????1987年的股災(zāi)之后,，《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》(The New York Times) 在其頭版為“放肆的鍍金時(shí)代”祭上了一篇訃告,，文章援引大思想家的話(huà)，預(yù)言肆無(wú)忌憚的自利行為行將在美國(guó)消亡,。短短三年后,，當(dāng)一場(chǎng)衰退標(biāo)志著80年代正式結(jié)束時(shí)，許多評(píng)論家（包括這本雜志）又預(yù)測(cè)稱(chēng),，“一場(chǎng)針對(duì)富人的起義正在醞釀之中”,，“后富裕社會(huì)”即將來(lái)臨。

????到了2012年,，描述美國(guó)階級(jí)關(guān)系的論述層出不窮,，其間有充斥著“火藥桶”和“炸藥”這類(lèi)字眼。這時(shí)候,，重溫這些昔日的預(yù)言無(wú)疑頗有啟發(fā)性,。事實(shí)證明，美國(guó)并沒(méi)有爆發(fā)針對(duì)80年代,，也就是所謂“貪婪的10年”的階級(jí)反抗,。20世紀(jì)90年代，巨型豪宅猶如雨后春筍一般在全美各地破土而出，富人變得更加財(cái)大氣粗,，所有理應(yīng)出現(xiàn)的民粹主義憤怒情緒最終消失在了一波由抵押貸款融資引發(fā)的消費(fèi)狂潮中,，富人和中產(chǎn)階級(jí)概莫能外。

????也許這次情況不一樣了,。我們不妨拿歐洲街頭蔓延的怒火作為比較對(duì)象,。當(dāng)然，如今的失業(yè)率讓20世紀(jì)90年代的失業(yè)率相形見(jiàn)絀,，長(zhǎng)期失業(yè)水平正處于歷史高位,。人們對(duì)自身經(jīng)濟(jì)前景的焦慮程度亦是如此。美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)似乎正陷于癱瘓,，這是一個(gè)非?？膳碌臅r(shí)代；而20世紀(jì)90年代并非如此,。但對(duì)即將到來(lái)的階級(jí)斗爭(zhēng)的預(yù)言未能抓住美國(guó)精神的根本性質(zhì),。喜歡侃侃而談的人士有一種傾向，他們夸大了美國(guó)民眾對(duì)富裕的不屑,，同時(shí)卻又低估了人們追逐自身財(cái)富的熱情,。

????去年秋天上演的占領(lǐng)華爾街抗議活動(dòng)被許多人比作阿拉伯之春（一場(chǎng)最終推翻政府的運(yùn)動(dòng)）和歐洲反緊縮政策抗議活動(dòng)（實(shí)際上，占領(lǐng)華爾街運(yùn)動(dòng)即使是在最鼎盛的時(shí)期也無(wú)法跟這些抗議活動(dòng)相提并論）,。5月中旬,，占領(lǐng)華爾街抗議人士發(fā)動(dòng)的“金融犯罪的步行之旅”和針對(duì)各大銀行的時(shí)代廣場(chǎng)集會(huì)使這場(chǎng)運(yùn)動(dòng)再一次成為媒體關(guān)注的焦點(diǎn)。

????占領(lǐng)華爾街運(yùn)動(dòng)把與經(jīng)濟(jì)不平等相關(guān)的話(huà)題注入這個(gè)國(guó)家的政治血液之中,，這一點(diǎn)值得褒揚(yáng)（應(yīng)該指出的是,，這是一個(gè)不小的壯舉）。占領(lǐng)華爾街運(yùn)動(dòng)呼吁一場(chǎng)“革命”,，反抗一個(gè)“讓99%的人陷于貧困”的體系,，但這種呼聲最終并沒(méi)有完全轉(zhuǎn)化為一場(chǎng)群眾運(yùn)動(dòng)，而且現(xiàn)在依然不可能,。

????從歷史來(lái)看,，美國(guó)人對(duì)階級(jí)沖突并沒(méi)有表現(xiàn)出濃厚的興致。正如本杰明?佩奇教授和勞倫斯?雅各布斯教授在其2009年發(fā)布的著作《階級(jí)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng),？》（Class War?）一書(shū)中所指出的,，“雖然美國(guó)人對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)不平等保持著警覺(jué)態(tài)度，并支持致力于減少不平等的措施,，但他們的直覺(jué)依然是保守的,。提高個(gè)人經(jīng)濟(jì)地位和生活狀況主要是人們自己的責(zé)任?！蹦敲?，為什么會(huì)出現(xiàn)這么多呼吁革命的言論呢,？人們的注意力很短暫，對(duì)于渴望抓住受眾眼球的媒體來(lái)說(shuō),，“我們對(duì)抗他們”是一個(gè)特別誘人的主題,。因此，皮尤研究中心（Pew Research）最近一項(xiàng)旨在表明貧富之間沖突急劇上升的調(diào)查就顯得特別耐人尋味,。

????After the 1987 stock market crash, the New York Times offered up a page-one obituary for a "gilded, impudent age," quoting great minds who predicted the demise of unbridled self-interest in America. Three short years later, when a recession marked the official end of the '80s, commentators (including in this magazine) predicted a "brewing revolt against the rich" and the coming of a "post-affluent society."

????It's instructive in 2012 -- when words like "tinderbox" and "explosive" dot so many descriptions of class relations in the U.S. -- to revisit those cloudy crystal balls of yore. As it turned out, there was no class revolt against the '80s, the "decade of greed." In the 1990s, McMansions sprouted like kudzu across the land, the rich got filthy rich, and all that supposed nascent populist anger was lost in a swirl of mortgage-financed consumer gluttony (behavior shared by the affluent and middle class alike).

????Maybe this time is different. Maybe comparisons to the outpourings in the streets of Europe are apt. Certainly today's unemployment rate dwarfs that of the 1990s, and long-term joblessness is stuck at historic highs. So is anxiety about personal economic futures. With an economy that seems paralyzed, these are scary times; the '90s weren't. But predictions of impending class warfare miss the fundamental nature of the American psyche. There is a tendency within the chattering classes to overstate the American public's disdain for affluence -- and to understate people's passion for pursuing their own wealth.

????The Occupy Wall Street protests that played out last fall drew comparisons to the Arab Spring (a movement that actually toppled governments) and Europe's anti-austerity eruptions (protests that actually overshadowed OWS's biggest days here). In mid-May, OWS jumped back on the media radar screen with a "financial crimes walking tour" and Times Square rally against the big banks.

????While OWS deserves credit for injecting discussion of economic inequality into the country's political bloodstream -- no small feat, it should be noted -- its calls for a "revolution" against a system that "impoverishes the 99%" hasn't exactly translated into a mass movement. And it remains unlikely to.

????Historically Americans haven't shown much appetite for class strife. As professors Benjamin Page and Lawrence Jacobs noted in their 2009 book Class War?: "While Americans are alert to inequality and support measures to reduce it ... they remain conservative by instinct ... Responsibility for an individual's economic position and life conditions rests chiefly with him- or herself." So why all the talk of revolution? "Us-vs.-them-ism" is an especially tempting theme for a media desperately looking for ways to grab our short attention spans. Therefore, much was made of a recent Pew Research poll purporting to show a sharp rise in conflicts between rich and poor.