The way the Finnish press conducts itself is horrible. They insist on a binary, and neutral reading of events and to hear from all sides of a conflict (presenting victims and perpetrators as equals, and all issues having sides). This is based on an ideal or condition where strong civil society, advocacy groups, and people could maintain capacity to respond to inaccurate claims or flawed reporting.
For example, if an article on mainstream media questions the effectiveness of an independent organization, that organization could make a convincing public case defending their work. After hearing all accounts to the story, a reader decides. Mainstream media operates, and news legitimize themselves (as something which inform decisions) by the premise that ideas circulating in public sphere are sorted out fairly.
Mainstream media monopolization and austerity politics have proved this an impossibility.
One of the remaining domains where people feel they have power, is in defining their language and representation. This is often dismissed as a realm of identity politics and therefore treated as secondary, or even hindering efforts to build power within movements. There are valid reasons to move beyond identity politics, language or tone policing. But also to remember that people became sensitive to words, when they cannot not project power in other ways.
Communities also gain something from shared norms regarding language and tones.
A lot of communist & anarchist literature and discourse is shaped by concepts expressed with military terminology. This is understandable: many progressive leaders participated in armed struggles or served in the conscript armies of different empires. They drew from those experiences when organizing against oppression.
In Finland today, we are far removed from this tradition. Which is why the usage of military language, concepts, and metaphors creates a hindering imbalance. With it, we invite into our spaces forms of specialization which we do not actually possess and risk being defined by something we do not control. It is exiting to speak of maneuvers, fronts, and strategy, but we risk loosing direction if we lack practical experience informing the concepts.
Our strengths are already in us.
Working in diverse communities… Which do not share an understanding to, for example where a “frontline” in taking action against fascism is, may feel frustrating. But by rejecting the appeal of adversarial models, we can discover the asset we already posses. If we frame our thought with military concepts: we cannot engage with confidence and become defined by people for whom violence is a profession.
It would not be beneficial to develop such capabilities. Institutions dedicated to training violence teach these skills far more effectively than any democratic movement. Imitating them would put us in an awkward stance.
Using language emphasizing conflict, or dialectics will invite people to maintain adversaries. This takes a lot of work and may support specialized groups but can’t be culture. It creates unnecessary stress, which should be reduced by using vocabulary that feels familiar, and comfortable. Using such language can support more sustainable ways of organizing.
This is the best lesson The Game of War (2010 by ClassWargames brings . The fancy language and elegant delivery pushes us away, to discovering our own advantages.

