1.-10. elokuuta 2012: Contra Info kutsuu propagandatoimiin repressiota vastaan

Kaupunkien välinen taistelu? Trku, HKi, JKL, Joensuu, Oulu, Tampere, Kerava FAI? Parhaat saa 103 skenepistettä, jotka voi jakaa haluamallaan tavalla.

 Kuka on "käännösverkosto"? Onko " meillä" kellään nimiä, ikinä?? jos ei, niin miksi? Miksi?

Lue Contrainfoa ja pohdi sitä. Ketkä ovat "meitä"?

On meillä nimet, mutta koska me ei olla poliitikkoja, me ei mainosteta itseämme että minäminäminäminä, vaan ollaan siinä mielessä tavallisia ihmisiä, et halutaan elää elämämme rauhassa poissa parrasvaloista. Eri asia tietty jos oltais jotain poliitikkoja ja edustajia, joiden pitää koko ajan tuoda itseään esiin saadakseen ääniä.

> Kuka on "käännösverkosto"? Onko " meillä" kellään nimiä, ikinä??
> jos ei, niin miksi? Miksi?

Tuli mieleen Jälkiä jättämättä - arkipäivän pienestä vastarinnasta

"The “we” used throughout these texts is the anarchist we: that is, it refers to all who would associate themselves with the statements in question, and to no others." -Crimethinc: Fighting for our lives [pdf-linkki]

"The ‘we’ that speaks here is not a delimitable, isolated we, the we of a group. It is the we of a position." -Näkymätön Komitea: Kutsu [pdf-linkki]

Rolling Thunder, Issue 5/Spring 2008:

Word of the Issue:

WE

Mark Twain famously opined that the only people who should use the word “we” are editors and people with tapeworms, but to our knowledge no one has yet undertaken a serious analysis of the power dynamics hidden within this single syllable. “We” sounds so egalitarian, so communal and participatory, when more often than not it refers to unspeakably hierarchical and constraining social configurations. Fascism, let us remember, is also a form of collectivity.
In our preliminary research, we have already discovered several variants of “we,” though this is hardly an exhaustive list:

- The leader’s We: “... and we will give our lives, if need be, to defend our homeland!”
- The executive’s We: “We’ve got productivity up 25% this year, and we’re going to see a real return on that in profits.”
- The boss’s We: “We need to mop this whole kitchen in the next half hour.”
- The babysitter’s We: “Are we a little testy tonight? Maybe it’s time for us to get ready for bed?”
- The sports fan’s We: “We’re going to the World Series this year!” Sure you are!
- The activist’s We: “Whose streets? Our streets!” Whose, precisely?
- The party faithful We: “Now that the factories are in the hands of the workers, we can commence building the paradise on earth Mankind deserves!” [shortly before a one-way trip to Siberia]
- Zamyatin’s We: An underrated novel that offered much of the inspiration for George Orwell’s 1984.

Some forms of We refer to entirely mythical social bodies: the patriot’s We, for example, thoughtlessly includes everyone who happens to have citizenship in the nation, even if some of them consider themselves enemies of the state. Other forms, such as the We of identity politics, seek to create self-conscious social bodies by premising a mythical commonality on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

Many different forms of collective process are hidden within “We.” In the field of the arts, these range from plagiarism—in which two or more parties are involved, but a single one makes the decisions without any regard for the others’ desires—to corporate journalism, which is practically no different! In the world of politics, these include the democratic We—“We voted to kick out 40% of our membership”—and the consensus-based We: “We took four weeks to compose a paragraph I could have written in three minutes!”

No anarchist discussion of the word We could be complete without an examination of the propagandist’s We. This is a distant relative of the “royal” We,* in that it’s not a We at all. The propagandist’s We is most popular among radicals who lack the social skills to collaborate with anyone, yet wish to sound as if they single-handedly constitute a coherent popular movement. A diligent genealogist might trace its history from the mission statements of Bakunin’s imaginary secret societies through the “FC” of the Unabomber Manifesto right up to the worst of current radical yellow journalism. At best, this We is wishful thinking; at worst, it is the We of the would-be despot, who fantasizes about fielding an army of automations because he cannot imagine any other kind of relationship.

Given all this ambiguity, what proper use remains for the word “We”? We (there it is, “we”!) would like to direct the reader to the famous joke in which Tonto and the Lone Ranger are set upon by a bloodthirsty horde of so-called Indians:
“Looks like we’re in trouble, old pal,” the Lone Ranger observes.
To which Tonto replies: “What do you mean ‘we,’ white man?”

* The idea behind the royal We—the 'pluralis majestatis'—is that a monarch or other high official always speaks for his or her people. In the same way, the decisions of a Town Council are referred to as those of “the” Town, rather than of the government of that town: for example, “For years, the Town of Attleboro has unsuccessfully endeavored to prevent its residents from gathering downtown on Halloween night.”

[pdf-linkki]