【时代周刊 20150616】《绿野仙踪》与21世纪的不平等

满仓

【中文标题】《绿野仙踪》与21世纪的不平等
【原文标题】What The Wizard of Oz Can Teach Us About Inequality in the 21st Century
【登载媒体】时代周刊
【原文作者】James Robenalt
【原文链接】http://time.com/history/



1939年由维克多•弗雷明导演的《绿野仙踪》剧照。

1900年，也就是150年前，弗兰克•鲍姆写出了一个精彩绝伦的政治寓言故事，叫做《绿野仙踪》。尽管他把这本书当作一个给孩子们看的现代童话故事，但鲍姆的史诗级作品其实是有关收入不均的问题。多年以后，我们似乎依然没有理解——我们生活在民主制度中，极少数人把持着大部分的金钱。

正如我们所看到了，收入不均的问题在近年来越来越严重。它应该会成为决定2016年大选花落谁家的关键问题。

在鲍姆的时代，金和银决定一切。这个国家的现金供给量原则上与金产量挂钩，银用来铸造硬币。当这个国家的经济因工业化革命和来自欧洲大量移民的涌入而迅速增长的时候，现金供给量的增长极为有限。

那些手持现金的人希望现金供给得到控制。而那些试图拼命偿还银行的抵押贷款和债务的农民和体力工作者，需要有更多的钱进入流通领域，这样他们才可以支付账单。但是，当然，在现金供给受到严格控制的情况下，富者更富——不道德地致富。

1896年的总统大选因为狂暴的场面而经常被称为是“龙卷风”，有关确立现金的复本位制度的政治讨论，在当时达到了最高峰。平民主义者希望确定16盎司银兑换1盎司金的制度，“16比1”就是推崇“银币自由铸造”理论者的口号。

“Oz”是“盎司”的缩写，所以弗兰克•鲍姆才把他的书起名为《奥兹的男巫》。

这是一场经典的既得者与意得者之前的斗争。100多年前，很多人认为，民主的理念与享有特权的少数人把持现金的供应之间存在矛盾。他们认为，真正的政治平等必须要有一定的经济平等，而更多的现金供应是问题的关键。

1896年提倡银币自由铸造的先知是一个来自内布拉斯加州的年轻国会议员，叫威廉•詹宁斯•布赖恩。1896年夏天，他在民主党芝加哥大会上的激情演讲《黄金十字架》让他旋风般地当选了民主党总统候选人。他的对手，来自俄亥俄州的共和党人威廉•麦金莱，支持金本位的“健全货币制度”。

在鲍姆的书中，通往奥兹国的大道用黄色砖块铺成，象征金本位制度。东国（华尔街）魔女被来自堪萨斯州（内陆地区）的桃乐丝无意中杀死，一个龙卷风（1896年的总统大选）幸运地把她的房子砸到魔女身上。根据书中描述，魔女穿着一双银色的鞋子，不是电影中那双红色的鞋子。

东国魔女用她的魔法银鞋捆住了梦境人，这显然指的是东部权势集团制定政策，限制把银作为货币单位。桃乐丝无意中让梦境人重获自由，得到的奖励是那双银色的鞋子。她穿上这双鞋子，踏上前往奥兹国的旅程，希望有一天可以重回堪萨斯。

在旅途中，桃乐丝遇到了稻草人，象征西部贫穷、无助的农民；铁皮人，代表城市产业工人，在血汗工厂的残酷工作中失去了四肢；懦弱的狮子，就是布赖恩，在1896年大选中无助地呐喊。

但是，奥兹国的奇妙之城有一个奇怪的入城条件。桃乐丝和伙伴们来到奥兹国郊外时，城门守卫对他们说：“你们必须要戴上眼镜。”

“为什么？”桃乐丝问。

“因为如果你不戴上眼镜，绿宝石城壮丽的光线会刺瞎你的眼睛。即使那些城市里的居民从早到晚也必须戴眼镜。他们都被锁在城里，不得离开，这是在城市建立之后奥兹国王定下的规矩。打开城门的唯一一把钥匙在我这里。

一个盛着各种样式、各种尺寸的眼镜的大盒子在桃乐丝眼前打开，她发现所有的眼镜片都是绿色的，即使托托（桃乐丝的狗）也需要绑上一副绿色镜片的眼镜。

原来，是奥兹国的巫师（在寓言中代表总统麦金莱）要求他的子民必须要戴上绿色眼镜，不分昼夜，目的是让他们相信这里到处都是钱。这个把戏奏效了，伟大的奥兹国公民满足于现状，他们被哄骗相信奥兹国是个闪亮、辉煌的国度。所以，他们的确需要特殊的眼镜。

如果鲍姆在今天创作这个故事，会出现什么样的隐喻呢？奥兹国的公民会被要求戴上谷歌眼镜，里面都是有线新闻网络的内容吗？他该如何刻画人物？他会如何表现当前总统职位的争夺者？

聪明的鲍姆创作的史诗级作品让无论老少都为其着迷，但毫无疑问的是，一个当代的奥兹国故事必将面对这个国家在一百年前就存在的重要问题：如果那么多的钱和权力集中在那么少的人手里，民主如何延续？

有一件事可以肯定，桃乐丝必将满载而归堪萨斯，说不定是衣阿华呢？




原文：

A still from the film, 'The Wizard of Oz,' directed by Victor Fleming, 1939.

In 1900, one hundred and fifteen years ago, Frank Baum wrote a brilliant political allegory called the Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Though he billed it as a modern fairy tale meant solely to entertain children, Baum’s epic was in fact all about income inequality. All these years later, we still don’t seem to get it—we live in a democracy that continues to be run by those few who control almost all the money.

And income inequality, as we all know, is getting worse by the year. This issue likely will be one of the defining questions of the 2016 campaign for the presidency.

In Baum’s time it was all about silver and gold. The country’s supply of money was tied principally to gold, with silver used for coins. The result was that the money supply was severely limited at a time that the country was exploding in growth, due in large part to the industrial revolution and huge immigration waves from Europe.

Those who had the money wanted to keep the money supply limited.

Farmers and laborers, on the other hand, who struggled to keep up with their mortgages or debts to powerful bankers, needed more money in circulation to allow them just to pay their bills.

But, of course, with a constricted money supply, the rich got richer—obscenely rich.

The presidential contest of 1896, often referred to as a “cyclone” because of its turbulence, was the highpoint of the political debate over establishing a bi-metallic standard for money. The populist wanted to see silver established in a 16-ounce-to-1-ounce ratio with gold. “16 to 1” was the battle cry of those who believed in “free silver.”

“Oz” is the abbreviation for ounce. Hence, Frank Baum dubbed his title character the “Wizard of Oz.”

It was a classic haves and have-nots contest. Over a hundred years ago, many argued that it was inconsistent with the notion of democracy to allow an advantaged few to control the money supply. True political equality, they said, required some measure of economic equality—and access to more money was the key.

The prophet for free silver in 1896 was a very young congressman from Nebraska named William Jennings Bryan. He stormed to the nomination of the Democratic Party at its convention in Chicago in the summer of 1896 with his dramatic “Cross of Gold” speech. His opponent, Republican William McKinley of Ohio, stood for “sound money” or the gold standard.

In Baum’s book, the road to Oz was paved with yellow bricks, symbolizing the gold standard. The Wicked Witch of the East (read Wall Street) was accidently killed by the innocent Dorothy from Kansas (read the Heartland) when a cyclone (the 1896 election) fortuitously deposited her home on the Witch, who in the book was wearing silver shoes, not ruby as in the popular movie adaptation.

The Witch of the East kept the Munchkins in bondage through her magical silver slippers, obviously a reference to the Eastern establishment’s regulation and restriction of the use of silver as a monetary unit. Now Dorothy unwittingly had set the Munchkins free and as her reward she was given control of the silver shoes, which she put on and wore on her journey to find the Great Oz, in the hopes that she might return to Kansas.

On her way to Oz, Dorothy runs into the Scarecrow, symbolic of the impoverished and vulnerable farmer in the West, the Tin Man, representative of the urban industrial worker who mutilates himself, chopping off all of his limbs as he labors relentlessly in sweatshops of his day, and the Cowardly Lion, who is Bryan, the man who roared to no effect in the 1896 election.

The Wonderful City of Oz, however, had a curious entry requirement. “You must wear spectacles,” the Guardian of the Gate informs Dorothy and her travelling companions once they make it to the outskirts of Oz.

“Why?” Dorothy asks.

“Because if you did not wear spectacles the brightness and glory of the Emerald City would blind you,” she is told. “Even those who live in the City must wear spectacles night and day. They are all locked on, for Oz so ordered it when the City was first built, and I have the only key that will unlock them.”

A big box containing spectacles of every shape and size is opened and Dorothy discovers that all of the spectacles are made with green lenses. Even Toto the dog is required to strap on a pair of the green glasses.

Turns out, the Wizard of Oz (who represents President McKinley in this allegory) requires his citizens to wear green spectacles, night and day, in order that they might think that there is plenty of money everywhere and for everyone. The illusion works and it keeps the Great Oz’s subjects in a contented state, as they are duped into believing that it is the brightness and glory of Oz, not the lack of money, that necessitates the special glasses.

If Baum were writing today, how would he play out the allegory? Would the citizens of Oz be required to wear Google glasses, filled with images from cable news networks? And how would he portray the characters? What would he make of the present slate of presidential contenders?

Baum was clever enough to write an epic that fascinated on so many levels, but there is little question that a modern-day Wizard of Oz tale would deal with the same underlying question that this nation faced over a century ago: how can a democracy survive if too much money and power is concentrated in too few hands?

One thing is sure: Dorothy would have her hands full getting back to Kansas, or is it Iowa?