When propaganda goes too far

[Gust]

We all know that propaganda can be a very powerful tool when used correctly, but what happens when the materialistc value of these tools become more important then the ideas behind them? What happens when people support our ideas and values blindly?

Do you think it is good to have a strong radical, red regime in America, even if alot of the supporters are blind to the values and morals etc?

Thoughts? Opinions?

[RedSkinheadUltra]

Propaganda, used to agitate and inform, should stick to one simple rule: ALWAYS THE TRUTH.

Large groups of misinformed, cult worshipping zombies aren't going to do mankind any good.

That's about where we're at now! :D :o

[Gust]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 01:23 AM
Propaganda, used to agitate and inform, should stick to one simple rule: ALWAYS THE TRUTH.

Large groups of misinformed, cult worshipping zombies aren't going to do mankind any good.

That's about where we're at now! :D :o
Haha, yes that is what I was thinking, alot of "Radicals/Revolutionaries" couldn't debate their way out of a paper bag.

Propaganda must be true, yes.

[RedSkinheadUltra]

Two examples of the harmful effects of propaganda in the US:

1) Wilson's 'Red Scare' in 1918 and so-called 'McCarthyism' in the 1950's

Most Americans hate communism/socialism; very few have any knowledge of what Marxism actually is.

2) The corporate news media's subservience to the White House/Pentagon line.

The average American has absolutely no clue about the horrific history of US foreign policy.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I always thought propaganda should promote a method of thought, of critical marxist thought -- so that people can change their view of the world as a whole as opposed to just chaing their view of a few facts,etc.

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, people shoud stick to the truth. The worse is when the left begins believing it's own propoganda. Like the scottish socialist party beiveing that it is the mass party of the working class.

[Hegemonicretribution]

If something is propoganda, it probably isn't 100% straight, and nowadays slightly influencing a question, and selecting examples is par for the course, you get ignored in somecases with out filling part of the process for people. But Reefer madness and Harry Aslinger's war on hemp for example helped no one. That was when it had gone to far, Provoking the desired reaction regardless of material used do do so.

[RASH chris]

Well it depends on what you consider "blindly following", the vast majority of people are never going to have extensive knowledge of theory. Cause they don't need to and don't care about learning it. Revolutions need brains and boots, and the majority of people are content to be boots as long as the brains make sense.

[Gust]

What about strictly materialistic tools of propaganda, such as flags and spray painted political symbols? I think at some point for most people the symbol becomes more powerful then the ideals behind it.

[danny android]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 11:36 PM
What about strictly materialistic tools of propaganda, such as flags and spray painted political symbols? I think at some point for most people the symbol becomes more powerful then the ideals behind it.
i think that this is a good point. I however have noticed that if people don't know what something stands for they might ask if they think you know. for example i just painted a hammer and sicle on a stool at school. i got like 10 people that asked me what the hell i was doing. and i explained to them that it stands for equality and democracy. not tyrany and murder as most of them think.

[Raisa]

I agree with Companiero de Libertad about this.

Sometimes though we can use issues (like war for my example) to also make revolutionary class contiousness as well.

Not only are "MILLIONS DIEING!" and is "WAR NEVER A SOLUTION!"

...But both the soldiers and the working people never started the war and now they are the ones who have to pay for it!
Saddamn Hussein and George Bush both started the war and compromised their own people.
.... Mean while they argue on the telephone and make snotty commercials on TV about each other with our money, while we fight and die.
And the UN is just as guilty because they never helped the Kurds enough, now did they! What the hell were they doing while those people are getting gassed and tortured?
If the UN doesnt act well then, youre basically just dialing crazy America's digits and calling them in cause their gonna get up on it for whatever geo-political and empiricial reason that they can find.

Showing that the three of them failed us and are all guilty takes the blame beyond
just George Bush, beyond The Republican Party, and beyond just America. It brings it across partylines, boarders and seas and opens people's eyes to the nature of the leaders and ruling class as a whole - who have made their power off of the PEOPLE'S backs, and are now backstabbing them and throwing their lives away while they sit in palaces.

Saddam has probably been getting better prison treatment as the mass murderer he is , then millions of people in jail for stealing or drug offenses are in the United States.

Things like this show the nature of the bourgeois leadership that betrays us, and this is very important, because it is telling the people the whole story. ANd with integrity yall, that is what we are supposed to do!

[Vallegrande]

But Reefer madness and Harry Aslinger's war on hemp for example helped no one. That was when it had gone to far, Provoking the desired reaction regardless of material used do do so.

Right, but there were also people who propagated the truth about hemp and "reefer", like Mayor LaGuardia, who spoke with great compassion on the plight of the people.

But whoever has the most propaganda, like television and celebrities, then they basically win, because most of the people in America base their lives off what the tv says.

I think there is a true and false propagation. It's up to the person to understand this difference.

[Clarksist]

Propaganda must always be used fervently, but it must be chalk full of truths and must be quotable. Why? Because most people get all their news about the government from news channels. Where do they get their information from? The GOVERNMENT! The people cannot decide what's right or wrong when all they hear is that everything is okay.

['Discourse Unlimited']

Yeh, people shoud stick to the truth...


There were many similar points made, about the need to ensure that propaganda reflects the "truth". But seriously, what is the "truth"? Ask any serious historian, and they'll no doubt respond that the "truth" (objective reality) is impossible to discern...

The best (i.e. most effective) propaganda succeeds by presenting a recognisable scene - with its origins in the 'real world' - and exaggerating this to the nth degree, to serve a certain purpose.

Propaganda cannot be separated from ideology. And an ideology must 'win over' the minds of those it seeks to control, influence or indeed represent - thus, the element of persuasion is crucial. Isn't it?

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 01:20 AM
Do you think it is good to have a strong radical, red regime in America, even if alot of the supporters are blind to the values and morals etc?

Thoughts? Opinions?
I don't believe we would end up in a situation where we had a bunch of 'red' supporters running around. In order to get to this point of blind cult worship, we would probably have seriously gone wrong with our propaganda efforts. The situation you describe, would most likely arise from outright lies.

Our propaganda must be truthful, but not objective. We must vehemently project the ills of capitalism, and raise consciousness; not start a cult following. Our efforts must be tireless, meaningful, and productive. As long as we do not stray from the reality and gravity of the situations with which we present; we are not going too far.

[Vallegrande]

Propaganda, then, should have a fair ground to debate. Right now we just have one type of propaganda, and only a tea-spoon of the other. If Americans (who mostly watch tv in the U.S.), got a dose of both sides of propaganda in equal amounts, well I dont know what would happen then. We'd get a bunch of confused people perhaps..
But then again who isnt.

['Discourse Unlimited']

Propaganda, then, should have a fair ground to debate.


In an ideal world, perhaps... :-/ But like I said, propaganda cannot be separated from ideology. And ideology doesn't have "fair ground to debate"!! The status-quo has a vested interest in repressing the views of radicals, such as the 'leftist movement' (in the most general terms) as well as those on the far-right.

'Propaganda' is another arena in which ideas clash, and the 'class struggle' is fought. And yes - we're losing!