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

　　'占領運動'一直以來的發展令人極度興奮。事實上我還沒看過先例。我幾乎想不起任何類似的事件。如果它所建立起的人與人的牽系和關聯,能持續不斷地穿透我們眼前這漫長而黑暗的時代-因為任何的勝利都得來不易-就可以證明它是美國歷史上一個非常了得的事件。

　　說 '占領運動'是史無前例的事實是正確不過的。畢竟，這是一個史無前例的時代-也就是說美國的歷史以70年代做為轉捩點以來,它本身是一成不變也不為過。這 國家從建國殷始，幾世紀以來一直是一個發展中的社會，用的方法也不都是光明正大。但普遍的是超著財富，工業化，發展和希望的路前進。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期都是如此。

　　我正好年紀大的還有大蕭條的記憶。開始的幾年，大概是30年代中期，雖然那時的處境客觀的看來是比現在惡劣多了，但是人們的精神面貌卻是迥然不同。有一種'我們的日子會變好'的想法，就是在失業的人群中-也包括我的一些親戚都有，感覺'事情會好轉'。

　　當 時有激進的工會組織活動，特別是'工業組織會'。幾乎動員到'坐地'罷工的地步，這可把商界嚇壞了，從商業報道中可以看出，因為'坐地'罷工就等于是奪取 工廠的管理權以及工人當家作主的前一步.工人接管工廠正巧今天也是計劃中之事,這點大家要牢牢記住.還有新政的立法在群眾的壓力下也開始了.盡管生存艱 辛,但是有一種共識'我們一定會脫困而出'.

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

　　工人階級方面

　　30年代的失業工人能期待他們的工作會回來.如果你是今天工廠中的工人-今天的失業率大約和大蕭條時旗鼓相當-而目前的趨勢下去,你原有的工作是不會回來的.

　　這 變化始于70年代.其中有多方面的因素.一個突出的關鍵,照經濟史學家　羅伯特.布任納的解釋,主要就是制造業的利潤的下滑.還有別的許多原因.就造成了 經濟上的巨大變革-把幾百年來以工業化和發展為前進方向倒轉成'去工業化和去發展'的模式.當然,制造業在海外的盈利還是巨大的,只是對工人沒有什么好處 罷了.

　　緊跟著來的就是顯著的在經濟上從生產人們所需和能使用的生產業變成了金融投機.經濟的金融化從此開始了.

　　1970 以前,銀行只是銀行.它們所做的就是國家資本主義經濟下所該做的:它們從賬戶的未使用的資金轉到幫助家庭買房或供孩子上大學這樣潛在有意義的事情 上.1970徹底改變了這些.那之前,打自大蕭條以來沒有發生過金融危機.50和60年代的發展是巨大的.那是美國歷史上的最高點,也可能是經濟史上的最 高點.

　　還有那時候的平等性.最低的20百分比和最高層的20百分比過的一樣好.許多人過起了合理的生活-就是美國所說的'中產階級',其 它國家則稱之為'工薪階級'-這是千真萬確的事.60年代加速前進.那些年的熱心參與行動,僅僅是短短的10年,確實在多方面恒久地文明化了這個國家.

　　70年代的來臨,突然發生了巨變:去工業化,生產外包,向金融化傾斜,金融機構迅速膨脹.我還要說明,50和60年代在數十年后稱之為高科技的經濟方面還是有所發展的:比如電腦,互聯網和IT革命,那時主要是國家主導的.

　　70年代起始的發展形成一套惡性循環.它導致財富的集中慢慢地匯聚到金融圈的手中.這對經濟是沒有幫助的-它還可能會傷害經濟-但它確實造成財富的極度集中.

　　政策和金錢方面

　　財富的集中造就了權力的集中.而權力的集中催生了立法,更助長和升級了這種惡性循環.這些立法適用于兩黨,又驅使了新的財政措施和稅收政策,還有公司管理的規定和去規則化.和這并生的是選舉費用的飆升,后者更使得政黨受制于大企業.

　　政黨慢慢在變質. 本來個人在國會想進身當一委員會的主席,靠的是他的資歷.現在是假以時日,為了高升必須開始把錢投入黨的金庫里,這題目的主要的研究者有湯姆.佛格森.這就更將整個體系推向大企業方面(尤其是金融業).

　　這 個循環導致了財富極度的集中,主要在百分之0.1的人手中.同時,對大多數人來說,它又帶來了一個停滯甚至是衰退的時代.人們藉著人為的方式,如加長的工 作時間,大量的借貸和背債,還有的依賴引起最近房地產泡沫一樣的虛漲的房產價值來勉強度日.很快地,工作的長時已經超過了日本和歐洲等許多工業化的國家. 大多數人的停滯衰敗的時代和財富極度集中的時代是并存的,政治體系于是消解了.

　　本來公共政策和公眾的意志'總是有距離的,現在是呈幾何級 數增長了.你現在可以看的很清楚.來看看華盛頓人人關注的題目:赤字.對大眾來說,赤字真正是不被當成主要的問題的.它也確實不算是個議題.真正的議題應 該是'失業'.'赤字委員會'存在但卻沒有一個'失業委員會'.就赤字的議題來說,老百姓是有他們的看法的.看看歷次的民意測驗,絕大多數的人贊成對富裕 者課高稅,就在經濟停滯衰退,社會福利縮減的時候,富人的稅卻大大縮水.

　　赤字委員會的辦法很可能需要走向它的反面.占領運動大可提供它的群眾基礎為赤字找到擊倒它的匕首.

　　財富階級和無以立足的無產者

　　占領運動中占99百分比的人民大眾,活的很艱辛,情況還可能更糟.這次可能是一場無法逆轉的衰退.對那百分之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,更有權力,可以對政治翻云覆雨,藐視群眾.他們所關心的就是把一切延續下去,為什么要變呢?

　　以花旗銀行為例.幾十年來,花旗集團是主要投資銀行企業中最腐敗中的一個,不斷地靠納稅人的錢救贖,始于雷根時期開始幾年,現在又有問題.我不想細說它的腐敗,總之是非常驚人的.

　　2005年,花旗給投資者出了一個小冊子,叫做"財富管理:購買奢侈品,詮釋全球的不平衡".它鼓勵投資者把錢放進一種'財富管理指數'里.小冊子還說,"世界分成兩大陣營--有財富可管理者和其余者".

　　有 財富可理者是指那些富人,有能力購買奢侈品者,以為這就是世界的中心.它說'財富管理指數'比股市的表現還好.其他的人就讓他們飄在那兒,我們并不關心他 們,我們也不是真正需要他們.他們的存在只是為了一個強有力的國家,那會保護我們,等我們有麻煩的時候,可以伸出援手.除了這點之外,他們就沒有什么用 了.現在他們被稱做'無以立足的無產者'-活在社會的外圍的飄蕩脆弱的人群.只是現在已經不能叫'外圍'了,因為,他們已經是美國社會非常顯著的一部分 了,世界其它地方也是一樣.而這些被認為是好事.

　　在格林斯潘被稱做'圣人亞倫',而且還被專業經濟學者大聲贊美成歷史上最偉大的經濟學家 之一的時候(這是在股市崩盤之前,而他對崩盤應負主要責任),就在克林頓時代的國會作證說明,他所引導之下的奇跡般的偉大經濟.他說這種經濟的成功訣竅在 于他稱之為'勞動者不安全性的增長'. 如果勞動者有不安全感,如果他們處于不穩定的外緣位置,他們就不會提出要求,他們得不到更好的待遇,他們的福利也不會有所增加. 當我們不需要他們的時候,我們就可以請他們走路. 這就是被技術性的稱做'健康經濟'的事實. 他也為此受到吹捧.

　　這個世界確實分劃成了兩個-一個富人的和一個流動外緣無產者的世界,用占領運動的形象化語言來說,那就是百分之1和百分之99的差別. 這并不只是數字而已,而是事實如此.現在,富人經濟才是受關注的焦點,他們也希望這樣持續下去.

　　如 果如他們所愿,70年代顛倒了的歷史就無法逆轉了. 我們是朝著那條路走. 現在,占領運動成了第一個真正的,主要的和大眾支持的可以改變這一切的對抗力量. 但我們必須認清事實, 這場斗爭將是十分艱巨和漫長的.不會明天就取得勝利.你必須建構起一套可持續性的辦法, 面對困難堅定奮戰一贏取最后的勝利. 有很多的事情等著我們去做.

　　關于工人接管工廠

　　我曾說過,30年代工人最有效的行動就是就地罷工. 原因很簡單,就是它是工人接管的前奏.

　　整 個70年代,雖然在衰退中,還是有幾件重要的事件發生. 1977年,'美國鋼鐵'決定關閉他在俄亥俄州,約克斯城一家主要的工廠. 工人沒有就此遣散, 工人團體和社區一起出面,想從公司手中買下工廠,將它交給工人來管,成為一個工人管理,工人負責的地方.可惜,他們最后沒有成功. 但當時如果有足夠的群眾支持,他們應該會贏的. 其中細節,為工人和社區工作的律師 卡爾.阿爾培羅維茲 和 斯陶頓.臨德 曾敘述的很詳細.

　　從它激發后續的其它行動來說,它雖敗猶榮. 如今,整個俄亥俄州還有其它地方,遍布了成百上千的由工人和社區共同擁有'甚至成了工人管理的實業, 有的規模還不算小.這是真正革命的基礎. 這就是革命的起源.

　　一 年以前,波士頓一個近郊也發生了同樣的事情. 一家跨國公司要把它的一家還盈利而且經營的不錯;搞高科技的分公司關閉. 它只是未達到他們所預期的利潤罷了. 工作人員和工會想把它買過來,自己來經營.這家跨國公司可能礙于情面,還是把它關了.想買的一方沒想到這個結果, 如果他們有足夠的群眾支持,或者他們有像占領運動的力量做后盾,他們可能會成功的.

　　還有其它類似的事件發生. 有一些,還不是小事. 不久以前, 奧巴馬總統把石油工業收歸國有, 它本來就是應該由公眾所擁有的. 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,或者是相關的擁有者, 回到傳統的老路上.

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

　　我 們都知道也應該知道美國的高速交通在世界上是很落后的,問題還很嚴重. 這不僅影響人民的生活,對經濟影響也大. 我有個人的經驗.幾個月前, 我正好在法國演講, 必須從南部的亞維寧城坐火車到巴黎的戴高樂機場, 等長于華盛頓到波士頓的距離,只用了2小時. 我不知道你們坐過美國這段路線, 它還是和60年前我和我妻子第一次坐時一樣的速度. 這真是羞恥啊.

　　歐洲做得到的,這里應該也做得到. 我們的技術工人有能力完成. 只要大眾齊力來支持, 它就會對經濟改變很大.

　　再 談點更不可思議的. 這么好的方法不用, 奧巴馬當局派了他的交通部長去西班牙簽了一項建設美國高速鐵路的合同. 這本來可以在我們的工廠關閉的工業沒落區完成的. 我想不出這么做經濟上的理由. 有工人階級不被重視的原因, 還有就是沒有動員群眾的力量. 所以事情就變成這樣.

　　氣候變化和核武方面

　　我一直談的是國內的問題. 但在國際方面. 有兩項非常危險的事態在發展, 那好像陰影一樣籠罩在我們所討論的一切問題之上. 人類歷史是頭一遭遇上了危及人類生存的真正威嚇.

　　一個是自1945年以來一直懸在那的, 我們能躲過它真是一項奇跡. 這就是核戰和核武器的威脅. 這問題的討論不多. 實際上,這當局的政策和它的同盟國將它的威脅升級了. 如果我們還不采取行動, 一切就太晚了.

　　另外一點就是環境災難. 幾乎世界上每一個國家都采取了阻止讓它惡化的措施, 美國所采取的措施主要是將威脅升級. 美是主要國家中唯一的一位不但不采取任何積極步驟去保護環境, 它根本還就不聞不問. 它還扯后腿.

　　由商界肆無忌憚的連結龐大的宣傳機器, 想要說服人們,公開宣稱 '環境變化只是一場騙局'. 說"為什么要關注這些科學家?"

　　我們真的掉回到黑暗時代, 這不是一個笑話. 如果這是發生在一個歷史上最強大和最富有的國家,那這場災難是不可逆轉的,至少是一,兩代的時間, 我們談再多的問題還是沒有用的. 我們迫切地需要采取細致而且可持續的行動.

　　前進的道路充滿了障礙,荊棘,困頓和失敗. 這是不可避免的. 除非去年在這個國家和全球各地的那股精神(指占領運動)能繼續成長而爆發成社會和政治世界的主要力量, 對擁有美好而令人憧憬的未來的機會是很渺茫的.

　　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.

× 烏有之鄉 WYZXWK.COM

您的打賞將用于網站日常運行與維護。
幫助我們辦好網站，宣傳紅色文化！

歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉網刊微信公眾號