What makes anti China propaganda so effective is that people want to believe it.
Believing that western system is fundamentally better allows justifying all the horrors we see day to day by saying that the alternatives are even worse, and so we shouldn't even try to change anything.
Accepting that China managed to find a better path that the west is actively fighting against means having to accept that the west is on the wrong side of history. That's a hard pill to swallow for a lot of people.
You ever read that red sails ‘brainwashing isn’t real’ article? Similar premise, similar conclusion.
Basically guy was spending a lot of time debunking anti China stuff and getting frustrated. Realized really the propaganda isn’t very sophisticated, wasn’t hard to debunk in most cases. So saying people are fooled is kind of a cop out, underselling their intelligence maybe flattering your own. They’re buying in consciously or otherwise because they see the benefit from siding with the propagandist.
Idk was an interesting read for me at least. If you can’t get past the writing style these points are more or less where he ends up:
Stop accusing the masses of being “brainwashed.” Stop treating them as cattle, stop attempting to rouse them into action by scolding them with exposure to “unpleasant truths.”
Accept instead that they have been avoiding those truths for a reason. You were able to break through the propaganda barrier, and so could they if they really wanted to. Many of these people see you as the fool, and in many cases not without reason.
Understanding people as intelligent beings, craft a political strategy that convincingly makes the case for why they and their lot are very likely to benefit from joining your political project. Not in some utopian infinite timescale, but soon.
If you cannot make this case, then forget about convincing the person in question. Focus instead on finding other people to whom such a case can be made. This will lead you directly to class analysis.
I actually don’t agree with this approach. I’m not in favour of calling people stupid for buying into propoganda, but is saying that they choose to buy it/take it at face value respecting their intelligence?
Saying they could break out if they wanted to is, and this is just my opinion, not intending to be insulting, an idealist approach. It’s like saying fat people could lose weight if they just wanted to, or procrastinators could work if they simply cared to. I would go so far as to say that it’s similar (though obviously not equivalent) to saying neurodivergent people can act like “normal” people if they really tried.
On the other hand I’m definitely not saying barraging people with analyses or factoids will bring them to our side. I take the scumbag centrist opinion here and say it’s both: For people unreceptive to our message, what we can hope is that a small part of what we said might stick, so that every time they’re faced with a contradiction inherent in capitalism, there’s a change that seed of an idea we planted might take root.
Perhaps I’m reading it wrong, but the impression I got from the essay was not that it’s a conscious choice per se but more of a passive acceptance of what feels comfortable.
In this alternative account people aren’t “brainwashed” insofar as they don’t actually believe the lies, not in the way that we generally understand belief. It’s more correct to say that they go along with them, whether enthusiastically or apprehensively, because it’s actually their optimal survival strategy.
The point being, western liberals and such aren’t stupid fools being duped by masters of propaganda. They go along with it consciously or otherwise because it’s in their interest to do so. A big pile of ugly, depressing truths is a pretty immediate turn-off for a lot of people’s brains, especially when the reward you get for your trouble is accepting that the world sucks even more than you knew and that everyone around you will think you’re an insane conspiracy theorist.
Accept instead that they have been avoiding those truths for a reason.
I can’t speak for everyone, but my gut reaction in my liberal years to seeing an article or essay I didn’t like was to retreat to one of my liberal circle jerks to feel superior about it. The psychological reward for reinforcing your existing beliefs is strong enough that it can quickly become a habit, and I have to be exceedingly careful not to keep doing the same thing but with leftist spaces.
Anyway that was just my take away from it. Colored by my own experiences of being a true believer liberal up until 7 years ago or so as well as my experiences of surviving trauma.
Cards on the table, I think chauvinism is stupid. I think someone in a position to recognise their chauvinism and renounce it, but refuse to, have to be stupid. I don’t believe that the average person is inherently stupid, nor that idealism is an approach more in-line with human nature than materialism.
That’s all conjecture, admittedly, I’m basing this on the fact that huge swathes of a bunch of countries were taught and embraced materialism. This doesn’t make them correct in every issue or anything, but the comprehension that thing aren’t the way they are because they were meant to be, rather that they’re in a flux, a state of constant change, is the most crucial step in this. From this conjecture, which I can’t show to be true yet believe anyway, it follows that people of priviledge aren’t making a choice at all, they’re using the only tool they’ve got to come to a piss poor conclusion.
I also believe that by computing a sufficient number of schrödinger’s equations constantly we could predict literally anything, but that might just mean my brain’s a bit mush.
Yeah, I’m not sure if I fully agree with the author here on all of it but he definitely raises a lot of good points, and I think his “strategic consequences” section is worth consideration. At the very least, I think the strategy he lays out is more likely to be productive than castigating liberals for being wrong. Not that castigating liberals isn’t fun and not that it doesn’t have its uses but it’s not likely to change the mind of the target, but I’ve also seen strong arguments made that investing significant effort in attempting to win over what the author refers to as the “bourgeois proletariat” is a fool’s errand anyway.
Yeah I mean to be clear I didn’t post it as a full endorsement of the conclusions it just seemed like OP was tugging on the same thread mentally. If nothing else made me want to be more specific than ‘brainwashing’ and a little more skeptical when that word gets thrown around
craft a political strategy that convincingly makes the case for why they and their lot are very likely to benefit from joining your political project. Not in some utopian infinite timescale, but soon.
This is great stuff. I’ll disagree a little with the “you figured it out and they could if they wanted to” part, though – it’s the same logic as “you’re successful and poor people could be too, if they wanted to.”
Most socialists in the U.S. were not raised that way. Of those who initially subscribed to other politics, I would bet very few (maybe none) came around to socialism entirely on their own. Someone out there at least laid down a path left, if they didn’t actively engage with you and challenge your ideas. You had help getting here even if you had to do some hard introspective work yourself.
Practically, this means we shouldn’t be too quick to write anyone off, and we should at least present socialist ideas everywhere. We have the internet; we can do this without tons of effort. Now when it comes to messaging that takes more effort, sure, it absolutely makes sense to focus that on the people most likely to be receptive, and the author is correct that showing people a near-term material benefit is the best way to do that.
You ever read that red sails ‘brainwashing isn’t real’ article? Similar premise, similar conclusion.
Basically guy was spending a lot of time debunking anti China stuff and getting frustrated. Realized really the propaganda isn’t very sophisticated, wasn’t hard to debunk in most cases. So saying people are fooled is kind of a cop out, underselling their intelligence maybe flattering your own. They’re buying in consciously or otherwise because they see the benefit from siding with the propagandist.
Idk was an interesting read for me at least. If you can’t get past the writing style these points are more or less where he ends up:
Oh yeah that’s a great article, and very much agree with his take there.
same, hard agree, but it’s also so easy to fall back into thinking people are dumb when frustration mounts
indeed
I actually don’t agree with this approach. I’m not in favour of calling people stupid for buying into propoganda, but is saying that they choose to buy it/take it at face value respecting their intelligence?
Saying they could break out if they wanted to is, and this is just my opinion, not intending to be insulting, an idealist approach. It’s like saying fat people could lose weight if they just wanted to, or procrastinators could work if they simply cared to. I would go so far as to say that it’s similar (though obviously not equivalent) to saying neurodivergent people can act like “normal” people if they really tried.
On the other hand I’m definitely not saying barraging people with analyses or factoids will bring them to our side. I take the scumbag centrist opinion here and say it’s both: For people unreceptive to our message, what we can hope is that a small part of what we said might stick, so that every time they’re faced with a contradiction inherent in capitalism, there’s a change that seed of an idea we planted might take root.
Perhaps I’m reading it wrong, but the impression I got from the essay was not that it’s a conscious choice per se but more of a passive acceptance of what feels comfortable.
The point being, western liberals and such aren’t stupid fools being duped by masters of propaganda. They go along with it consciously or otherwise because it’s in their interest to do so. A big pile of ugly, depressing truths is a pretty immediate turn-off for a lot of people’s brains, especially when the reward you get for your trouble is accepting that the world sucks even more than you knew and that everyone around you will think you’re an insane conspiracy theorist.
I can’t speak for everyone, but my gut reaction in my liberal years to seeing an article or essay I didn’t like was to retreat to one of my liberal circle jerks to feel superior about it. The psychological reward for reinforcing your existing beliefs is strong enough that it can quickly become a habit, and I have to be exceedingly careful not to keep doing the same thing but with leftist spaces.
Anyway that was just my take away from it. Colored by my own experiences of being a true believer liberal up until 7 years ago or so as well as my experiences of surviving trauma.
Cards on the table, I think chauvinism is stupid. I think someone in a position to recognise their chauvinism and renounce it, but refuse to, have to be stupid. I don’t believe that the average person is inherently stupid, nor that idealism is an approach more in-line with human nature than materialism.
That’s all conjecture, admittedly, I’m basing this on the fact that huge swathes of a bunch of countries were taught and embraced materialism. This doesn’t make them correct in every issue or anything, but the comprehension that thing aren’t the way they are because they were meant to be, rather that they’re in a flux, a state of constant change, is the most crucial step in this. From this conjecture, which I can’t show to be true yet believe anyway, it follows that people of priviledge aren’t making a choice at all, they’re using the only tool they’ve got to come to a piss poor conclusion.
I also believe that by computing a sufficient number of schrödinger’s equations constantly we could predict literally anything, but that might just mean my brain’s a bit mush.
Yeah, I’m not sure if I fully agree with the author here on all of it but he definitely raises a lot of good points, and I think his “strategic consequences” section is worth consideration. At the very least, I think the strategy he lays out is more likely to be productive than castigating liberals for being wrong. Not that castigating liberals isn’t fun and not that it doesn’t have its uses but it’s not likely to change the mind of the target, but I’ve also seen strong arguments made that investing significant effort in attempting to win over what the author refers to as the “bourgeois proletariat” is a fool’s errand anyway.
Yeah I mean to be clear I didn’t post it as a full endorsement of the conclusions it just seemed like OP was tugging on the same thread mentally. If nothing else made me want to be more specific than ‘brainwashing’ and a little more skeptical when that word gets thrown around
This is great stuff. I’ll disagree a little with the “you figured it out and they could if they wanted to” part, though – it’s the same logic as “you’re successful and poor people could be too, if they wanted to.”
Most socialists in the U.S. were not raised that way. Of those who initially subscribed to other politics, I would bet very few (maybe none) came around to socialism entirely on their own. Someone out there at least laid down a path left, if they didn’t actively engage with you and challenge your ideas. You had help getting here even if you had to do some hard introspective work yourself.
Practically, this means we shouldn’t be too quick to write anyone off, and we should at least present socialist ideas everywhere. We have the internet; we can do this without tons of effort. Now when it comes to messaging that takes more effort, sure, it absolutely makes sense to focus that on the people most likely to be receptive, and the author is correct that showing people a near-term material benefit is the best way to do that.