the word that will not be named

[swims with the fishes]

Propaganda.

What forms and content should we use?

The print press is a dead form of media. I picked up a £1.50! copy of some marxist paper at Finsbury park station which had marx and engels plastered over it and rhetoric which badly aped the writing of 19/20th century marxists. The socialist parties in the uk seem to be little more than historical re-enactment societies.

You may have seen the infamous prager university videos. slick graphics and easily digestable ideological talking points. Where is the left response to this? All i see is hour+ long lectures which may be useful for refining tactics but cannot draw mass interest.

Socialists have a crisis of propaganda, in what terms to we dress the 21st century proletariat? how do we make this propaganda have international appeal?( the new internationale) how is the art we produce conductive to class struggle?

[The Disillusionist]

I would start by rearranging your priorities. Propaganda is for tyrants, education is what we need. We just need to make education more accessible.

[Sinister Intents]

Research some marketing strategies. I'll post some stuff if I remember but I'll probably forget or shirk doing so.

[motion denied]

I thought propaganda was dead too. But the other day an acquaintance handed me a paper from some proto-situ people.

I almost joined them on the spot. Great propaganda. Like, wow.

[G4b3n]

I would start be rearranging your priorities. Propaganda is for tyrants, education is what we need. We just need to make education more accessible.

No, any decent political movement has propaganda that can appeal to a mass audience, means by which this propaganda is produced, distributed, and so forth. It might sound like a nasty word nowadays, but once upon a time, every political movement was referring to their own rhetorical mediums for what they were, which is propaganda (yes, even anarchists). Education and propaganda are not mutually exclusive. Also, everyone is a tyrant.

[The Disillusionist]

No, any decent political movement has propaganda that can appeal to a mass audience, means by which this propaganda is produced, distributed, and so forth. It might sound like a nasty word nowadays, but once upon a time, every political movement was referring to their own rhetorical mediums for what they were, which is propaganda (yes, even anarchists). Education and propaganda are not mutually exclusive. Also, everyone is a tyrant.

Rhetoric doesn't do anything though. Nowadays, people have educations. Even the average highschool educated person can see right through proganda and meaningless rhetoric. People nowadays are all about real information. Trust is the most important thing, I think, and distributing cheesy propaganda will undermine that trust in a second.

[Thirsty Crow]

Research some marketing strategies. I'll post some stuff if I remember but I'll probably forget or shirk doing so.
Marketing - getting people to buy stuff - is definitely different from pro-revolutionary propaganda.

The first thing to consider is financial self-sufficiency. This could occur with a moderately sized group where people can distribute modest parts (very moderst) of their income for producing either a) the website (if you're paying for hosting; and in my case, the three of us can easily pay for a year of a new site's hosting, not to mention if we asked Serbian and Bosnian comrades to pool resources for a common site), or b) somewhat regular printed edition - free of charge.

In my experience, the Trot group I was part of (yeah come at me and come at me hard and pronto) managed to distribute their papers well - which were really good in that many things were related to workers' interviews and stuff that isn't your usual sect business. It put me in an awkward position, but it's always ok to distribute free stuff at the (un)employment office.

It depends on the region where you live when thinking about interner v. printed form - which one to use predominantly. I'd still say that here it would make more sense to pool resources to produce interesting papers (incidentally, I know a graphic designer and this shit would not be bland and boring) since the internet use that would be of interest here isn't that high. Workers' issues through and through - as your handing out informative material that can get fellow proletarians - working or on the dole - to think about stuff. That way an org can develop a network of sympathizers and informal contacts, thus making genuine and actual links with the rest of the class.

This obviously depends on money and if there isn't any to spare, go online but do go the extra mile to make sure your site/internet thing reaches people it's supposed to.

The point isn't to make an exciting consumers' product - as with marketing - but to produce material which will be useful for fellow proletarians, be they militant workers or communist sympathizers.

[John Nada]

Rhetoric doesn't do anything though. Nowadays, people have educations. Even the average highschool educated person can see right through proganda and meaningless rhetoric. People nowadays are all about real information. Trust is the most important thing, I think, and distributing cheesy propaganda will undermine that trust in a second.People also fall for shit like Fox News. The "real information" is used as propaganda. If you don't see that, it just shows how "good" modern propaganda is.
Marketing - getting people to buy stuff - is definitely different from pro-revolutionary propaganda.It's different obviously, but some of it may still be applicable. Like convincing the worker not to buy the competitor's(the bourgeoisie) bullshit.

[willowtooth]

good propaganda works without you knowing about it, much of what you believe about the world is based on it. Propaganda is not about tv or radio campaigns, social media and the internet is just a new medium of journalism, slightly more amateur but still just as corrupt


anybody ever see the movie fear and loathing in las vegas?

“The press is a gang of cruel faggots. Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for fuckoffs and misfits—a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage.”
― Hunter S. Thompson

[MarxSchmarx]

Moved from politics to practice & propaganda.

[G4b3n]

Rhetoric doesn't do anything though. Nowadays, people have educations. Even the average highschool educated person can see right through proganda and meaningless rhetoric. People nowadays are all about real information. Trust is the most important thing, I think, and distributing cheesy propaganda will undermine that trust in a second.

If rhetoric doesn't do anything then there is no point in speaking. Real information is still propaganda if your hope is to create a working anarchist movement, beyond what you are saying, your intent is to farther your ideology, regardless of whether what you are saying is true or bullshit, it is still propaganda. But yea, it shouldn't be cheesy, that is not good propaganda.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I don't think print is dead - I think the big-money daily mainstream rag isn't profitable any more. I think there's lots of space for rad print media, and especially if it's done in a way that's different.

Mind you, I have a bias. The latest issue (http://worstoftimes.h-a-z.org/18%20WoT%20July.pdf)of the broadsheet I help publish (http://worstoftimes.h-a-z.org) came out yesterday.

[cyu]

Too much math for me, but I'm sure somebody would be interested xD

Paper entitled "Containment Control for a Social Network with State-Dependent Connectivity" written by the US Air Force about how influence works on the internet
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.5644.pdf

[Linked from http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/07/eglin-air-force-base-busted-gaming-reddit.html - the tail wags the dog.]

[Counterculturalist]

Rhetoric doesn't do anything though. Nowadays, people have educations. Even the average highschool educated person can see right through proganda and meaningless rhetoric. People nowadays are all about real information. Trust is the most important thing, I think, and distributing cheesy propaganda will undermine that trust in a second.

You can have an arsenal of the most unassailable facts, but simply laying them out without content or comment is meaningless. To convince anybody of the implications of those facts, you need to use rhetoric. I'm not suggesting lying or using false data - what I'm saying is that we need to know how to construct an argument that can win people over to our side. Dismissing rhetoric is silly - everything that you and I believe, we have been convinced of by means of rhetoric.

[Rudolf]

Thing is the term propaganda is pretty vague. Even taking a politically neutral view of the term (i.e. it's not limited to being false, misleading etc but can be an accurate understanding of the world) there's just so much that can be included with alot of it being a waste of effort and resources.


Fact is that communication with the wider working class is a necessity. I think propaganda is useful in two forms: a)short information centred on an immediate grievance and importantly the actions taken to try to tackle that. This piece isn't for indepth theory but should include an implicit anti-capitalist stance b)the other being more indepth and theoretical but still requiring it being linked constantly to everyday life.

I'll also say that print is not dead. It has incredible uses due to being a physical copy. That's not to say we should stand on street corners and sell newspapers but that print has its uses especially over an immediate greivances.

[Thirsty Crow]

It's different obviously, but some of it may still be applicable. Like convincing the worker not to buy the competitor's(the bourgeoisie) bullshit.But this has nothing to do with marketing. Maybe some superficial similarities could be drawn between pro-revolutionary propaganda and negative marketing (essentially, shitting all over competitors - which is in fact something that is widely outlawed as far as I know), but this would represent only a superficial way of looking at things that doesn't offer anything of value for pro-revolutionaries (I don't know why I'm in this Monseiur Dupont rhetorical mode :lol:)

Spinning the commodity and coming up with ways to persuade the consumer to hand out cash is fundamentally different from a) engage in clarification and knowledge attainment on behalf of fellow proletarians and b) working towards fostering a fighting attitude and people actually having a vision of a radically different world.

The former only concerns itself with cash and a practically passive position of people (it can also be said to favor manipulation). It's basically in fundamental opposition to pro-revolutionary propaganda.

And if that isn't correct, than I would not mind reading about particular marketing strategies anyone here think could be productive for communists. Of course, my bias is clear and there's no sense in cloaking it, but still.

[John Nada]

But this has nothing to do with marketing. Maybe some superficial similarities could be drawn between pro-revolutionary propaganda and negative marketing (essentially, shitting all over competitors - which is in fact something that is widely outlawed as far as I know), but this would represent only a superficial way of looking at things that doesn't offer anything of value for pro-revolutionaries (I don't know why I'm in this Monseiur Dupont rhetorical mode :lol:)Half-joking, though ad's often do attack competitors, such as in elections. However I'd argue it's just the opposite, that this is a superficial way of looking at marketing. It's not about selling, but convincing on a larger scale. The sale is often the desired effect, but it's about influencing behavior. The science that's employed for this could be used for revolutionary ends IMO.
Spinning the commodity and coming up with ways to persuade the consumer to hand out cash is fundamentally different from a) engage in clarification and knowledge attainment on behalf of fellow proletarians and b) working towards fostering a fighting attitude and people actually having a vision of a radically different world.Actually this is good. You've convinced me that the services you're "selling" are in my best interest, though I am in the target demographic:lol:.

Marketing doesn't just involve selling tangible commodities to consumers. Election campaigns, religions, charities, and militaries aren't necessarily selling a physical commodity, or even one at all. Though technically these would fall under public relations, since it's not for selling commodities per se.
The former only concerns itself with cash and a practically passive position of people (it can also be said to favor manipulation). It's basically in fundamental opposition to pro-revolutionary propaganda.Convincing someone to buy something and use it is not passive. This can have real material implications. For example, convincing someone to buy cigarettes can lead to addiction to tobacco, alter one's behavior to revolve around smoking and even change the social circles of this person to people who like or tolerate smoking.
And if that isn't correct, than I would not mind reading about particular marketing strategies anyone here think could be productive for communists. Of course, my bias is clear and there's no sense in cloaking it, but still.Many proletarians who work in stores or offices do pick up things about marketing and selling, though the bourgeoisie downplays just how valuable these skills are. Having worked at certain stores known for treating workers like shit(well they all do), the workers do help sell shit that's makes the store far more than that the worker makes in a month. While these stores make it seem like the workers are just organizing and stocking the shelves or working a cashier, they're essentially deskilled salespeople on an assembly line. A similar thing for call rooms.

I hate everything about capitalism as much as you or anyone else on this board does. This spectacle of commodities that consumes modern capitalist society is fucking annoying. For a revolution to succeed we need to undo all the consumerist and Taylorist ideas imposed on the proletariat.

What I'm getting at is the techniques used marketing commodities(same with PR and PSYOP) is neutral but currently employed for capitalist end. It is propaganda applied to selling commodities. Marketing is essentially about conveying ideas and influencing behavior. It does borrow from traditional forms of propaganda, like psychological warfare and public relations, and even goes back and influences traditional propaganda too.

Propaganda could be viewed as a tool, not unlike a hammer, shovel or computer. It's not to build a house or fix a car, but to spread information(or misinformation) and ideas in order to influence behavior. This "tool" can be used for sales, elections, attracting/discouraging recruits(ie religions, political parties or militaries), to improve productivity via moral or education, raise moral or demoralize in a war or influencing behavior in general. The tool of propaganda can be employed for reactionary ends, but the same could be said of a hammer used to build weapons for imperialist wars.

This tool of propaganda is used to shape the superstructure. Like an M-16 can be used to fight a revolutionary or imperialist war, propaganda can be used for either making workers buy useless shit, support reactionary causes, learn new information or discourage rebellions, or it can be used to educate fellow workers about the sham that is capitalism and the virtues of communism. The war of ideas can be a terrain in the superstructure to fight the bourgeoisie. "Hearts and minds".

[Spectre of Spartacism]

You know you're uninitiated when you treat propaganda as a bad word.

[Rafiq]

Propaganda concerns the ability to directly relate to people's experiences in a way that instills class consciousness.

Being that, the difference is that Communists do not engage in dishonest propaganda as Fascists do, who cannot bring themselves to reveal their true nature before anyone. The essence of the Fascist is darkness, it is filth, poison and barbarism - and for that reason the Fascists do not have existential crises', rarely become disillusioned with themselves, and have no trouble whatsoever approximating their "truth" - and the reason for this is purely owed to the fact that they unapologetically ideologically designate a certain unknowable, that isn't "repressed" from being approached directly, but simply allows them to have no inclination to approach it critically. Hence their righteous anti-intellectualism.

Meanwhile, when a Communist engages in rhetoric they are ashamed of nothing, i.e. the true testament to the Communist is that propaganda is not used in a cynical way, it is not opportunistic or dishonest. We believe in our rhetoric, we hide nothing - we speak from the soul. But for the petite-bourgeois, for the fascists - they must opportunistically APPROACH social considerations while not encapsulating their raw essence, tautologically corrupting revolutionary ideas to appeal to people. That is why Nazi Germany bore some resemblance to the USSR (and that is, likewise, why modern day American libertarians bare some resemblance to the attitude of the counter-culture) - they did not actually believe in that shit BEYOND telling themselves they did - their "ministry of propaganda", "German socialism" and so on - all of these were self-ironic and cynical.

The hypocritical bourgeois liberal approaches propaganda as being an "intrusion" upon reality that is "biased" and so on. But the truth in propaganda is that it encapsulates IDEOLOGICAL truths that could not be transmitted in any other way. The goal of propaganda is never to "manipulate" people anymore than Christmas decorations have the same function, they serve to express the ideological aroma already in the air in a ritualized fashion. That is why, low and behold, propaganda as such is IDENTIFIED immediately to the target audience as propaganda, and this was no secret for anyone. The reason this was a necessity was the disparity between the peasantry, who politically lacked consciousness and were de-spirited, and the industrial proletariat.

[The Disillusionist]

You know you're uninitiated when you treat propaganda as a bad word.

Translation: If you think our propaganda is bad, you just haven't been exposed to enough of our propaganda... :laugh:

Anyway, I know that biased and unevenly distributed information forms the basis for modern "propaganda", but the point I was trying to make is that propaganda in the modern age is at least somewhat fact based, and thus is subject to fact-based scrutiny. Therefore the key to creating good "propaganda" is to have the most accurate facts across the entire possibility of criticisms and to criticize most accurately the entirety of your opponent's claims. However, the following is the Wikipedia definition of propaganda, which I think is pretty accurate:

"Propaganda is information that is not impartial and used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information"

Therefore, we have a paradox, because in an educated modern age, the most effective "propaganda" is going to be those arguments that are the least like propaganda. Those arguments that are the most like propaganda will quickly be debunked by any educated populace. Hence the reason Fox News is vastly less popular among the more educated sectors of the public.

The key to advancing the leftist cause isn't to fool the public better than Fox News... it's educating the public to see the factual errors in Fox News's propaganda.

Thus my original statement that propaganda is for tyrants, while education is what we truly need. Sure, maybe education could be considered a type of propaganda, but it's propaganda in a much more stable, productive context.

The fact that we are even using the word "propaganda" in this discussion shows that leftists at the moment are pretty crappy at using propaganda...

[Bala Perdida]

Translation: If you think our propaganda is bad, you just haven't been exposed to enough of our propaganda... :laugh:

Anyway, I know that biased and unevenly distributed information forms the basis for modern "propaganda", but the point I was trying to make is that propaganda in the modern age is at least somewhat fact based, and thus is subject to fact-based scrutiny. Therefore the key to creating good "propaganda" is to have the most accurate facts across the entire possibility of criticisms and to criticize most accurately the entirety of your opponent's claims. However, the following is the Wikipedia definition of propaganda, which I think is pretty accurate:

"Propaganda is information that is not impartial and used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information"

Therefore, we have a paradox, because in an educated modern age, the most effective "propaganda" is going to be those arguments that are the least like propaganda. Those arguments that are the most like propaganda will quickly be debunked by any educated populace. Hence the reason Fox News is vastly less popular among the more educated sectors of the public.

The key to advancing the leftist cause isn't to fool the public better than Fox News... it's educating the public to see the factual errors in Fox News's propaganda.

Thus my original statement that propaganda is for tyrants, while education is what we truly need. Sure, maybe education could be considered a type of propaganda, but it's propaganda in a much more stable, productive context.

The fact that we are even using the word "propaganda" in this discussion shows that leftists at the moment are pretty crappy at using propaganda...
Okay. How do you propose someone go about 'educating' people? How are you going to draw their attention to hear you out or anything like that? Or do you just plan on making a corner school and 'educating' every poor zap that goes in looking for a bathroom to use? I'm not a fan of this academic crap, and most people who have been abandoned by the current system of brainwashing aren't so happy about it either. How are you gonna 'educate' them? Or are you just gonna right them off as undesirable? Looks like some sort of propaganda worked on you.

[Rafiq]

The reason this is nonsensical is because a quick evaluation of the history of leftist propaganda shows that all of it was consistent with "facts", i.e. that it would nto matter how educated someone is - and that is simply because propaganda does not amount to stupid fucking fun-facts or whatever. It is true that the irk of Fox try to, regularly make people swallow their filth by prattling of "here are the facts", but Communists are not so dishonest as to engage in such practices.

The reason you conceive this discussion in such a way, is because propaganda that would be used now would have to bolster and encourage class struggle, wherein propaganda in previous epochs had no such responsibility - it merely encapsulated visually the spirit of the struggle (i.e. Wobbly cartoons, Trotsky as st. George, etc. - no one actually was trying to convey that Trotsky was literally St. George fighting a real dragon). But class struggle will not rise through incessant agitation or the dishonest, cretinous distribution of "facts". Class struggle will rise through political organization, the ability to actually - directly appeal to people's everyday lives and experiences. This doesn't warrant using "facts" because lo and behold, people do not need facts to confirm their everyday experiences are - indeed their everyday experiences.

Meanwhile, small leftists sects constantly and regularly do agitate in terms of distributing "facts", which are seldom wrong. It's just that they don't appeal to anyone, they do not inspire reliability.

[StromboliFucker666]

I believe that we should not use media to get support but instead actually go around helping people in need and educating as many people as we can.