Onan Musoy is shy. Here are four of his essays.

The New F-Word

Legislative initiatives, administrative interpretations, and judicial decisions are wearing away the image of a democratic republic in the United States.  Observers peer through the thinning veneer to fathom the form of governance which lies beneath. More and more often, the structure being revealed is accurately labeled as an oligarchy or plutocracy. However, there is a reticence to call it fascism, likely due to its historical connotations.

Both the current President and his predecessor have been depicted by members of an opposing political party as a maniacal dictator with a toothbrush mustache who came to power near the middle of the previous century. Such representations garner strong emotional reactions.

With present culture's predilection to emphasize personality over principles and form over substance, what gets lost in the reaction to the image of an historic megalomaniac is the image's value as a symbol of a political system to which he was a leading proponent.

People cannot be faulted for resorting to images as a succinct way to convey a message, but a less emotional reaction could have occurred and perhaps a rational exchange of ideas would have ensued if signs read, for instance, Democrats, or Republicans, are a fascist party.

Individuals sufficiently open-minded to grasp both sides in a debate would reach the conclusion that the entire political system is a fascist one. Most of its characteristics are currently on exhibition, regardless of which party is in power. Those attributes are: nationalism with an imperialistic foreign policy, economics of laissez-faire free markets and corporatism, authoritarianism, social Darwinism, and social interventionism through indoctrination about culture, sexuality, and birth control.

To accurately describe this current incarnation as different from its historical precedent, the time has come to let fly with the new F-word: neo-fascism. With the growing popular usage of the designations of neoconservative in foreign policy and neoliberal in economics, neo-fascism conforms rather neatly. Also, neoconservativism and neoliberalism, constituent parts of neo-fascism, can be conveniently grouped into this shorter term. Neo-fascist media may censor this new F-word as much as its carnal predecessor. Nevertheless, the political  field is open upon which to drop the new F-bomb.

(first published at www.axisoflogic.com 3-17-2012)

(Un) Occupy Movement Consciousness

The Occupy Movement in the U.S.A. is recognized as an extension of protests begun in North Africa at the start of 2011 and continuing in the Mid-East and Europe through the summer, until manifesting in the Western Hemisphere at the beginning of autumn. Perceived to be a response to a social structure of inequality during the past three decades, the  inequities are, in reality, much older than that.

The Unoccupy Movement is a response, quite for the expression of dissatisfaction with the system, yet essentially against the word choice, “occupy.” The Indigenous peoples of North America,  while in full support of a truly egalitarian society -- as they have  naturally lived this way -- balk at the choice of the word, occupy, for its historical connotations. The original inhabitants have suffered for more than five centuries in their homeland while under occupation  by European settlers. If we are to have an egalitarian society among all human beings, then the First Peoples must be an equal part of the  movement.

The irony of a human movement springing forth in Egypt, a cradle of western civilization, is not lost on some observers. A greater irony is that the first impulse for greater freedom emanated from the northern part of a continent in which inhabitants, four  centuries ago, were sold in slavery; they endured bondage for over half their history in a new world before being freed and begrudgingly granted, in theory, equal status. If we are to have an egalitarian society among all human beings, then nonwhite non-Europeans must be an equal part of the movement.

Equally ironic is the movement’s growth and continuance in the cradle of democracy, Greece, in a part of the world where patriarchy came to power, four to five millenniums ago and Women, half the population, became subjugated by an elitist system, including the so-called democracy of ancient Greece. If we are to have an egalitarian society among all human beings, then Women must be an equal part of the movement.

It would be remiss to neglect the most recent subgroup of Homo sapiens pressing for equal rights, the gay (more properly identified as the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community, who have suffered under patriarchy as long as  women have. If we are to have an egalitarian society among all human beings, then the LGBT community must be an equal part of the movement.

As we all recognize each other as true equals, there are paradigms with which we must keep our consciousness unoccupied. Foremost, the illusion foisted upon us throughout recorded history that there is an elite subgroup, due to whatever circumstances, who have the right to decide and rule over the fate of our species, other species dependent on our stewardship, and the viability of the planet itself.

We also must have our minds unoccupied by what shall surely be presented by elitism before our collective vision: the coin of the realm, containing its two faces of carrot and stick, “desire and fear.”€� It is natural within human consciousness to desire beneficial outcomes while desiring to avoid detrimental outcomes. Elitists knowingly play upon this psychology in order to manipulate and control us to their advantage and our disadvantage.

What shall elitism offer in terms of desires?  History shows us it will give the absolute minimum required to placate us a slightly bigger piece of the pie, when by rights we deserve practically the entire product of what life offers, in proportion to our numbers. Regardless of how it is sliced we will be given crumbs, never  being offered the intangibles we seek with each other, compassionate  sharing of contentment. Elitists, with rationalized disdain for those  less fortunate, have created a heartless system that, unable to fulfill our true desires, is unworthy of our time and attention. Our love for one another will transcend their hollow materialism.

What will the elitism offer in the form of fears? Once more, history shows it will target foreign enemies (who will be held responsible for our domestic  plight), so as to unite us to do battle, while distracting us from the true source of our troubles and with whom we must struggle, elitism itself. Ultimately, the final trump card in the elitist trick-deck is the specter of death. If the alternative is existing here as inferiors to a very small percentage of our own kind, we would be better served not living at all. If the vast majority of us wish to attain the summit  of complete equality, we must be willing to pay the ultimate price.

With what must we keep our consciousness occupied? We follow all those who have gone before us; for their lifelong struggles to make equality a reality, some are greatly admired while far many more will remain unknown. Although the struggle for freedom is as old as recorded history, we must be encouraged by the fact that we are, for the very first time, uniting together worldwide as one conscious species. There is no greater cause for which to devote one’s life than the complete liberation of the entire human race.

(first published in The (Un)Occupy Movement anthology
and at www.axisoflogic.com 1-21-2012)

Some Choices and Implications for a Popular Movement

A popular movement is massing itself on the streets and bringing awareness of its cause to the greater public. This movement has been confronted by municipal law enforcement, who have been arresting or detaining citizens on misdemeanor charges in order to supersede First Amendment rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Civic governments are challenging the organizing movement by presenting an obstacle in  the form of a moral dilemma - protestors must choose between lawfulness and lawlessness, in its manifestation as civil disobedience.

When local ordinances grant no space to/for its citizens to assemble, the  choice for each individual in the movement becomes whether to maintain its preferred site or give way. If the decision to hold is chosen and the number of protestors is small, they are cleared from the place, if not arrested and/or detained. Whatever the outcome, reassembly must continue until massive enough numbers of participants render the law enforcement process entirely unfeasible for municipalities.

If protestors’ numbers remain small and law enforcement becomes so Draconian that the choice to stay in its chosen space is not possible, then the group must go, but it must go mobile. This need not be seen as a defeat, rather a morphing of the movement into another phase of  actions. Mobility offers advantages in the potential to create a multiplicity of smaller subgroups, with the attributes of quicker and more difficult to detect movements, allowing the protestors to offer a greater unpredictability to law enforcement.

If the right to assemble is legally denied, participants in the movement have at least two other time-tested tactics at their disposal: the boycott and the strike. With these actions, citizens still have choices when making distinctions between lawfulness and lawlessness.

Boycotts, law abiding in nature, effective as an individual effort and, much more so,  as a concentrated group action, hold no legal downside for  participants. All it requires is to make personal sacrifices for the greater good and anyone sympathetic to the movement can do it.

Another action available to people, with huge potential to effect change, is the strike. The demarcation line between lawfulness and lawlessness differs  depending on whether or not workers have a non-strike agreement with owners/management. If one has such an agreement, then striking is  illegal; if not bound by such an agreement, one has a legal right to do so. It is worth noting, at this juncture, that one need not be in a union to institute a strike.

Whereas an organized effort could bring rapid results, it will draw an equally concentrated response by government to counter the action, as we have witnessed with protestors’  in the streets. Civil disobedience, or conscious lawbreaking, is an effective and successful tactic when a massive number of individuals participate. If a general strike is going to work, it will have to occur in this way: there must be enough lawbreakers to make prosecution by the state impractical.

With regard to an overarching strategy of the movement, it will do well to  bear in mind, the general trend in governance is centralization to  further concentrate power. The movement must choose to what degree it  mirrors the status quo and how much proportion is given to decentralization, rooted in the structure of the movement, as a tactic to counterbalance governments’ actions. Ever-changing circumstances on the ground and  within the movement call for equally fluid responses. If people choose  to centralize, it must be over shared goals, yet they must stand ready to choose decentralization and employ a variety of actions to achieve  stated goals.

Rapid results from actions undertaken, with agreeable solutions to the many grievances, are ideal. However, one  must question if the desire for overnight success is being driven by commercial indoctrination for instant gratification. When resisting a corrupt system centuries in the making, it will take much time to undo the damage. 

When contemplating present and future actions, the popular front of today would be well served in learning from past movements so as not to repeat the same missteps. Participants and observers alike have drawn parallels between current events and the 1960s, when people in large numbers occupied the streets, carried  signs, and chanted slogans in advocacy for societal changes.

The movement of the 1960s, with the potential to achieve systemic change,  opted for separate protests -- over civil, indigenous, and women’s rights, plus the end of a war -- with incomplete mutual support for the other causes. As a result, each group of protestors settled for a sufficient set of reforms that brought satisfaction to their  grievances, but kept the underlying inequitable system intact.

The current movement has come forth, comprising practically all human  beings regardless of subgroups, with an all-encompassing set of grievances too numerous to fit nicely into a simple set of demands. Perhaps by learning from the shortfalls of the popular uprisings  forty-something years ago, the present protest will be less content to  accept reforms and more intent on pushing for a revolution of the  system. As well, there is much to learn from a global, historical study  of both successful reforms and revolutions.

While maintaining an enthused and optimistic outlook, being mindful of possible roadblocks can help with staying the course. A reported Republican strategy involves verbal rebranding with the aim of assuaging the masses and  turning the tide. The phrases “economic freedom” and “free markets”� are to replace “capitalism”‚ since protestors are hip to the  inequities of the capitalist system.

To maintain cohesiveness among groups large and small, the movement can benefit by keeping an eye out for potential infiltrators, such as those wanting to co-opt the movement along political lines. And even a successful revolution must be wary of counterrevolutionary forces.

Also worth considering is the art of advance and retreat. That is: distinguishing between when it is best to withdraw one’s participation from the system -- for example, taking money out of a private bank and putting it into a  credit union or publically-owned bank, or getting news from other  than mainstream media -- and when best to confront the system directly  -- for example, refusing to leave a foreclosed home, or blocking the transport of hazardous materials.

How far will the popular movement advance toward or help bring about an egalitarian society? Will the reforms of decades past be matched, or will systemic revolution have the 1960s come to be remembered as a dress rehearsal?  Will it be for a country or will it happen for a world?

While such transformations may seem radical to some people, it is helpful to remember that “radical” simply means “of the roots, the origin,”� and that is where one must often go in order to truly solve a problem, revolutionize instead of reform.

That roots are essentially unseen is a reminder that: the pathway we take, in order to solve our global problems, will probably not be exactly where it appears to be.

(first published in The (Un)Occupy Movement anthology
and at www.axisoflogic.com 12-25-2011)

The Role of Social Media in the Movement

The role of social media in the formation of the Arab Spring and the subsequent American Autumn is beyond debate. All observers credit recent technologies with organizing people into sudden, large protests in many of the world’s major cities.

Some long-time activists praise the new form of communication as a means to compress the time necessary to organize before hitting the streets, while also expressing reservations about the Internet’s ability to turn physical protestors  into armchair activists.

Traditional protestors argue, and  rightly so, history  proves that all popular movements achieved their goals through massive numbers of people in public demonstrations.  However, it is the first time in history a movement has at hand a tool in which to augment their cause. The potential that social media offers must not be underestimated.

Circumstances, such as being too busy just struggling to survive, geographical remoteness, and  self-inhibition, among others, which prevented participation in the  past are more readily overcome by the current technology, allowing  part-time involvement and creating a higher actual number of total protestors.

Other benefits of social media include remote  participants ability to ship supplies to those on the ground as well as give ideas for meetings, advice for problems, and boosts to morale.  Venues such as Facebook, Twitter, and various chat rooms dedicated to the protests, enable one to share slogans, affirmations, and other concise ideas, for example: corporations are not people money is not speech,” or “purchase only what you need buy no luxuries.”�

The new technology is also developing into an alternative news source  where independent reporting gives a truer picture of reality than what is to be gained from mainstream media. A door to democracy in the  digital world stands open for those wanting to be part of an ongoing network blessed with the work of protecting both people and planet. Some cities’ Occupiers have made available Livestream transmissions with  such sites broadcasting a reality-based alternative to the MSM.

While it is true the success of a movement hinges upon all who physically  participate, armchair activists are not to be completely discounted, as  they may become tomorrow’s protestors. Perhaps old-school activists need not be reminded by lessons of history, yet it is worth remembering that States  have perceived three categories of opposition: protestors, those who  physically lend support to them, and those who sympathize  with a movement. If push comes to shove, the State might consider those who witness from the comfort of an easy-chair as guilty as those on the streets.

For those who have longed to have a voice in the course of humanity, participating electronically, alongside the brave  souls on the physical front lines, is one way to become a citizen of a ‘. . brave new world, that has such people in it!’

first published in The (Un)Occupy Movement anthology
and parts of this essay first appeared in the article “Chatting for Change�
by the same author 10-10-2011

© 2012-2023 Onan Musoy.