American Society Is in Jeopardy

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 10 July 2012
by Yu Haiqing (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Nathan Hsu. Edited by Janie Boschma.
Nobel laureate and Princeton University Professor Paul Krugman recently published an article thoroughly assessing the Occupy Wall Street movement, believing that the inequalities within American society have already turned into an "oligarchy, American style." Within the article were many ideas worth looking at.

First, the slogan "We are the 99 percent" is an excellent one. The Occupy Wall Street movement's adopted slogan, "We are the 99 percent,” is noteworthy, as it aptly defines the problem as one between the middle class and the elite, not the poor. The proportion of wealth owned by low-income individuals has shrunk, while income and wealth has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a privileged minority elite. In this new gilt age, the big winners are but a small few wealthy people. Citing data recently released by the Congressional Budget Office, Krugman pointed out that the amount of total wealth accruing to the middle and lower classes had rapidly declined, with 80 percent of households receiving less than half of aggregate income in the country. Meanwhile, within the upper class, nearly two-thirds of income goes into the hands of an extreme minority representing 0.1 percent of the population. Within this 0.1 percent, entrepreneurs such as Steve Jobs are rare, with the vast majority being corporate executives and people who work in finance.

Second, the myth of America's classless society has been unmasked. Krugman thus questions whether the United States is still a "middle-class" society comprised primarily of the upper and middle classes. Since the late 1970s, the annual growth rate of real income for the most prosperous Americans reached 400 percent, while highly educated workers' wages have not increased at all since 2000, and the well-educated can no longer hope to obtain jobs with generous compensation. This is the landscape presenting itself in modern America — a relatively small upper stratum is increasingly taking hold of the country. The small wealthy minority interferes in politics, controls influence and causes severe distortions within the American political system. The heavy concentration of wealth is antithetical to a true democracy, and the “whole nature of [American] society is at stake.”

America is not a fair playing field. Relative to citizens of other countries, Americans have a greater tendency to believe that they live under a quintessential system, but this is only a delusion. In reality, American society is gravitating toward greater stratification, a distinguishing feature of which is the importance of family background. Those from the lower class have almost no chance to climb up to the ranks of the middle class, let alone the peak of society. Among wealthy nations, America has become the country in which economic and societal status are most likely to be inherited, and the myth of America's classless society has clearly been debunked.

Third, the growing inequality is the force behind political polarization in the United States. Since the '70s, American politics have evidenced a trend of increasing polarization, with the lines separating the Democratic and Republican Parties on the political spectrum becoming more and more distinct. There no longer exists any overlap between even the most conservative Democrats and most progressive left-wing Republicans. The current level of polarization within U.S. politics is almost identical to that before World War II and most especially the period prior to the Great Depression. The two parties continually pulling further apart is not just a reflection of Democrats moving to the left and Republicans moving to the right.

This kind of polarization in contemporary U.S. politics is inextricably tied with the growth in inequality and closely related to the increasing share of income held by the top percent of society. The reason is that the uninterrupted rise in income and wealth for that minority has bought the loyalty of a major political party. The Republican Party has turned more toward the right-wing stance it adopted a century ago, as those who benefit from that position are capable of using their economic clout to provide campaign funding and a safety net of sorts for politicians. Within the current economic crisis, the fierce political conflict between the two parties is detrimental to forming an effective policy response. As an example, the Obama administration had to bend over backwards to obtain the 60 votes in the Senate it needed to pass the stimulus package. It is thus clear that the extreme disparities in income have led to extreme political polarization, and this in turn has crippled any policy response to the crisis.

The author is an assistant research fellow in Marxist Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.



  諾貝爾經濟學獎得主、美國普林斯頓大學教授保羅·克魯格曼最近撰文,高度評價「佔領華爾街」運動,認為美國社會的不平等已經成為「一種美國式的寡頭政治」,「美國社會已經身處險境」。其中很多觀點值得借鑑。

  一、「我們是99%」的口號非常了不起。「佔領華爾街」運動提出的口號「我們是99%」非常了不起,它正確地將問題界定為中產階級與精英而非與窮人的對立。底層收入者佔有的財富越來越少,收入和財富越來越集中到少數特權精英手中。在這個新的鍍金時代裡,大贏家是極少數富人。克魯格曼援引美國國會預算辦公室新近公佈的數據指出,美國中低層享有的社會總財富量急劇下降,80%家庭的收入不到國家總收入的一半;而在上層人士中,將近2/3的收入又流入只佔0.1%的極少數人手中。在這0.1%的人中,很少有史蒂夫·喬布斯這樣的創新家,大多數是企業權貴和金融界的逐利者。

  二、美國無階級社會的神話已被揭穿。克魯格曼因此質疑美國是否還是一個主要由上層和中層兩個階層構成的「中產階級」社會,上世紀70年代末以來,這些最富裕的美國人實際收入的年增長率達到400%,而擁有高學歷工人的工資自2000年來根本沒有增長過,接受過良好教育的人也不再能夠指望得到一份報酬優厚的工作。在當今美國,展現出這樣一幅景觀:社會較小的一個富裕階層正在日益成為國家主導。極少數富豪插手政治,左右權勢,令美國的政治體制嚴重扭曲。這種收入的極端集中與真正的民主相左,「美國社會已經身處險境」。

  美國不是一個公平競技場。相對於其他國家公民,美國人更傾向於認為自己生活在精英制度之下,但這種自我想像完全是一種幻想。美國社會實際上更趨向階級化,其突出特點是出身至關重要,來自社會底層的人幾乎沒有機會爬到社會中層,更不用說社會頂層。在富裕國家中,美國成為經濟及社會地位最可能得到繼承的國家,美國無階級社會的神話顯然已被揭穿。

  三、不平等的增長是導致美國政治兩極化的根源。20世紀70年代以來,美國政治呈現一種兩極化的發展趨勢,表現為民主和共和兩黨在政治光譜中越來越壁壘分明,即使最保守的民主黨人與最開明的共和黨左翼之間亦不再存在任何交集。當前美國政治的極化程度與戰前尤其是大蕭條前幾無二致。而兩黨間不斷拉大的差距,並非民主黨向左轉而是共和黨向右轉的一種反映。

  當代美國政治的這種兩極化與不平等的增長關係密切,與頂層1%人群所佔收入份額越來越大緊密相關。其原因在於,少數人不斷增長的收入和財富「收買了一個主要政黨的忠誠」。共和黨愈益轉向一個世紀之前曾經採取的右翼立場,因為這種立場的受益者能夠利用其經濟權力為政治家提供競選資金和某種安全網。在當前這場經濟危機中,兩黨間激烈的政治衝突也不利於形成有效的反危機政策,比如,奧巴馬政府費勁周折才在參議院得到了刺激計劃通過所必需的60張支持票。可見,收入的極端不平等導致出現了極端的政治兩極化,而這反過來又極大阻礙了對危機的政策回應。▲(作者是中國社科院馬克思主義研究所副研究員)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Australia: As Donald Trump and Xi Jinping Prepare for Trade Talks, China Comes with a Strong Hand

Germany: The Epstein Curse Continues To Loom Large

Trinidad and Tobago: A Time for Diplomacy

Malaysia: US and China Will See a Breakthrough in Their Trade Ties at APEC: Here’s Why

Topics

Austria: Trump Has Cut the Gordian Knot in Gaza, What Comes Next?

Austria: In His Blunt Manner, Vance Comes to Netanyahu’s Aid

Japan: Antagonism with South America: Ship Attacks Go Too Far

Colombia: Everything Is ‘the Caribbean’

Colombia: The Global Game: China Advances, but the United States Still Sets the Pace

Germany: The Epstein Curse Continues To Loom Large

Related Articles

Colombia: The Global Game: China Advances, but the United States Still Sets the Pace

Australia: As Donald Trump and Xi Jinping Prepare for Trade Talks, China Comes with a Strong Hand

Malaysia: US and China Will See a Breakthrough in Their Trade Ties at APEC: Here’s Why

Australia: Trump Seems Relaxed about Taiwan and Analysts Are Concerned

1 COMMENT

  1. The phenomenon described here is called Corporate Imperialism, and it has taken the majority of Americans by surprise. Had that majority taken American artists and writers more seriously, they’d have been able to watch it coming for at least the last 30 years.

    Even their popular culture — especially their science fiction — has been presenting Americans with images of their future since the beginning of the Reagan era. For example, in 1982, one of the finest cinemas ever produced by Hollywood, *Blade Runner*, presented Americans with one of the starkest images of its future under corporate imperialism.

    It was directed by a Brit, Ridley Scott, who had the cultural distance to see it clearly, But the majority of Americans preferred *Star Trek*.

    Americans are a resourceful people. The country could make it through the current global tectonic shift, if the people could somehow regain their confidence in themselves. But they have to stop hoping for a messiah; otherwise the country won’t make it.

    I am hoping that their profound disappointment in Obama, who was welcomed as their saviour will cure them of that habit and persuade them to seize their own destiny. Because it’s obvious to the rest of the world that their imperialist rulers aren’t the least bit interested in them.