戴維•格雷伯:“占領(lǐng)華爾街”運(yùn)動(dòng)的發(fā)起者

從16歲時(shí)起，他就是一個(gè)無(wú)政府主義者；他從事人類學(xué)研究，在人類學(xué)界是一個(gè)重要人物；他曾是一名學(xué)者，因激進(jìn)的政治主張被耶魯大學(xué)解聘；現(xiàn)在，他任教于倫敦大學(xué)，積極組織和參與了多個(gè)為爭(zhēng)取公平正義而進(jìn)行的抗?fàn)幓顒?dòng)；他提出了新的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)觀點(diǎn)，雖與主流經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)理論格格不入，但讓更多人看到了其他可能；2011年，他和其他積極分子一道發(fā)起了轟動(dòng)全球、聲勢(shì)浩大的革命性運(yùn)動(dòng)——“占領(lǐng)華爾街”。他就是此次運(yùn)動(dòng)的發(fā)起者之一——戴維·格雷伯。

David Graeber likes to say that he had three goals for the year 2011: promote his book， learn to drive， and launch a worldwide revolution. The first is going well， the second has proven challenging， and the third is looking up.

Graeber is a 51-year-old anthropologist. An American， he teaches at Goldsmiths， University of London. He’s also an anarchist1) and radical organizer. In the summer of 2011， Graeber was a key member of a small band of activists who quietly planned， then noisily carried out， the occupation of Lower Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park2)， providing the focal point for what has grown into an amorphous3) global movement known as Occupy Wall Street.

It would be wrong to call Graeber a leader of the protesters， since their insistently nonhierarchical philosophy makes such a concept heretical4). Nor is he a spokesman， since they have refused thus far to outline specific demands. Even in Zuccotti Park， his name isn’t widely known. But he has been one of the group’s most articulate voices， able to frame the movement’s welter5) of hopes and grievances within a deeper critique of the historical moment.

Graeber’s politics have been shaped by his experience in global justice protests over the years， but they are also fed by the other half of his life: his work as an anthropologist. Graeber’s latest book， published two months before the start of Occupy Wall Street， is entitled Debt: The First 5，000 Years. It is an alternate history of the rise of money and markets， a sprawling6)， erudite7)， provocative work. In the book he explores the ambivalent attitudes people have always had about debt: as obligation and sin， engine of economic growth and tool of oppression. Along the way， he tries to answer questions such as why so many people over the course of history have simultaneously believed that it is a matter of morality to repay debts and that those who lend money for a living are evil.

Graeber’s arguments place him squarely at odds with8) mainstream economic thought， and the discipline has， for the most part， ignored him. But his timing couldn’t be better to reach a popular audience. His writing provides an intellectual frame and a sort of genealogy9) for the movement he helped start. The inchoate10) anger of the Occupy Wall Street protesters tends to cluster around two things. One is the influence of money in politics. The other is debt: mortgages， credit-card debt， student loans， and the difference in how the debts of large financial companies and those of individual borrowers have been treated in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

The Anti-Leader of Occupy Wall Street

Graeber is small-framed and fidgety11)， with a pale boyish face and blue eyes. He dresses like a graduate student and speaks fast， in bursts punctuated by long ums， a ragged laugh， or pauses to catch his breath. He doesn’t make much eye contact. When finishing a thought， he has a habit of ducking his head and arching his eyebrows， as if he has just heard a faint but alarming sound.

Graeber began the summer of 2011 on sabbatical12)， moving back to New York from London and frequenting an artists’ space called 16Beaver. It was an intellectual activist salon， located near Wall Street， the sort of place where people would discuss topics like semiotics13) and the struggles of indigenous14) peoples. Like many other American activists， Graeber had been deeply moved by the occupation of Cairo’s Tahrir Square15); in mid-July， he published a short piece in Adbusters16) asking what it would take to trigger a similar uprising in the West. For much of the summer， the discussions at 16Beaver revolved around exactly that question.

On July 13， Adbusters put out its own call for a Wall Street occupation， to take place two months later， on Sept. 17. Setting the date and publicizing it was the extent of the magazine’s involvement. A group called New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts—student activists and community leaders from some of the city’s poorer neighborhoods—stepped in to execute the rest. After talking to Adbusters， the group began advertising a “People’s General Assembly” to “Oppose Cutbacks And Austerity Of Any Kind” and plan the Sept. 17 occupation.

The assembly was to be held in Bowling Green17)， the downtown Manhattan park. Graeber had heard about the meeting at 16Beaver， and the afternoon of Aug. 2， 2011 he went to Bowling Green with two friends—Georgia Sagri and Sabu Kohso.

A “general assembly” is a carefully facilitated group discussion through which decisions are made—not by a few leaders， or even by majority rule， but by consensus. Unresolved questions are referred to working groups within the assembly， but eventually everyone has to agree， even in assemblies that swell into the thousands.

When Graeber and his friends showed up on Aug. 2， however， they found out that the event wasn’t， in fact， a general assembly， but a traditional rally， to be followed by a short meeting and a march to Wall Street to deliver a set of predetermined demands. In anarchist argot18)， the event was being run by “verticals”—top-down organizations—rather than “horizontals” such as Graeber and his friends. Sagri and Graeber felt they’d been had19)， and they were angry.

What happened next sounds like an anarchist parable. Along with Kohso， the two recruited several other people disgruntled20) with the proceedings， then walked to the south end of the park and began to hold their own general assembly， getting down to the business of planning the Sept. 17 occupation. The original dozen or so people gradually swelled， despite the efforts of the event’s planners to bring them back to the rally. The tug of war21) lasted until late in the evening， but eventually all of the 50 or so people remaining at Bowling Green had joined the insurgent22) general assembly.

While there were weeks of planning yet to go， the important battle had been won. The show would be run by horizontals. For Graeber the next month and a half was a carousel23) of meetings. He facilitated24) some of them and spent much of the rest of his time in working group meetings. He organized legal and medical training and classes on nonviolent resistance. The group endlessly discussed what demands to make， or whether to have demands at all.

On Sept. 17， barely an hour before the scheduled 3 p.m. start time， the word went out to go to Zuccotti Park instead， and 2，000 people converged on the now famous patch of stone flooring， low benches， and trees. It was a fortunate choice: Zuccotti is a privately owned park， so the city doesn’t have the right to remove the protesters. Graeber helped facilitate the general assembly that night in which they decided to camp out in the park rather than immediately march on Wall Street.

An Anarchist’s Academic Career

Graeber has been an anarchist since the age of 16. He grew up in New York， in a trade-union-sponsored cooperative apartment building in Chelsea suffused with radical politics. A precocious child， he became obsessed at 11 with Mayan hieroglyphics25). He sent some of his original translations to a leading scholar in the field， who was so impressed that he arranged for Graeber to get a scholarship to Phillips Academy in Andover， Mass.

Years later， Graeber was a graduate student at the University of Chicago， and his field research brought him into contact with another， albeit26) very different， anarchic community. Graeber didn’t become an activist until after the massive 1999 World Trade Organization protests in Seattle. At the time an associate professor at Yale， he realized that the sort of movement he had always wanted to join had come into being while he was concentrating on his academic career. “If you’re really dedicated to this stuff， things can happen very quickly，” he says. “The first action you go to， you’re just a total outsider. You don’t know what’s going on. The second one， you know everything. By the third， you’re effectively part of the leadership if you want to be. Anybody can be if you’re willing to put in the time and energy.”

It was a particularly happy period for Graeber. In New Haven27) he was a scholar， and in New York， where he spent much of his time， he was an anarchist—he had found a new community among the loose coalition of activists and artists.

It came to an end in 2005， when Yale terminated his contract before he had a chance to come up28) for tenure29). Graeber appealed， and his case became a cause at Yale and in the broader community of academic anthropology. He maintains he was targeted at least in part because of his political activism. Others saw evidence that the modern university was exactly the sort of hierarchical organization that Graeber was philosophically opposed to and temperamentally unsuited for.

“There was an issue about his personal style， whether he was respectful enough to various senior people both in the department and at the university. He’s not someone who is known to be very pliable30)，” recalls Thomas Blom Hansen， an anthropology professor at Stanford who was a friend and Yale colleague of Graeber’s at the time. “I don’t think anyone doubts that he’s a major figure in his field，” he adds. “But he’s not really interested in the humdrum31) daily life of administration that constitutes an increasing part of our life in the academic world.”

Everyone involved in the creation of Occupy Wall Street， from Graeber to the editors of Adbusters to New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts， has been astonished by its success. Graeber doesn’t attribute the success of the occupation to its planners but to luck， timing， and the pervasive mood of anger and disillusionment in the country: There are few jobs， the political process has ground to a halt32)， and as individuals and as a nation， we’re drowning in debt.

Graeber’s problem with debt is not just that having too much of it is bad. More fundamental， he writes in his book Debt: The First 5，000 Years， is debt’s perversion of the natural instinct for humans to help each other.

At the end of his book， Graeber does make one policy recommendation: a Biblical-style “jubilee33)，” a forgiveness of all international and consumer debt. Jubilees are rare in the modern world， but in ancient Babylon， Assyria， and Egypt under the Ptolemies they were a regular occurrence. The alternative， rulers learned， was rioting and chaos in years when poor crop yields left lots of peasants in debt. “It would be salutary34)，” Graeber writes， “not just because it would relieve so much genuine human suffering， but also because it would be our way of reminding ourselves that money is not ineffable， that paying one’s debts is not the essence of morality， that all these things are human arrangements and that if democracy is to mean anything it is the ability to all agree to arrange things in a different way.”

戴維·格雷伯常常說(shuō)他2011年有三個(gè)目標(biāo)：宣傳他的新書(shū)，學(xué)會(huì)開(kāi)車，發(fā)動(dòng)一場(chǎng)世界性的革命。第一個(gè)目標(biāo)進(jìn)展順利，第二個(gè)目標(biāo)充滿挑戰(zhàn)，第三個(gè)目標(biāo)正風(fēng)生水起。

格雷伯是一位人類學(xué)家，現(xiàn)年51歲。他是美國(guó)人，在倫敦大學(xué)的戈德史密斯學(xué)院任教。他同時(shí)也是個(gè)無(wú)政府主義者和激進(jìn)活動(dòng)的組織人。2011年夏，格雷伯成了一個(gè)小的激進(jìn)團(tuán)體的主要成員，他們先是悄悄策劃，然后高調(diào)實(shí)施了對(duì)曼哈頓下城區(qū)祖科蒂公園的占領(lǐng)。這次占領(lǐng)引發(fā)了人們的關(guān)注，關(guān)注的焦點(diǎn)就是后來(lái)發(fā)展成無(wú)固定組織的全球運(yùn)動(dòng)——“占領(lǐng)華爾街”。

稱格雷伯為抗議者的領(lǐng)袖并不恰當(dāng)，因?yàn)樗麄円辉賵?jiān)持的“無(wú)等級(jí)理念”與“領(lǐng)袖”這個(gè)詞格格不入。他也不是代言人，因?yàn)槠駷橹顾麄円恢本芙^提出任何具體的要求。即使在祖科蒂公園，格雷伯的名字也并非廣為人知。但他卻是這一團(tuán)體中最善于表達(dá)的一員，他能將這一運(yùn)動(dòng)所承載的希望與憤懣交織的情感訴求，表達(dá)在對(duì)這一歷史性時(shí)刻的深刻評(píng)論中。

多年以來(lái)，格雷伯一直參與全球?yàn)闋?zhēng)取公平正義而進(jìn)行的抗?fàn)幓顒?dòng)，這些經(jīng)歷影響著他的政治主張，但影響他政治主張的還有他生活的另一面，那就是他作為人類學(xué)家的工作。在“占領(lǐng)華爾街”運(yùn)動(dòng)爆發(fā)前的兩個(gè)月，格雷伯出版了他的新書(shū)，書(shū)名為《債務(wù)：第一個(gè)五千年》。這是一部關(guān)于貨幣與市場(chǎng)興起的另類歷史，洋洋灑灑，引經(jīng)據(jù)典，發(fā)人深省。在書(shū)中，他探討了人們一直以來(lái)對(duì)債務(wù)所持的矛盾態(tài)度：既是義務(wù)又是罪惡，既是經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)的引擎，又是剝削壓迫的工具。在剖析過(guò)程中，他試圖回答諸如這樣的問(wèn)題：在歷史的進(jìn)程中，為什么有那么多人既認(rèn)為欠債還錢乃天經(jīng)地義，但同時(shí)又認(rèn)為靠放貸為生的人充滿罪惡。

格雷伯的言論使他完全站在了主流經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)理論的對(duì)立面，因此，在很大程度上，他被經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)界忽視了。但他抓住了這次運(yùn)動(dòng)提供的最佳時(shí)機(jī)，引起了大眾讀者的興趣。這部作品為他鼎力促成的占領(lǐng)運(yùn)動(dòng)提供了理論框架和歷史淵源?！罢碱I(lǐng)華爾街”的抗議者們最初的憤怒主要圍繞兩點(diǎn)。一個(gè)是金錢對(duì)政治的影響。另一個(gè)是債務(wù)：房貸、信用卡債務(wù)、學(xué)生貸款，以及在2008年金融危機(jī)爆發(fā)之后，個(gè)人借貸者和大型金融機(jī)構(gòu)欠下的債務(wù)受到的不同待遇。

“占領(lǐng)華爾街”運(yùn)動(dòng)的發(fā)起者

格雷伯身材瘦小，性情煩躁，長(zhǎng)著一張蒼白的娃娃臉，藍(lán)眼睛。他穿得像個(gè)研究生，說(shuō)話語(yǔ)速很快，爆發(fā)的陣陣語(yǔ)流中夾雜著長(zhǎng)長(zhǎng)的“呃”字、刺耳的大笑，或短暫的停頓來(lái)調(diào)整呼吸。他與別人沒(méi)有太多的目光交流。每當(dāng)說(shuō)出一個(gè)想法，他總喜歡猛地低下頭，聳起眉毛，好像是聽(tīng)到了一個(gè)微弱但卻令人警惕的聲音。

2011年夏天伊始，格雷伯開(kāi)始休假，他從倫敦回到了紐約，經(jīng)常出入一個(gè)名為“海貍16號(hào)”的藝術(shù)家聚集處。這是一個(gè)激進(jìn)知識(shí)分子的沙龍，就在華爾街附近。在這里，人們經(jīng)常談?wù)撘恍┲T如符號(hào)學(xué)和原住民艱辛生活的話題。和美國(guó)其他許多激進(jìn)分子一樣，格雷伯被發(fā)生在埃及首都開(kāi)羅的占領(lǐng)解放廣場(chǎng)的行動(dòng)深深觸動(dòng)。7月中旬，他在《廣告克星》雜志上發(fā)表了一篇短文，質(zhì)問(wèn)到底需要什么才能在西方引發(fā)一場(chǎng)類似的抗議活動(dòng)。在這個(gè)夏天的大部分時(shí)間里，“海貍16號(hào)”所討論的話題也都圍繞著這個(gè)問(wèn)題。

7月13日，《廣告克星》發(fā)布了雜志關(guān)于“占領(lǐng)華爾街”的倡議，并計(jì)劃該活動(dòng)于兩個(gè)月后的9月17日進(jìn)行。確定日期并將之公布于眾——雜志能為這次活動(dòng)做的也只能這么多了。剩下的活動(dòng)是由一個(gè)名叫“反對(duì)削減預(yù)算的紐約客”的組織來(lái)參與執(zhí)行的，這個(gè)組織的成員是學(xué)生激進(jìn)分子和紐約市一些貧困社區(qū)的社區(qū)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人。在和《廣告克星》交流之后，這個(gè)組織開(kāi)始為舉行“人民全體大會(huì)”作宣傳，以“反對(duì)任何形式的削減和緊縮政策”，并計(jì)劃于9月17日實(shí)施占領(lǐng)。

大會(huì)計(jì)劃在位于曼哈頓鬧市區(qū)的博林格林公園里舉行。格雷伯在“海貍16號(hào)”聽(tīng)到了會(huì)議將要舉行的消息，便于2011年8月2日下午和兩個(gè)朋友一起前往博林格林公園——他們是喬治婭·薩格里和佐布小松。

所謂“全體大會(huì)”，就是一個(gè)經(jīng)過(guò)精心協(xié)調(diào)組織的集體討論，討論中達(dá)成的決定不是由少數(shù)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人決定的，甚至也不是由少數(shù)服從多數(shù)的原則來(lái)決定的，而是必須要全體一致通過(guò)。未能解決的問(wèn)題將提交給大會(huì)工作小組，但最終還是要得到每個(gè)人的贊同，哪怕這個(gè)大會(huì)擁有數(shù)千名會(huì)眾。

然而，當(dāng)格雷伯和他的兩位朋友8月2日出現(xiàn)在博林格林公園時(shí)，他們卻發(fā)現(xiàn)這次集會(huì)事實(shí)上并不是什么“全體大會(huì)”，而是傳統(tǒng)性集會(huì)。集合之后有一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)短的會(huì)議，然后他們就要走上華爾街，去散布一系列預(yù)先確定好的訴求。用無(wú)政府主義者的行話來(lái)說(shuō)，這一活動(dòng)是由“縱向機(jī)構(gòu)”組織的，即由上到下、等級(jí)森嚴(yán)的組織，而不是像格雷伯和他的朋友那樣的“橫向組織”。薩格里和格雷伯覺(jué)得他們被欺騙了，感到十分生氣。

后來(lái)發(fā)生的事情聽(tīng)起來(lái)就像是一個(gè)無(wú)政府主義者的寓言。和小松一道，他們兩人又召集了其他一些對(duì)會(huì)議程序不滿的人，走到公園的最南端，開(kāi)始舉行他們自己的全體大會(huì)，認(rèn)認(rèn)真真地籌劃起9月17日的占領(lǐng)活動(dòng)。他們的人數(shù)從最初的十幾個(gè)人逐漸壯大起來(lái)。其間，原先會(huì)議的籌辦者還不斷努力想把人們拉回去。這種拉鋸戰(zhàn)一直持續(xù)到當(dāng)天很晚的時(shí)候，但最終留在博林格林公園的大約五十多人加入了“反對(duì)派”的全體大會(huì)。

雖然還需要幾個(gè)星期的籌劃，但關(guān)鍵的一戰(zhàn)已經(jīng)獲勝。占領(lǐng)活動(dòng)將由平等的橫向組織者來(lái)操辦。對(duì)格雷伯來(lái)說(shuō)，今后一個(gè)半月要面對(duì)的是走馬燈般的會(huì)議。有些會(huì)議是格雷伯本人促成的，剩下的大部分時(shí)間他都在參加工作小組會(huì)議。他組織了法律和醫(yī)療培訓(xùn)，開(kāi)辦了非暴力抵抗的課程。他們一遍又一遍地討論應(yīng)該提出什么訴求，或者到底要不要提出具體的訴求。

9月17日，離預(yù)定的開(kāi)始時(shí)間——下午3點(diǎn)——差不多還有一個(gè)小時(shí)的時(shí)間，人們忽然得到消息，說(shuō)要改去祖科蒂公園。于是，兩千多人就聚集在那塊現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)非常出名的石頭地面上，坐在低矮的長(zhǎng)椅上和樹(shù)蔭下。這是一次幸運(yùn)的決策：祖科蒂公園是一家私人公園，因而紐約市當(dāng)局無(wú)權(quán)驅(qū)散這里的抗議者。那天晚上，格雷伯幫助組織了全體大會(huì)，會(huì)上他們決定在公園露營(yíng)，而不是立刻進(jìn)軍華爾街。

一位勇敢的思想者

從16歲時(shí)起，格雷伯就已成為一個(gè)無(wú)政府主義者。他自幼在紐約長(zhǎng)大，生活在切爾西一個(gè)由工會(huì)資助的合租公寓里，那里充斥著激進(jìn)的政治思想。他是個(gè)早熟的孩子，11歲時(shí)就對(duì)瑪雅象形文字產(chǎn)生了濃厚的興趣。他將自己對(duì)瑪雅文的一些原創(chuàng)翻譯寄給了該領(lǐng)域的一位著名學(xué)者，那位學(xué)者對(duì)格雷伯的印象非常深刻，親自為他聯(lián)系了馬薩諸塞州安多弗市菲利普斯學(xué)院的獎(jiǎng)學(xué)金。

幾年后，格雷伯成了芝加哥大學(xué)的一名研究生，他的實(shí)地調(diào)查研究使他接觸到另一個(gè)與之前大不相同但同屬無(wú)政府主義的社團(tuán)。1999年，在西雅圖爆發(fā)了大規(guī)模的抗議世貿(mào)組織的活動(dòng)。此事件發(fā)生之后，格雷伯才成為一名無(wú)政府主義的積極實(shí)踐者。在耶魯大學(xué)任副教授時(shí)，他意識(shí)到在他全力專注于學(xué)術(shù)研究時(shí)，他一直想要加入其中的那種運(yùn)動(dòng)已經(jīng)誕生。“如果你真的熱衷于這種活動(dòng)，你會(huì)很快進(jìn)入狀態(tài)的，”他說(shuō)，“第一次參加活動(dòng)時(shí)，你只是個(gè)十足的門(mén)外漢，不知道一切是怎么進(jìn)行的。第二次參加活動(dòng)時(shí)，你就什么都明白了。第三次參加活動(dòng)時(shí)，如果你愿意的話，你實(shí)際上都可以成為領(lǐng)導(dǎo)層的一員了。任何人都能做得到，只要你愿意投入時(shí)間和精力。”

對(duì)于格雷伯來(lái)說(shuō)，這是一段特別快樂(lè)的時(shí)光。在紐黑文，他是一名學(xué)者；在紐約，他則是一個(gè)無(wú)政府主義者。他的大部分時(shí)間都是在紐約度過(guò)的，在那里，在激進(jìn)主義者和藝術(shù)家結(jié)成的松散聯(lián)盟里，他創(chuàng)建了一個(gè)新的社團(tuán)。

這一切都在2005年畫(huà)上了句號(hào)。那一年，耶魯大學(xué)終止了與格雷伯的合同，其時(shí)，他尚未有機(jī)會(huì)被提名終身教職。格雷伯提起了訴訟，他的案子在耶魯大學(xué)和人類學(xué)這一更廣泛的學(xué)術(shù)領(lǐng)域成為眾人熱議的話題。他堅(jiān)持認(rèn)為，他被拿來(lái)當(dāng)靶子至少有一部分原因是他激進(jìn)的政治主張。還有人認(rèn)為，從價(jià)值觀來(lái)講，格雷伯一直反對(duì)帶有等級(jí)觀念的機(jī)構(gòu)，而現(xiàn)代大學(xué)正是這樣的機(jī)構(gòu)，因此從性情上來(lái)講，這樣的大學(xué)并不適合他。

“關(guān)于他的個(gè)人風(fēng)格，人們有過(guò)一些爭(zhēng)議，比如對(duì)系里和整所大學(xué)里的長(zhǎng)者他是否有過(guò)足夠的尊重。他不是那種善于變通的人?！蓖旭R斯·布洛姆·漢森回憶說(shuō)。漢森是斯坦福大學(xué)人類學(xué)教授，也是當(dāng)時(shí)格雷伯在耶魯大學(xué)任教時(shí)的同事和朋友。“在我看來(lái)，沒(méi)有人會(huì)懷疑他是人類學(xué)界一個(gè)重要的人物，”他補(bǔ)充說(shuō)，“但他對(duì)平淡無(wú)奇的日常行政管理毫無(wú)興趣，而這種管理在學(xué)術(shù)界正越來(lái)越多地構(gòu)成我們生活的一部分?！?/p>

每個(gè)參與發(fā)起“占領(lǐng)華爾街”抗議活動(dòng)的人，從格雷伯到《廣告克星》的編輯，再到“反對(duì)削減預(yù)算的紐約客”，都對(duì)占領(lǐng)活動(dòng)的成功大感意外。格雷伯沒(méi)有把占領(lǐng)活動(dòng)的成功歸功于活動(dòng)的籌劃者，而是歸功于運(yùn)氣、時(shí)機(jī)和整個(gè)國(guó)家彌漫的憤怒、幻滅的情緒：工作機(jī)會(huì)稀少，政治進(jìn)程已逐漸停滯，無(wú)論是國(guó)家還是個(gè)人都債臺(tái)高筑。

在格雷伯眼中，債務(wù)問(wèn)題并不僅僅是“負(fù)債太多很糟糕”那么簡(jiǎn)單。他在《債務(wù)：第一個(gè)五千年》這本書(shū)中寫(xiě)道：更為根本的是，債務(wù)扭曲了人們互相幫助的天性。

在書(shū)的最后，格雷伯的確提出了一條政策建議：像《圣經(jīng)》里提到的“大赦”那樣，赦免所有國(guó)際債務(wù)和消費(fèi)者債務(wù)。大赦在現(xiàn)代社會(huì)已難得一見(jiàn)，但在古代巴比倫、亞述以及托勒密王朝統(tǒng)治下的埃及，大赦天下的事經(jīng)常發(fā)生。統(tǒng)治者知道，在莊稼歉收的年份，許多農(nóng)民背負(fù)債務(wù)，如果不進(jìn)行赦免，將會(huì)發(fā)生暴動(dòng)和騷亂?！吧饷鈧鶆?wù)是有益的，”格雷伯寫(xiě)道，“不僅因?yàn)樗軠p輕人們真實(shí)存在的巨大痛苦，更因?yàn)樗軙r(shí)刻提醒我們：金錢問(wèn)題無(wú)需避諱；欠債還錢并非道德之本；所有這一切都是人為規(guī)定的；如果說(shuō)民主還有意義的話，那就是讓人人都明白，這世道需要改變。”

1.anarchist [#712;aelig;n#601;(r)k#618;st] n. 無(wú)政府主義者

2.Zuccotti Park：祖科蒂公園，坐落于紐約市曼哈頓下城區(qū)的一個(gè)公園，面積3100平方米。Brookfield房地產(chǎn)公司擁有該公園的產(chǎn)權(quán)，但公眾可以使用。公園的西北角通往世貿(mào)中心。

3.amorphous [#601;#712;m#596;#720;(r)f#601;s] adj. 無(wú)組織的

4.heretical [h#601;#712;ret#618;k(#601;)l] adj. 異端的

5.welter [#712;welt#601;(r)] n. 雜亂無(wú)章，一片混亂

6.sprawling [#712;spr#596;#720;l#618;#331;] adj. 蔓生的，不規(guī)則地伸展的

7.erudite [#712;er#650;da#618;t] adj. 博學(xué)的，有學(xué)問(wèn)的

8.at odds with：意見(jiàn)不一致

9.genealogy [#716;d#658;i#720;ni#712;aelig;l#601;d#658;i] n. 系譜(圖)

10.inchoate [#618;n#712;k#601;#650;#601;t] adj. 初期的

11.fidgety [#712;f#618;d#658;#618;ti] adj. 坐立不安的，煩躁的

12.sabbatical [s#601;#712;baelig;t#618;k(#601;)l] n. (大學(xué)教授的)休假年，休假

13.semiotics [#716;semi#712;#594;t#618;ks] n. [語(yǔ)]符號(hào)學(xué)

14.indigenous [#618;n#712;d#618;d#658;#601;n#601;s] adj. 本地的，本土的

15.the occupation of Cairo’s Tahrir Square：指2011年的埃及革命。從2011年1月25日開(kāi)始，埃及民眾為抗議警察粗暴執(zhí)法、政府腐敗等問(wèn)題而進(jìn)行了一系列街頭示威、游行、集會(huì)、罷工等活動(dòng)?？棺h活動(dòng)在埃及各大都市展開(kāi)。在開(kāi)羅，有大約四萬(wàn)五千人聚集在解放廣場(chǎng)進(jìn)行抗議。

16.Adbusters：《廣告克星》，是一本無(wú)廣告的社會(huì)活動(dòng)雜志，由Adbusters媒體基金會(huì)出版。Adbusters媒體基金會(huì)是一個(gè)宣傳反消費(fèi)主義和環(huán)保主義的加拿大非盈利性社會(huì)活動(dòng)組織。

17.Bowling Green：博林格林公園，位于曼哈頓下城區(qū)，是紐約城最古老的公園之一。

18.argot [#712;ɑ#720;(r)ɡ#601;#650;] n. 行話；暗語(yǔ)

19.have [haelig;v] vt.〈俚〉欺騙，使上當(dāng)

20.disgruntled [d#618;s#712;ɡr#652;nt(#601;)ld] adj. 不滿的，不高興的

21.tug of war：兩派間的激烈競(jìng)爭(zhēng)

22.insurgent [#618;n#712;s#604;#720;(r)d#658;(#601;)nt] adj. 反叛的；反抗的

23.carousel [#716;kaelig;r#601;#712;sel] n. 旋轉(zhuǎn)木馬

24.facilitate [f#601;#712;s#618;l#601;te#618;t] vt. 促進(jìn)；幫助

25.Mayan hieroglyphics：瑪雅象形文字，中美洲前哥倫布時(shí)期瑪雅文明的文字系統(tǒng)，源于中美洲文字。最早的瑪雅象形文字記載可追溯至公元前3世紀(jì)，該文字一直被持續(xù)使用，直到西班牙征服者在16世紀(jì)入侵瑪雅后才停止使用。

26.albeit [#596;#720;l#712;bi#720;#618;t] conj. 盡管；即使

27.New Haven：紐黑文，美國(guó)康涅狄格州南部港市，耶魯大學(xué)所在地

28.come up：被提出或討論(作候選人等)

29.tenure [#712;tenj#601;(r)] n. (大學(xué)教師等被授予的)終身職位

30.pliable [#712;pla#618;#601;b(#601;)l] adj. 順從的；圓通的

31.humdrum [#712;h#652;mdr#652;m] adj. 單調(diào)的；乏味的

32.grind to a halt：完全停止；慢慢停止

33.jubilee [#712;d#658;u#720;b#618;li#720;] n. (天主教)大赦年

34.salutary [#712;saelig;lj#650;t(#601;)ri] adj. 有益的，有利的