" is not equal, outcome cannot be equal. In both theory and in practice, the functioning of the American system requires the existence of a group of "poor people."

Zheng Yongnian

Meditations

** Every Friday night