You're viewing a single thread.
An interesting exercise is to replace "Communism is bad" with "Climate change is coming" and interrogate how we feel about that and why.
It is interesting to reflect that propaganda is involved for all kinds of policy application, including science. As someone trained in sciences, it's always a bit uncomfortable seeing folks extolling science as the exclusive solution to everything. The role of science in society is deeply tied up with values, norms, and policy. I think it's always good to have a healthy dose of critical self reflection, so we can engage better on the level of humanized reasoning, rather than on the level of regurgitated propaganda.
An interesting exercise is to replace “Communism is bad” with “Climate change is coming”
It feels like its more commonly "Climate Change Isn't Coming", with big factions in the O&G financed conservative movements arguing that the theory of anthropogenic climate change was itself a plot by far-left radicals to undermine the United States.
Case in point:
The role of science in society is deeply tied up with values, norms, and policy. I think it’s always good to have a healthy dose of critical self reflection, so we can engage better on the level of humanized reasoning, rather than on the level of regurgitated propaganda.
I've heard it said that the best propaganda is simply the truth from a very rarified viewpoint.
It is, after all, pretty easy to find left-wing activists - even left-wing extremists - warning against the threat of climate change and arguing for big socio-economic changes on the grounds that they are necessary to avert the worst consequences of climate change. It has even fallen into vogue to assert that capitalism creates climate change through negative externalities resulting from the profit motive.
Climate Denialists can and do fixate on this rhetoric to argue that climate change is itself a tool of propaganda to scare people into abandoning our modern military industrial complex. And with an overlapping interest between climate denialists and conservative activists, we routinely get an earful about how everything from relatively moderate carbon emissions cap-and-trade to more socially radical Green New Deal economics are nefarious plots by communists to Seize The Means of Production for themselves.
All good points. Sorry I'm coming from a non US perspective where climate change denialism is present, but less fervent. I like your definition of "truth from a rarified point of view", though I might also considered non-rarified or pervasive, and factually well substantiated truths can be used as propaganda as well. The 95%+ consensus of scientists on climate change is both factually/meaningfully/importantly true and also used with a propagandistic flavour in many examples of political persuasion for example.
My post was more aiming at acknowledging propaganda as a vehicle of persuasion for any and differing representations of reality (political groups) that exists in parallel with the the establishment of facts of reality. Some representations will adhere more or less with the factual arguments.
The 95%+ consensus of scientists on climate change is both factually/meaningfully/importantly true and also used with a propagandistic flavour in many examples of political persuasion for example.
Sure. I'd say the critical distinction of propaganda isn't the factualness but the industrial scale of distribution.
propaganda as a vehicle of persuasion for any and differing representations of reality
In modern Western media, due to a combination of privatized ownership and lingering Cold War hysteria, it's been my experience that the industrial scale persuasive efforts are decidedly pro-capitalist.
How much money per year do you think is going into convincing people that climate is an existential threat?
Surprisingly little, so long as you're the highest bidder.
I like this comparison, it's actually interesting to think about.
Pretty much everyone tends to agree with the scientifical consensus that climate change is coming, whether they are capitalist or communist. The only people who disagree are those who are financially invested in oil, gas, or coal.
In a similar manner, the message that "communism is bad" comes from capitalist regimes that have a financial interest in preserving the status quo. If you want to understand people within a capitalist society, a really good way to do it is simply to follow the money.
it's always a bit uncomfortable seeing folks extolling science as the exclusive solution to everything.
Indeed. "We will do stupid shit because science will figure out how to clean mess after".
The role of science in society is deeply tied up with values, norms, and policy.
Especially policy. You can tell science to make as much money as possible or you can tell science to make lives as good as possible.