Spotify has finally recommended me good music

All I know is just drop whatever you're doing, put on some headphones, sit back, close your eyes, and listen to this for the next 40 minutes. At some point it will kick in.

A very groovy guitar track

I'm not going to do a whole post on visual communication (which you may know as graphic design) because I would be here for years, but I can give some 101 pointers regarding the things we are likely to make as activists -- flyers, propaganda, etc.

We'll mostly use visual examples but first, a paragraph on theory. First of all, when communicating visually, we are not talking about art. Artists make great communicators because there is some overlap but the goal is not to be an artist. You are communicating a message to influence opinions (that is what brand logos and TV ads do too), whereas art elicits an emotion. We've found that eliciting an emotion in visual communication is also very important for people to remember your message, but again there is otherwise very little overlap. You are not making a painting for the sake of making a beautiful painting, you are making a poster to influence opinions.

Next, when communicating visually (so with anything that people look at), you can't afford to be superfluous. You have a sheet of paper in front of you to fill; space is limited and anything that does not contribute to the message is not important. And what is not important must go. That also means, in contradiction, that anything that is important must be present, down to the minute detail -- because again space is limited so you have to use it.

So when communicating visually, you have to think about what you're trying to convey. Pitch the message in a sentence. It can be "anti-nazi rally next week on main street" or "vote communist for equal rights". But keep it short. Everything you show in your media will work towards propagating that message.

(U.S. imperialists shouldn't carelessly provoke war, DPRK, 2000s)

(Open the pictures in a new tab to see them in full size)

Looking at this poster, there are some elements that jump out and some that you may not see. That is normal, very few people will see everything -- especially if we're talking about a poster you see in the street while you're commuting; you don't have time to stop and look at it thoroughly.

And yet I can guarantee you everything in this poster has been carefully debated and selected. The colors of course echo the flag of the DPRK. But you also see that the two soldiers are towering above the american soldier, with a confident look in their eye. There are two of them, to suggest solidarity. The American has nukes turned towards the soldiers (i.e. the DPRK), but they are powerless against the soldiers. In fact, he looks scared of the sheer power the Korean People's Army wields. The KPA soldiers are moving forward while the soldier is retreating. His helmet fell off. He is defenceless. You may have not noticed also that the American has sharp fingers, and blood on his left hand. I'm probably lacking some cultural norms, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that this was a deliberate choice, as was everything else on this poster.

This is effective propaganda. Every little detail has its place and contributes to the overall message: the DPRK is not afraid of American intervention, and they will beat them again if need be. But as people will rarely see every little detail, they also have to be important in isolation. The first thing you notice probably is that the KPA soldiers are giants to the American. If you're walking down the street, take a fraction of a second to look at this poster and this is what you take away, then it was effective. It's done its job.

Then we also have this kind of poster. Simple. Effective. To the point. Let your audience fill in the blanks.

When designing your own visual media, you have to take cultural norms into account. For example, we often depict people going to the right because we read from left to right, and it conveys a sense of moving forward. We also depict them climbing, or going up rather than down, because it depicts a sense of growth. Of course if we were to depict capitalists, then we would paint them as going down or backwards.

As a final note, I'm going to be leaving you with this poster from 1954, and ask you to find out what you can based on what we've seen above. You can ignore the text if you don't read Russian, but you have to know the character on the left is Soviet and the character on the right is an American. You can either do the exercise yourself or post your results in the comments and I can take a look at them.

This isn't taken from a secondary source but from my own observations. If anyone has studied propaganda I would very much appreciate a post on this sublemmy!

There are two factors to propagandize effectively: volume, and depth.

Volume is simply exposing people to the same ideas over a period of time, with a sustained volume.

Depth is finding arguments that will resonate with your audience.

You can see that facts are nowhere to be seen in this model. Facts are not necessary to propagandize. Scale is also not a factor, you can propagandize this one friend you have or you can propagandize an entire army by dropping leaflets in their camps (like they did in Korea).

Of course as marxist-leninists we are not liars, and we have empirical evidence to present too. I'm instead talking about Fox News, or the mass media. And I distinctly remember this documentary about someone's father who turned from a ~progressive liberal to a raging neocon just because Fox News was on at work and he started watching it.

The takeaway is that if you repeat something long enough, people will internalise it and start seeing it your way. But finding the right arguments is also important to plant the seed of doubt, so to speak. In your own arguments (preferably in real life) you've probably noticed that most of the stuff you said hit a wall, but one or two things went through and made your receiver think about it.

But of course all the propaganda in the world is useless if there is not a goal, but I don't consider that a factor (of effectiveness) like the other two, but more of an unspoken rule. What are you trying to achieve? In war, we see that demoralizing the enemy so that their performance worsens is an achievable goal. Making them surrender to you just by dropping leaflets is in another league entirely. When trying to pull people into communism, I first try to correct mistakes if they let me speak (and that's also why I created this sublemmy, so that people will let you speak about communism if it's not the case already!). Then I try to get them to read theory and let them ask me questions. I believe theory is accessible and is a form of introspection, since you're the sole actor in this exchange. It gives you time to think about what you're reading, but then you have to be available to answer their questions lest they reach the wrong conclusions or misunderstand something.

It's important to learn how to handle and solve conflict because it's all around us, and we are never really free from it. In men especially, and you can blame the patriarchy, conflicts can start over the most minor shit and escalate to a full-on fight.

As communists I think we will also see conflict simply because of our ideas, and it's good to be able to understand the situation and solve it as best we can. This doesn't mean that violence is unwarranted or that your feelings are not valid, but that there are techniques one can use to help solve a situation before it goes out of control.

I myself have only learned the very basics so I can't really explain how to de-escalate conflict, but I can explain how to help understand it.

Firstly, it's important when in a conflict to be able to recognize the situation and take a step back. What was the trigger? How do I feel? How does the other person feel?

Then, it helps to respond appropriately. This of course depends on who you are talking to, as some people go from 0 to 100 in a quarter of a second. And if you feel disrespected, you don't have to erase yourself and let people walk all over you. But you will likely find that responding appropriately to the level of conflict will help diffuse it instead of escalating.

The level of conflict can be schematized like this:

And you may not be at the same level. Maybe you are still trying to reason with the other party while they're already shouting abuse at you. What is important is to lower their level and not go above theirs -- although sometimes it's also valid to escalate the level. When someone you work with keeps making disrespectful remarks at you every day and in the early stages you don't say anything but one day you go off and shout at them for a whole hour, that is valid. Your feelings are always valid.

When in the lower stages of conflict, it pays to spell out each other's feelings. Either "I understand how you feel but..." (when you are at fault) or "I don't know if you're aware of how you're coming across" (if you are disrespected).

Get this: we feel angry when we feel someone else has disrespected us. It pays to find out the cause of your anger when you feel it and understand if it's warranted or not, i.e. if you should feel anger or try to de-escalate.

Ultimately to solve a conflict what you want is to correct the slight you feel. If your coworker keeps disrespecting you with their casual remarks, what you want is for them to stop. You don't have to get along with them, you just have to stop this behaviour that makes you feel bad. And you may feel that you deserve more (e.g. disciplinary action) because otherwise you look like you're not standing up for yourself, but resolving a conflict is standing up for yourself. Vocalizing your concerns and feelings is standing up for yourself. Even if all you get is for the coworker to stop making these remarks when you wanted them to get fired, that still shows you took care of yourself and your other coworkers will respect you for it. In fact, people who get disliked (but of course your mileage may vary) are those who escalate the level too high too early.

(I may update this post later as I understand conflict better)

Active listening is a skill that I personally think more people should learn. Following the model of communication (with the feedback loop) I posted on the basics of com., when listening you are still communicating and giving feedback.

Active listening means to, well, actively listen. Not just hear what you want to hear, or wait for your chance to speak, but to really listen to what the other person is saying. It's a skill that requires practice and in the beginnings a conscious effort.

To be an active listener, you need to avoid any distractions. Turn your body towards the other person, look them in the eyes, and focus on what they're saying. It helps to repeat what they say in your head so that you stay focused and actually hear what they're saying, and not only part of it.

Don't interrupt them either, let them stop talking by themselves. Therapists learn to do this so if you've been to one think about how they listen to you. Usually they will let you speak and once you stop or drift off completely, they will ask you a question, but never while you are speaking.

It's important when listening not to judge. You might be surprised what people admit to when they feel in a safe environment. Stuff that they've kept secret, or stuff that you would never have suspected.

Active listening creates a rapport of trust, and is useful to create a safe environment for your comrades. I think it can also help us not look like the weird communist but a well-adjusted, emotionally mature member of society.

I was recently introduced to this model but I am unable to find this exact one on Google, so this will be from memory.

It was modelised by an ex-spy (please forgive the imperialism) who turned to job recruitment. He found that finding a job was not that different from being a spy and many of the same techniques applied. When you have to create a fake identity to infiltrate a group, you don't know anyone from that group and have to find a way in. When looking for work in this capitalist hellhole, you also don't know anyone at your next job and have to find a way in.

The PIE model, at least the one I've been told, is very simple to execute. There are four questions you ask about someone's hobby, and this will help break the ice. Of course, this implies that you have found a way to talk to them so if you have trouble initiating conversation you have to work on that before!

1. Why did you start this hobby?
2. What do you like most about it?
3. What do you like least about it?
4. If you had any tips to give me if I wanted to start, what would you tell me?

They are four simple questions, but they usually get people talking -- especially the first one. Sometimes you won't even get to finish the four questions because the conversation will naturally evolve somewhere else.

I have used it a little since I've learned about it and it does work, especially when you don't know what to talk about, it's always a safe option to fall back to. It is meant to be used on strangers, but I think there's some merit to using that model on people you know a bit better too -- because if you haven't asked them yet why they started their favourite hobby, trust me, ask them next time you get the chance.

I think it can help establish a rapport with someone which will allow you to later talk more easily about topics such as socialism.

This is not even communication 101, this is communication 100.

No matter what you are doing, you are communicating. Even when you are not talking! In fact, most of our communication is done non-verbally, with our body language. A large part also depends on our tone, and the smallest part is what we are actually saying.

Therefore we can visualise communication like this:

This model doesn't apply only to a one-on-one setting, but is easier to understand if we assume that there are only two people. The sender has information to transmit to the receiver -- say you want to tell a friend that you found a great restaurant. The information you want to send has to be encoded in a way that the receiver will understand, so in this case it's verbally. The receiver has to decrypt your information and in the case of a verbal message, your tone of voice, your choice of words and your body language will say a lot. If you say "yeah this restaurant is good you should try it" while sounding sad, distant, or unsure of yourself, then your friend will wonder if that restaurant is actually worth going to. On the other hand, if you are beaming with joy and smiling as you remember how good it was to go to that the restaurant, they will assume it's a great place that creates great memories.

The feedback loop means that basically, your receiver will then apply the model to their response (and I would say we can even mention dialectics here lol). They will respond to your message once they've decrypted it, and if they say "sure I'll check it out" but sound distant or bored, you will probably assume they don't really care about what you're saying.

Understanding how communication happens allows you to better get the outcome you want, provides clarity and reduces confusion. What you want is for the receiver to decrypt what you wanted to transmit.

This model can of course be applied at a bigger scale. If you print flyers to share in the streets, you are also encoding the information you want to transmit (say a march against nazis happening: you want to transmit the date, time, place). Then people who receive your flyer will decrypt the information and may or may not send a feedback -- they will certainly have one (even if it's them throwing the flyer in the trash! That is still feedback). If you distributed 500 flyers and you have 250 people show up (and for the sake of the model say this was your only means of communicating about this event), then you can say you had great feedback, 1 people out of 2 came.