NationStates Jolt Archive

Do any other NSers believe that propaganda is a good government tactic? I'm a totalitarian (don't be posting messages trying to change my views; I won't budge), and I believe that a nation is at its most powerful and prosperous when most of its people are united. In this country, that is virtually impossible without some sort of disaster or propaganda campaign. So... my other question is: Is propaganda necessary to unite a nation or are there other good ways?

Perhaps the question should be: Should a nation be completely united? Should we all be sheep? Should we be perfectly willing to go from "four legs good, two legs bad," to "four legs good, two legs better," at the drop of a hat?

Do any other NSers believe that propaganda is a good government tactic? I'm a totalitarian (don't be posting messages trying to change my views; I won't budge), and I believe that a nation is at its most powerful and prosperous when most of its people are united. In this country, that is virtually impossible without some sort of disaster or propaganda campaign. So... my other question is: Is propaganda necessary to unite a nation or are there other good ways?

No, you can do it by exiling or otherwise eliminating anyone who disagrees with the official line. Propoganda, it is fun that this is also a word in portuguese but one that simply means advertising, is only as effective as the people are gullable. You will always have those annoying intellectuals who disagree with the official line. Uniting a nation, should not have to be something for which you use propaganda. A nation, if it is to be truly united, has to actually have all of its nationals affirm their membership of that nation of their own free will. Anything less would be forced compliance, and as soon as the individual has a chance to act contrary to the will of the government, but in line with his or her own will, they will do so.

(I am not a totalitarian of any form, due to this problem)

(don't be posting messages trying to change my views; I won't budge)
You have your own political views, and that's fine. If you want to stick by those views, then that's also fine. Just keep in mind that this is a discussion forum and that other NationStates players (who also have their own political views) may wish to attempt to civilly discuss differing viewpoints. This can include attempts to refute your arguments.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

...

That said, the remainder of my post is unofficial and not spoken in my capacity as Moderator.

Do any other NSers believe that propaganda is a good government tactic? I'm a totalitarian (don't be posting messages trying to change my views; I won't budge), and I believe that a nation is at its most powerful and prosperous when most of its people are united. In this country, that is virtually impossible without some sort of disaster or propaganda campaign. So... my other question is: Is propaganda necessary to unite a nation or are there other good ways?
First, I want to set a defninition for "propaganda" as the word carries some connotations (maybe positive, maybe negative) among some people, and we need to be aware of those connotations.
Merriam-Webster OnLine (http://www.m-w.com): propaganda
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

My opinion is: Ideally, a nation should be united* in any goal or set of goals that the people of the nation set themselves to. However, different people will have different viewpoints and, indeed, different goals. The more people are involved, the more difficult it is to obtain a unanimous consensus on policy decisions. A total concensus among the people of a nation is, therefore, practically impossible.

In this case, some will decide the goals of the nation and how those goals should be achieved, and they will try to convince others to go along with it. "Propaganda", as some people think of it, consists of reiterating certain statements to the public ad nauseam with little or no logical analysis to back it up. This is, however, a somewhat narrower definition of "propaganda" than is used by Merriam-Webster; the M-W definition does not exclude the dissemination of logical arguments that back-up the views being expressed. However, I attach a connotation of one-sidedness to the concept of propoganda; I interpret the definition of "propaganda" as meaning that only one viewpoint is proclaimed and not compared with any opposing viewpoints (though this connotation is only implied and is not explicitly clear in the M-W definition). Regardless of whether or not a logical argument is presented, if only one viewpoint is presented (or a series of similar, mostly unopposed viewpoints), then I would consider it propoganda.

Propaganda, then, is effective at swaying the opinions of those who either can't or won't analyze a set of statements critically. Not everyone is a politician, not everyone is a policymaker, not everyone follows the day-to-day business of government. We all have our own lives to attend to, so most of us don't have time to consider the finer details of national or international politics. So, many of us are susceptible to being spoon-fed our conclusions from whatever source we happen to have an affinity for**. Thus, propaganda is an effective tactic because many on the receiving end of it are (at least unconsciously) willing to be affected by it. Notice that when describing propaganda, I used the word "effective", not the word "good".

I think that many of us would "wake up" (so to speak) and starting amalyzing things critically if we merely took the time and patience to do so.

I, personally, prefer debate and discussion over propaganda. By this, I mean that different viewpoints (some opposed to each other) are presented along with logical arguments for and against each viewpoint. The merits and demerits of each are critically analyzed, and somebody makes a decision. Now, not everyone is going to be happy with the decision made (no matter what decision it is), but ideally, everyone would understand why the decision was made and abide by it.

Propaganda, by its definition, has an intent behind it. If that intent is malevolent (or what I would regard as malevolent, at any rate), then the lack of open discussion would, in my opinion, be disastrous. Nazi Germany immediately springs to mind as Hitler understood the importance of propaganda and used to considerable effect and not many people openly questioned him or his views. However, citing Nazi Germany is admittedly cliche and I'd prefer to find another example.

Even if the intent behind the propaganda is benelvolent, the nature of propaganda supresses understanding of the cons of the proclaimed philosophy or course-of-action. Every course of action entails some risks and some benefits, and if the chosen course doesn't "pan out"***, some people are going to start paying attention, asking questions, and laying blame. This shakes the faith of the people in government and threatens the very unity that one would seek through propaganda. If everything is discussed up front, then at least everyone understands the risks involved ahead of time.

* This is vague and I admit that this, too, requires definition. For now, though, I'll just give this the nebulous definition of "everyone accepts the high-level policy decisions and nobody (who isn't an outside agent) tries to destructively interfere with the nation". Keep in mind, though, that this will have to be revisited. What, exactly, does it mean for a nation to be united?

** This reminds me of that "chronic cubicle syndrome" episode of the TV show "Dilbert".
"Do you have time to read up on all the latest medical news?" --Dogbert
"Of course not, I'm busy." --Dilbert
"Then they're not gullible; they're just busy." --Dogbert
(paraphrased)

*** Goldmining reference. Independent goldminers would sometimes sift through river silt with a pan looking for gold dust.

The more I think on this subject, the more I realize just how deep it is. For now, though, I will end my thoughts here. I have my own life to attend to.

"Think about it for a moment."

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

You have your own political views, and that's fine. If you want to stick by those views, then that's also fine. Just keep in mind that this is a discussion forum and that other NationStates players (who also have their own political views) may wish to attempt to civilly discuss differing viewpoints. This can include attempts to refute your arguments.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator



I added it not to say that they cannot believe anything different but to say that my question was not meant to spur a debate about whether my totalitarian beliefs are justified. Every time I post a hypothetical question on any forum, the first thing everyone seems to do is tell me that my beliefs are unfounded in reality before they even LOOK at the rest of my question.

Perhaps the question should be: Should a nation be completely united? Should we all be sheep? Should we be perfectly willing to go from "four legs good, two legs bad," to "four legs good, two legs better," at the drop of a hat?

It all depends on how you word it. "United" is good, but "sheep" is bad. This is the art of propaganda to twist and manipulate things.

Is propaganda necessary to unite a nation or are there other good ways?

Of course there are. It's called convincing people by weight of logic, propoderance of evidence, and force of conviction.

Do any other NSers believe that propaganda is a good government tactic?
I believe that propaganda is inherently evil, and that propagandists are the lowest scum of the Earth. I am for free will, not the will of an oligarchy.

These days, the lines between propoganda and entertainment have been blurred. Giving rise to a new type of propoganda that works well within a democracy.
I believe Noam Chomsky called it "Manufactured Consent".

I added it not to say that they cannot believe anything different but to say that my question was not meant to spur a debate about whether my totalitarian beliefs are justified. Every time I post a hypothetical question on any forum, the first thing everyone seems to do is tell me that my beliefs are unfounded in reality before they even LOOK at the rest of my question.
Ahhh! Okay. In that case, I misunderstood you. So, what you really meant was: this thread is meant to be a debate on propaganda, not a debate on totalitarianism, and you don't want the thread hijacked.

In that case, carry on.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

...

It all depends on how you word it. "United" is good, but "sheep" is bad. This is the art of propaganda to twist and manipulate things.
When I have more time, I want to bring up the question of what it means to be "united". If one wants to use propaganda to unite, then one must define unity. "Unity" is not as simple and straightforward a concept as it first seems (at least, I don't think it's simple and straightforward).

Of course there are. It's called convincing people by weight of logic, propoderance of evidence, and force of conviction.
I think "debate and discussion" is easier to say. :p

I believe that propaganda is inherently evil, and that propagandists are the lowest scum of the Earth. I am for free will, not the will of an oligarchy.
While I don't think that propaganda is a good approach to use in general, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's inherently evil. Propaganda by someone with malicious intent would be evil, propaganda by someone with benevolent intent is something I would call "questionable" or "misguided". At least, when we're talking about rational, mature adults. (We could sidetrack onto a discussion of childrearing, but I don't want to hijack the thread.)

This response now requires me to define "evil", "benevolent", and "malevolent". Great, I'm making more work for myself. :rolleyes:

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

Sure, I guess propaganda is a necessity. I mean, all of the great totalitarians had the cult of personality: idolizing the leader, but they also needed purges of opposition, dramatic changes in the legal system to support their regime, and every once in a while a bit of good old fashioned terror. You see, if the people don't fear the leader as well as respect him, they might feel free to question the propaganda at some point. Here is where you should take another page from the history books: Dracula.
Good old Prince Vlad surely knew what he was doing. He slaughtered the nobility that opposed him, and was always sure to have plenty of examples hanging around. Well, I don't know if "Hanging" is the right term, but they had pointy sticks sticking between their legs and going up through their bodies, until coming out through their chests. Crime was very low in Dracula's area, considering all crimes had about the same punishment, but the fellow was overthrown so he must have been doing something wrong. I say it was a lack of secret police... propaganda might have helped, but would have to be adapted a little due to the fact that the population was almost entirely illiterate.

Do any other NSers believe that propaganda is a good government tactic? I'm a totalitarian (don't be posting messages trying to change my views; I won't budge), and I believe that a nation is at its most powerful and prosperous when most of its people are united. In this country, that is virtually impossible without some sort of disaster or propaganda campaign. So... my other question is: Is propaganda necessary to unite a nation or are there other good ways?

The best way to unite the people of a nation into a cohesive whole is with lots and lots of crazy glue. :D

Propaganda is as old as war. It's a tool of conflict. Always has been, always will be. That makes it neither good nor bad. However, in my opinion, people who will blindly follow one doctrine and rationalize away all opposing views are stubborn fools. One doesn't have to agree to a viewpoint to respect it.

Do any other NSers believe that propaganda is a good government tactic? I'm a totalitarian (don't be posting messages trying to change my views; I won't budge), and I believe that a nation is at its most powerful and prosperous when most of its people are united. In this country, that is virtually impossible without some sort of disaster or propaganda campaign. So... my other question is: Is propaganda necessary to unite a nation or are there other good ways?

If you are American and you have a president that won with the majority of the votes and your country is in some danger or has been attacked or whatever a good speach on live television could be a good way.
Propaganda is a good tool and every nation has used it at one time or another in their history but it is also a powerfull tool and should be treated with care, it is a very good government tactic, the government gets what it wants, right? I do not think propaganda is necessary to unite a nation but it can help very much. Other good ways? Well lying seemd to do the trick in America, didnt it?

Do any other NSers believe that propaganda is a good government tactic? I'm a totalitarian (don't be posting messages trying to change my views; I won't budge), and I believe that a nation is at its most powerful and prosperous when most of its people are united. In this country, that is virtually impossible without some sort of disaster or propaganda campaign. So... my other question is: Is propaganda necessary to unite a nation or are there other good ways?

well it depends, if you look at the government newsreels produced durring WW2 vs. the privet coverage of Iraq you can see that WW2 would have been alot different if journalists were let into the field at random and not censored

but then you have to ask yourself - was it fair of the government to decive its cidizens like it did?

It all depends on how you word it. "United" is good, but "sheep" is bad. This is the art of propaganda to twist and manipulate things.

The only possible way to have a completely united stance (ie. everyone agrees) is to have sheep.

I love all the old Soviet propaganda.
Check out this one:


http://posters.nce.buttobi.net/big/0380.jpg

I tought soviets had red stars, not red crosses :confused:

I tought soviets had red stars, not red crosses :confused:
That's a hammer-and-sickle. Symbols meant to represent the industrial and agricultural working class.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

I believe that propaganda is inherently evil, and that propagandists are the lowest scum of the Earth. I am for free will, not the will of an oligarchy.

What is the "free will" of which you speak? Do you really want to have to be responsible for EVERYTHING you do or anyone around you does? That's what it would be like to have free will. Propaganda is everywhere, from the bias of the news to advertising billboards. We just don't call it that in this country because we are supposed to have un-biased "free press". The problem is that the moralistic, sentimental (I don't mean "sentimental" like Hallmark cards but in the sense that something appeals to our feelings) ideas are presented, nay forced upon us from all angles. Your entry shows that you have been affected by propaganda also, the ongoing American propaganda campaign to teach people that every other country (like those run by an "oligarghy" such as China) has an "inherently evil" system and that people living there have no freedom while Americans enjoy complete freedom. Even your use of the words "evil" and "scum" ring of propaganda.

Everyone says that "sheep" are somehow "bad", but no one ever explains why. If you can convince people to be happy in whatever situation they happen to be in, where's the problem?

Sure, "sheep" are not the most interesting people to be around, but I see nothing unethical about propaganda.

I'm not sure if propaganda is the only way to unite a nation. But even if it is, I think it's a sign of a pretty weak or uncertain government. Terrified that the people will wake up and realise that the country is in shambles, the government keeps telling them that "everything is fine, everything is great, support us and we'll make it all even better".

However, a strong government doesn't need to constantly tell the populace that they're great.
A strong government relies on the fact that they're doing their job well and, therefore, people become (or remain) pretty supportive of that government.

That's a hammer-and-sickle. Symbols meant to represent the industrial and agricultural working class.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
Well... I was joking, the link didn't work.