How do we feel about propaganda? And what would the definition be?
As far as I understand it, propaganda is simply a tool used to convey political messages accurately and concisely in hopes to get people over to whatever side it is coming from. Am I wrong in this?
Is there a “good” propaganda and “bad” propaganda?
EDIT: Rephrased some things
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
If you haven’t already found it, this GitHub page is an excellent collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics, made by @dessalines and others.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a private Matrix room. See this thread for more information.
I am hot (this is good propaganda and absolutely the truth)
I am not hot (this is bad propaganda and also a lie 💅)
/s just incase anyone actually thinks I’m this confident/arrogant
Something I adore about modern DPRK propaganda posters is how much they focus on material goals rather than purely ideological ones.
For instance, this one is about growing wheat production and the ongoing agricultural revolution, and that people should keep working hard at making the dream of self-sufficiency a reality.
This one is about taking pride in the nuclear achievements of Korea, and likewise about how their hard work is paying off.
Propaganda posters in the West have mostly fallen to the wayside, but they’re mostly what I like to consider “negative propaganda” contrasted to Soviet and DPRK “socialist realism”, “positive propaganda”, with a major focus on elevating humanity, the progress of socialism, and material gains. “Negative propaganda” is largely ideological, with an appeal to vague idealistic concepts like “freedom” and especially enemies of the state, notably in the West racist caricatures of Asians and anti-communist propaganda pieces. In the modern age, we still see these pseudo-posters as memes and headline images, with this propaganda being incredibly focused on propagating great manism, with images of Putin or Lukaschenko as Hitler, Xi as Winnie the Pooh, or racist caricatures of Kim Jong-un – any issues an “enemy” nation is going through can be blamed on psychopathic and tyrannical leaders. There’s almost no “positive propaganda” in the West focused on actual material circumstance or progress, with the closest examples being propaganda related to Great Men like Trump’s “Make America Great Again” or Biden’s “Build Back Better”, vapid sloganeering that places individuals in leadership roles as dictatorial over any progress that can be made and agitating people simply to vote and do absolutely nothing else.
No, you’re absolutely right. The word itself though got a pejorative meaning of “propaganda=lie”, and that’s because two factors: first, there absolutely is good and bad propaganda, just as any information can be good or bad, and overwhelmingly most important second factor, that making word “propaganda” a bad word in itself is the tactic of liberal media - they portray their own propaganda as objective facts, and everything that is not adhering to it as propaganda, therefore automatically as lie. It’s the same postpolitic tactic as TINA, human nature etc. (and the word “politic” is a bad word too in liberal doublespeak).
This sounds similar to the word “conspiracy” becoming an inherent negative and not what the definition of the word is.
Thank you for the explanation, that was very helpful!
deleted by creator
This might not be what you meant by “propaganda”, but when making assertions about historical events for some political purpose (e.g. to attempt to educate a liberal about imperialism), we have to actually show the basis for every claim and critically analyze all sources used (unlike bourgeois media, where they can say basically anything and/or use circular referencing). I think that should apply to media (news, etc.) post-revolution as well
That is what I meant, thank you!
I am of the opinion that Marxist propaganda must take the form of the early method of democratic agitation first used (to my knowledge) by Licinius Macer, of whom Ceasar was a contemporary. It quite simply aims to provide nothing more than they facts of the matter, and let the masses decide (e.g. Lenin and his “3 Methods of Governance”, or in “State and Revolution” where rather than try and convince the reader that communism is correct, he simply states things as they are, and analysis them, allowing the reader to make up their own mind).
This is what our party does actually and it does seem to work.
People can hardly ignore cold facts given to them to see. But when they agree, that’s where Karl Marx pops up hihi
Agreed. The people must choose to side with ML vanguards. This choice must be made freely, or it will not be sufficient. As Chairman Mao points out, the Party must serve the people, must work with them. And to truly do so, the Party must learn to trust the people.
What is this 3 methods of governance that you mentioned?
Here. It is quite short by Lenin’s standards.
deleted by creator
Great piece. He wrote it during 1905 revolution, for the workers and peasants being politically confused by the events, to have a very base and understandable reference of the current situation on one page leaflet.