Skip to main content

View Diary: Propaganda War (188 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You Know What? (13+ / 0-)

    I was going to post a snarky reply to this, but that would have made me part of the problem and not the solution.

    I'd like to see the answer to this question, because in the past it's been more or less implied that reaching a different conclusion is a sure sign of being one of the paid propagandists.

    •  It's a mindset. (15+ / 0-)

      There is an increasing need here among some for uninamity of opinion.  

      I know Mao has many faults, and I know he did not really follow this statement, but I always liked this statement:

      "Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land."
      When opposing thought is labeled as "propoganda influenced" ideas no longer contend.   You're no longer debating or pursuading.   I see two problems with that.  First, it feels anti-democratic to me.  Second, it does not work.  Tell workers they are stupid because they have a false conscionsness (an example, but that same process as saying you have ben propogandized) just alienates they very people on whose behalf the revolution si made.  

      But the idea is worth discussing.,  I would not seek to shut down discussion of the ideas in this post.  

      in fact, I might even endorse a weak version of the concept.  Certainly right wng thought has been successful.    

      Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

      by TomP on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:06:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah And You're Right (15+ / 0-)

        I just read two of the responses you got.  The diarist's response is--that by asking him to clarify a point he made in the diary--you are hijacking the diary with something off-topic.

        Some other samaratin came along (one whom earlier today helpfully told me what my motives for things were, and what my opinions were six years ago) suggests that  people who disagree with the diarist might simply be delusional.

        So there's that.

        •  Of course, the psychological (8+ / 0-)

          explanation for any disagreement.  Anyone who disagrees is deluded.  Very close to false consciousness, but more Freud than Marx.  :-)

          Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

          by TomP on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:15:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  it's hijacking in the sense you're now talking... (4+ / 0-)

          about the diarist instead of the points made in the diary.

          Personally I understand the government has been watching us for a very long time so yes, this is nothing new, although the scope is larger due to the capabilities.

          But that doesn't make it ok, just like the fact that Bush did it doesn't mean we've survived it.

          As for planting operatives, that too is a time-honored tradition. Put a couple of goons in a labor rally, let them threaten the police, get the workers beaten up.

          I believe the so-called "Anarchists" who were at Occupy were largely plants. It seems a bit far-fetched that an anarchistic organization should even exist, let alone have people willing to dress up the same all over the world, causing trouble in otherwise peaceful demonstrations.

          Meanwhile there are plenty of reporters willing to do the work for the authorities. You might see a TV person accuse a reporter of something heinous. Ignore that the TV person also thought it was appropriate to dance onstage with a famous propagandist.

          But, sure, the government feeds stories and no doubt can get people hired at newspapers or television stations.

          If you like what the government says then it's "information". If you don't like it then it's "propaganda".

          Dear NSA: I am only joking.

          by Shahryar on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:20:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You beleive that Occupy was a government op? (6+ / 0-)
            I believe the so-called "Anarchists" who were at Occupy were largely plants
            I see no evidence of that.  I think many were just people.  I think the people in Occupy had a good message on inequality.  That they did not overthrow world capitalism does not mean they failed.  keeping ideas alive is important also.  

            Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

            by TomP on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:26:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm referring to the Black Bloc (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TomP, Johnny Q, TiaRachel, Sylv

              sorry if that wasn't clear (and re-reading, I can see that it wasn't).

              Dear NSA: I am only joking.

              by Shahryar on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:27:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I understand. I think Black Bloc (5+ / 0-)

                was harmful.  I have no evidence that they were a government thing, but that would be how to discredit a movement.  COINTELPRO often pushed for bombings and violence.  They wanted the most extreme to push out effective leaders.   Of course, there are many ways to undercut movements.  

                I see your point.  It's possible.  I would need more evidence though.

                Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

                by TomP on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 11:30:42 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  They weren't government (6+ / 0-)

                  They are various people who have participated in actions for more than a decade now. It wasn't the government when it happened in Seattle in '99 and it wasn't the government when it happened in SF during the antiwar movement in 2003. And it definitely wasn't the government when it happened during Occupy Oakland. It was radicals who want to show that they are resisting and who want to show that they don't respect property rights.

                  They aren't out there to win over liberal opinion. They're there to resist the police and break shit for a political agenda. Despite the fact that this information is laid out before and after virtually every protest where there is a black bloc people insist on acting as if they are some sort of inscrutable group. They issue more communiques than windows get broken I swear.

                  They are also fairly small in number. Maybe a couple thousand in the country.

                  If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                  by AoT on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 12:38:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  It was clear to me, (0+ / 0-)

                and so obvious that I find the "misunderstanding" un-credible.

                Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

                by Deward Hastings on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 12:36:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Shahryar (0+ / 0-)

                Anarchists were largely instrumental in founding Occupy. Graeber, an anarchist anthropologist and member of daily kos was one of those who was at the first organizational meetings along with other "horizontals" (as he refers to them) which is another name for anarchists.

                Black bloc is a tactic, and in Portland, Oregon, I've been at countless occupy events and various independent black bloc groups (people dress in black, often with faces covered) were present and marching as peacefully as anyone. Most of these groups were probably anarchists of some form, and they were present in rather large numbers, and were welcome since they added to our numbers.

                The few bank windows a few individuals break or deface with paint pale in comparison to the staggering level of real violence and murder committed by our U.S government, and which most loyal Democrats today  support. Thus, anarchists not only were not necessarily plants, but were instrumental in kicking off the entire movement. And as to organization, most anarchists are not anti-organization, but rather are specifically against organization that is authoritarian and hierarchical. They embrace democratic, horizontal, bottom up organizational structures.

                Here's what Graeber had to say about anarchist involvement:

                http://www.aljazeera.com/...

                Almost every time I'm interviewed by a mainstream journalist about Occupy Wall Street I get some variation of the same lecture:

                "How are you going to get anywhere if you refuse to create a leadership structure or make a practical list of demands? And what's with all this anarchist nonsense - the consensus, the sparkly fingers? Don't you realise all this radical language is going to alienate people? You're never going to be able to reach regular, mainstream Americans with this sort of thing!"
                In-depth coverage of the global movement

                If one were compiling a scrapbook of worst advice ever given, this sort of thing might well merit an honourable place. After all, since the financial crash of 2007, there have been dozens of attempts to kick-off a national movement against the depredations of the United States' financial elites taking the approach such journalists recommended. All failed. It was only on August 2, when a small group of anarchists and other anti-authoritarians showed up at a meeting called by one such group and effectively wooed everyone away from the planned march and rally to create a genuine democratic assembly, on basically anarchist principles, that the stage was set for a movement that Americans from Portland to Tuscaloosa were willing to embrace.  

                [Emphasis is mine]

                "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                by ZhenRen on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 08:17:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I am an anarchist and I was there but (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TiaRachel

            I don't know anything about uniforms or anything like that and I certainly was not a plant.

            I am also aware and participate in actions organized by anarchist co-operatives where I live, which are fluid communities that come together to help each other and the greater community by volunteering after national disasters, collecting and distributing items to those in need, building community gardens, animal rescue, organizing arts organizations and participating within numerous political and activist organizations.

            The people who were violent at our occupy were police plants and homeless mentally ill people who desperately needed medical care.

            I mention this because I am an educated middle-aged housewife with children and I am a proud anarchist, I believe in a society without rulers but not without rules. We must realize that as a community of individuals we are each and everyone of us unique and it is our difference of opinion which is our greatest strength.

            •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

              I, too, am an anarchist (most here have no clue what anarchism is, or they have a Marxist-influenced view of it), and it seems many think it is anarcho-capitalism (which is a misnomer in my view).

              I commented above at length.

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

              by ZhenRen on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 08:21:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  It goes hand in hand with the increasing (6+ / 0-)

        medicalization of dissent and resistance to various forms of control. If the folks in charge are saying that such and such group is mentally unbalanced(racists, for example) then why not just apply that to other people? You're clearly mentally unbalanced because you disagree with this obvious fact about society that is so fucking clear you'd have to be crazy not to notice. Of course, we do this to the right wing all the time here at daily kos, so why not start applying it to people who are right of you but still democrats? It gets tossed out at the DFHs and leftists enough as it is, why not throw it back at them?

         It's easier to ignore how you're being propagandizing and assume that only the other side is because you've seen through some set of propaganda directed at you. You've "woken up" and those who disagree with you have their vision clouded and are still deceived. In my mind the propaganda is not the biggest problem, it's the material conditions oppressing people and restricting them from claiming their full rights as a person.

        It's generally people who are middle-class who think that propaganda is the most important leg of the oppression stool. That's because, from what I can tell, the oppression of middle class people, and middle class people's role in oppression others, is based on propaganda. So from their perspective it really is propaganda that's the problem. The issue there is that most of that propaganda is aimed at obsfucating the complicity and removing the blame for participation with oppression. The rejection of the idea of white privilege is one of the most obvious versions of that right now, IMHO.

        Sorry, that turned into a bit of a run on but I need to get these things out occasionally and I know you at least can understand even when you don't agree.

        If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

        by AoT on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 12:25:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree that psychology (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bob Johnson, AoT, Sylv

          often is used to marginalize dissent, but on Daiily Kos, it's used on all sides.  

          This is very good:

          It's easier to ignore how you're being propagandizing and assume that only the other side is because you've seen through some set of propaganda directed at you. You've "woken up" and those who disagree with you have their vision clouded and are still deceived. In my mind the propaganda is not the biggest problem, it's the material conditions oppressing people and restricting them from claiming their full rights as a person.

          Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

          by TomP on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 12:47:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is used on all sides (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP, Sylv

            I think that it is used by people with marginalized viewpoints and political beliefs, which includes myself, more now than before because it's been increasingly used by the "establishment".

            If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

            by AoT on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 01:07:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  You may have seen that mindset by some other (0+ / 0-)

        diarists, but not with me, right?  I just want to clarify whether you made this as a general statement of a trend, or specifically about me, this being my diary.

        Did you read the diary?  I start by criticizing the surveillance state; then I make a statement about them using propaganda; then I provide some historical references that prove that the ruling elite (corporate-government collusion) have used propaganda and many other illegal tactics against the population; then I advice people to be aware of those tactics, to think critically about these issues.

        How did that led to talks about Marxism, revolutionary wannabes, and people labeling opposing views as propaganda?

        This is an honest question.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site