agitprop

Topic: Propaganda about propaganda

"Wow it looks like you're just reciting from the Hexbear c/agitprop playbook! Can you not think for yourself you [CCP/Russia/Bernie/??] shill?"

"Yeah, I am using a playbook, I encourage you to take a look for yourself" [post image].

There's nothing wrong about propaganda, it primarily has a negative connotation in the English language as a result of Red Scare .... propaganda.... The point of having playbooks is to reduce our mental workload so that we can have actually interesting and useful conversations. I hope that in this thread we can generate playbooks, and I hope even moreso that people will read them. Let's discuss.

If there are weak points, or things that someone doesn't understand, I'm happy to clarify. If there is something that is not sourced, we should probably figure that out and generate a new version. It would actually be super ideal if to just post something like this (but a good version, ofc) and have someone "catch up" to me with no effort on my part. Not super realistic, but I'm not going to act like that isn't what's going on.

You're just brainwashed

• We can talk about the history of brainwashing, and how it came out of the PLA re-educating American POWs during the Korean War about the atrocities that they were a party to. (someone pls source, I know it's on wikipedia, if anything).
• We can talk about American propaganda, Manufacturing Consent, Inventing Reality, Fox News etc... fuck it, cite the TAFS interview where Chris Cuomo admits that he helped propagandize his viewership during the Invasion of Iraq. Iraq in general is a goldmine, like the "glowing radioactive spheres" or whatever that were ripped off from "The Rock" (is that right?).
• There's probably not an eloquent way to introduce Zizek's concept of "ideology", but if anyone has any ideas....

Any other good examples of propaganda/counter-propaganda that could be untilized?

Topic: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

This one might be pretty lively even among ourselves.

I think that even if you want to take an "anti-imperialist" line, it weakens your stance to do so in these discussions, as correct as you may or may not be, that's for a discussion among comrades. It's better to remain neutral to negative on Russia, or even slightly negative, rather than neutral to positive. Liberals don't have a good conception of imperialism in the first place, so being anti-imperialist is not going to cover any ground.

It is, of course, important to make sure that NATO is held adequately held to account for their role in creating the circumstances of the conflict. The military strategic importance of Ukraine to Russia in general, you have the coup in 2014 (backed by the US), the refusal to allow Russia to join NATO, and the maintenance of the alliance as an anti-Russia alliance.

Most importantly, you can anchor the conflict as another tragic consequence of the dissolution of the USSR, once again US-backed. Under the USSR, these places aren't even tow separate countries in the first place. We know from the data that the quality of life as fallen significantly as a result as well (sources?).

My other anchor is that "this conflict is truly tragic for the people of Ukraine who are sacrificing their lives and livelihoods due to circumstances far outside of their control. They were failed by their leadership who failed to recognize their precarious situation and trusted the US/EU who have proven to be unreliable. The only justice is a swift end to the violence, under any circumstance." Liberals still will not like this, since they think that if Ukrainians want to be EU-aligned, they should have it, whereas they don't have any more right to be in the EU than any other country. It's not really something defined by what you want, and the only way we are going to guarantee the standard of living that Ukrainians and so many other people desire, is under a global socialist movement that guarantees these things.

Critiques, sources, and counter-debate points welcome.

Topic: Fundamental differences from the Liberal viewpoint

I will post more thoughts on this thread, but I kinda wanted to start with something fundamental, so we can talk about where our foundations are, rather than something that is advanced and kinda doesn't matter like debating "is China socialist?". I would say a more effective ground for discussion is "What does the existence of [country] do for socialism, and what can we learn from its history?", but I'll pick that up in another comment.

I think of discussions with liberals need to have adequate framing, and part of doing that is distingushing your audience. Let's start with three categories:

1. Chuds and Capitalism true believers: dunk hard along with the libs.
2. Uneducated liberals: Need to break into "capitalism is bad", often not worth much effort online, if they aren't on that path already. Depends on the wider audience.
3. liberals/soc-dems/anti-communist Left: At least have some idea that capitalism is bad, but they don't have an idea of how to effectively fight it.

I generally focus on group 3. You already have great "capitalism is bad" ethos. Now it's just a matter of building on that with "what are you willing to give up to overthrow it?". When it comes to compromises to liberal values, I want to be in a position to use that point as a backstop instead of crossing over into their territory.