Occupy Wall Street: A Basis for Change « Rama Hoetzlein

Occupy Wall Street: A Basis for Change

As a supporter of the OWS, I would like to ask a simple question: How long should we ‘occupy’ the streets of our major cities? Next year? Indefinitely? Some may say, “We will be here as long as it takes!” As long as it takes for what? This immediately raises the issue of what the OWS demands are. What I hope to point out is, having demands are an essential part of a final resolution. Otherwise, we will simply be here forever.

Consider this another way: OWS is not about freedom of speech. That already took place in the 1960s as the Berkeley Free Speech Movement. The message was a unified one: We have the right to speak publicly on any topic. The movement was entirely structured around the simple, focused goal of the right to speak. The message was “Let us speak, on any topic, or we will not leave this campus!”

Ultimately, the wealthy WANT to make this about speech. Why? Because it detracts from the real issue: wealth. If we complain the police aren’t letting us camp in the park, if the police try to remove us, we aren’t making any real demands – we’re just revisiting speech again. If we are pushed around, sprayed, we aren’t making any real demands – we are fighting for speech. Something we already have, mostly. By making this about speech, we avoid finding solutions to the real issue: wall street corruption.

How long should we occupy the streets? Until they let us stay on the streets indefinitely? Let’s not forget the whole purpose of the movement is wealth disparity. But what can we reasonably demand? Certainly, as others point out, the right to a job is not a civil right – the government cannot guarantee jobs. As one writer said, “I knew a girl who dropped six figures in loans for a degree in Women’s Studies, and now complains she can’t find a job. What did she expect? That it would be easy?”

We have to accept that times are changing, globally. A freely available study, “Research on Future Skill Demands”, by the National Research Council (2008), reports that by 2030 up to 60% of our current workforce could be displaced by technology. Manufacturing has already seen a 40% decline in the past 5 years. Can we reasonably demand that jobs are created in –your- area of expertise?

Others claim that we have a right to a share of our country’s wealthy. This is not a reasonable civil right, either. The vast majority of the world is 20x worse off that even the poorest American. Most people in the world have no access to public toilets or clean water. Can we really expect the wealthy to give us a share of America’s money based solely on the idea that we deserve it? The American middle class may have labored hard, only to have the economy drop out, but as a commenter said “You were paid for your work. Your employer has no other obligations to you. You’re welcome to get another job.” The world is changing. Instead of pointing fingers, the question should be, what specific things were done which –should be- illegal?

How long should we occupy the streets? I suggest the answer is actually quite clear. We are unified because of very specific things: bank bailouts, foreclosure, and wall street greed. But we can’t make laws against greed itself. What kind of laws can we demand?

Here are three to start with:
1) Lobbying should be illegal.. The constitution introduced lobbying as means to advocate for the public. Now, the primary use of lobbying is the opposite – it is an advocation against the public interest. We must demand specific reform to lobbying, perhaps outlawing it altogether.

2) It should be illegal for CEOs of major companies to serve on government regulatory bodies in the same field. Some examples are the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), NCI (National Cancer Institute), DOE (Department of Energy), and EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) other. How can a group of people regulate an industry with whom it has a hidden financial interest?

3) Congress must be legally required to pass national debt reform, or be forced out of office. The process of perpetually delaying hard decisions must end.

We can continue to disagree on demographics: 56%, 99%, 1%, Republican, Democrat, Tea party. Everyone is different. That’s what makes this country great. But at the very least, we already know some specific reasons why we are here.

More to the point, if we make OWS about freedom of speech, our goals will never be met. OWS will become a perpetual, never ending occupation of our cities – hardly the kind of future we hope for.. There are perhaps some who would like to live in the park forever. I am not one of them. I would like to go home, and see our country changed for the good. I don’t care about “being heard”, or even about being shoved around by police. Now is our chance for change, what specific things do we want to change?

2 responses to “Occupy Wall Street: A Basis for Change”

  1. eric clyne says:

    I have before me your well-executed diagram with a timeline for media theory, theory, art and consumer art sections which are all very interesting and reasonable in that they note events of significance, perhaps not ones others would agree with, but nicely put.

    However, when it comes to the political line I see not a series of the most significant events but the obvious plus a menu of your special concerns. Geopolitically, the Spanish Republic and its associated civil war, the CEDA fascist coalition, China/Tibet, the Great Leap Forward and Rwanda genocide are all events of marginal significance geopolitically or in terms of art and media, theory or practice.

    These inclusions greatly detract from your very useful work in the main streams of events.

    I would be most interested in updates of this diagram and would ask you to consider including the great Kazimir Malevich and his work ‘from cubism and futurism: to suprematism: the new realism in painting 1915’. Read by few – but what a few they were.

    Malevich’s manifesto is much more important than Futurist, Dada or Surrealists ramblings: they are sideshows. Malevich is central – the founder of the postmodern. He states many decades before Derrida that meaning is an imposition, or, as we might say now, a cultural artefact. Inventing meaning is what we do.

    The blizzard has stopped so I must desist and venture out again.

    All the best

    Eric Clyne

    • admin says:

      Thanks for your observant feedback. I agree that the political line could be improved significantly, but mostly in terms of adding new information and enhancing it. You say that wars are of marginal significance in terms of art and media, but I would suggest that wars have been a major influence in several art movements. Dada and Surrealism would not have existed without their relationship to the Spanish Civil War, nor would Performance art of the 1960s without its relation to the Vietnam war. There is certainly no exclusive influence, but political events and wars can influence art just as much as science or technology.

      Malevich is clearly a major influence which should be added. In fact, all of Russian Suprematism was a highly structuralist form of art which predated much of the post World War II, and was thus a precursor to later structuralism. It is on the map, but I really should add artists like Malevich, Tatlin and Lissitzky, and connect it to the movements that follow it. Looking at the map again now, I’m surprised I don’t have any artists for that movement. I need to do the same for Futurism as well.

      There are in fact many substantial artists that should be added, which I would like to expand on in the future. Someone has even suggests a line for Music, but perhaps that requires a new map of its own. Thanks for your comments.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Reload Image

Web Design MymensinghPremium WordPress ThemesWeb Development

New Website Launched

November 12, 2014November 12, 2014
This new personal website contains previously unpublished videos, updated content, and more on teaching materials and current research.

Fluids v.3.1 presented at GPU Technology Conference 2014

March 7, 2014March 7, 2014
Novel methods for fluid simulation were presented at the GPU Technology Conference, in Santa Clara, CA. The new Fluids v.3.1 can simulate over 4 million particles at 4 fps, is easier to build, and runs on CUDA 5.0 and 5.5.

Starting Position as Graphics Developer with NVIDIA

January 1, 2013January 1, 2013
nvidia_logoThis January, 2013, I start a new position in Graphics Research at NVIDIA Corporation in Santa Clara, CA, working with CAD clients to develop GPU technologies, and exploring topics in computer graphics.