7 ms·

I read this some years ago, and one of the things I took away was that there is great power in being able to focus attention and debate in one direction rather

by dotsam 3y ago

I read this some years ago, and one of the things I took away was that there is great power in being able to focus attention and debate in one direction rather than another. Permit debate so long as it works within premises that align with your narrative. Direct attention away from questioning the questions themselves. > The most effective device is the bounding of the thinkable, achieved by tolerating debate, even encouraging it, though only within proper limits. An example given in the book is focusing attention on how best to 'contain' the Soviet Union. > In short, what is essential is the power to set the agenda. If controversy over the Cold War can be focused on containment of the Soviet Union -- the proper mix of force, diplomacy, and other measures -- then the propaganda system has already won its victory, whatever conclusions are reached. The basic assumption has already been established: the Cold War is a confrontation between two superpowers, one aggressive and expansionist, the other defending the status quo and civilized values. Off the agenda is the problem of containing the United States, and the question whether the issue has been properly formulated at all

H8crilA 3y ago
I mean the Soviet Union has been an expansionary empire from the start. It is a fact, as well as a convenient PR/propaganda point. First stopped by Poland and West Ukraine in 1921, then deterred by Poland for about two decades. Next step was an expansionary deal with Nazi Germany which started WW2. Expansion continued after the American Lend Lease took off, and stopped at East Germany. Following years focused on Asia (Korea, Vietnam). Then there were military invasions of Hungary or Czechoslovakia, to reassert dominance. Finally it crumbled under the weight of system's own incredible incompetence. The re-born Putin's Russia continues expansion at almost any cost, first Georgia, now Ukraine. Shows no sign of stopping. Trying to compare that to things like NATO or SEATO, or even the post-WW2 occupation of Germany implies very poor knowledge of history. The US has never purposefully tortured or starved to death millions of people. One million casualties is 10 Hiroshimas. The Soviet system, especially at the start, was so brutal that I believe most people in democratic countries can't really comprehend it without spending days or weeks studying the history. That's why some people can compare the two empires as somewhat equal and not feel shame at the same time. They were only somewhat equal in military strength, and nothing else.
- kstenerud 3y ago
  Yup. The West doesn't understand (and never has understood) the East. Even at the levers of power, it's often shocking how little people know. Russia understands this, which is why their propaganda is so effective. Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and Ukraine have been warning the "West" for decades, to deaf ears. And still today, their warnings go unheeded.
  - Enk1du 3y ago
    Funny that. In Farley Mowat's "Sibir" (1970), he reports a conversation with a Siberian Russian explaining the difference between the two superpowers like so "In the USSR, our propaganda is poor and we don't believe it at all. In America, your propaganda is very good ..." with the _and you believe it_ left for the listener to fill in. I suppose the culture of samizdat gives you a bit of perspective on controlling naratives.
    - pydry 3y ago
      Closed off societies don't need sophisticated propaganda because the competition is blocked off. One of the things that struck me about propaganda in North Korea was that it was incredibly unsophisticated. It was like watching 1950s adverts. Glasnost produced an opening for the most sophisticated western tactics to be applied in the Soviet Union and it was used to maximal effect. Russia has recognized the shortcomings and has adapted. Their propaganda is pretty much every bit as sophisticated as ours these days. Enough to cause Congress to have conniptions.
      - H8crilA 3y ago
        Today's Russian propaganda is entirely different from Soviet propaganda. It creates a depoliticized society by generating as many incompatible statements as they can and blasting that from every tube. This is a lot more advanced than western propaganda. Russia today is actually already "in the future", some of the patterns we can see in democracies are fully rolled out there. Tim Snyder often says that this is why Russia is interesting analytically. Soviet propaganda pretended that black is white, while Russian propaganda will essentially try to convince the listener that colors cannot be assigned to any object whatsoever.
smeej 3y ago
I feel like this summarizes my experience of life, that I'm for some reason constitutionally incapable of assuming a binary accurately captures the range of possibilities for a given situation, but I live in a world where this is a baseline assumption. Even as a child, I couldn't process the questions correctly. My parents would ask, "Do you want Cheerios or Froot Loops for breakfast?" and I would reply, "No, I want waffles." I wasn't intending to be a smartass. It wasn't until my late teens that I finally realized why people got so annoyed with me when that happened. Now I mostly notice it in the political context: "Are you voting for [donkey] or [elephant]?" "No, of course not. They both suck." The reply I always get is, "Well not voting for [the one I think is less bad] is a vote for [the evils the other will promote]," but no! No it isn't. If you assume the entire range of options is captured by the binary in front of you, you've already lost.
- llbeansandrice 3y ago
  Voting in a two party system is pretty clearly binary if you’re really choosing to participate at all. The off-script big-brain move in this case isn’t abstaining from voting, it’s discussing changing the voting/election system to break the two party dominance. Abstaining from voting bc you’re unhappy with the current options doesn’t make you super smart galaxy brain guy.
  - mandmandam 3y ago
    > The off-script big-brain move in this case isn’t abstaining from voting, it’s discussing changing the voting/election system to break the two party dominance. You are not interpreting OP in the best possible light - or even remotely accurately. OP didn't say not voting is big brain galaxy stuff, nor did they exclude the idea of changing the voting system. To me, when the choice is between pro-war, pro-oil, pro-corporate theocratic fascism from wealthy old white guys, and pro-war, pro-oil, pro-corporate cynical neoliberalism, not voting for the lesser evil can be seen as simply not voting for evil. After seeing what the Dems did to Bernie, I can't ever vote for them again; not even if Trump is the alternative. Nope. Not doing it. I have a line, and I won't be forced to vote in a system that's killing the planet. Will I work to change that voting system? Happily. Will the Democrats? Hell no.

by dotsam 3y ago

H8crilA 3y ago

I mean the Soviet Union has been an expansionary empire from the start. It is a fact, as well as a convenient PR/propaganda point. First stopped by Poland and West Ukraine in 1921, then deterred by Poland for about two decades. Next step was an expansionary deal with Nazi Germany which started WW2. Expansion continued after the American Lend Lease took off, and stopped at East Germany. Following years focused on Asia (Korea, Vietnam). Then there were military invasions of Hungary or Czechoslovakia, to reassert dominance. Finally it crumbled under the weight of system's own incredible incompetence. The re-born Putin's Russia continues expansion at almost any cost, first Georgia, now Ukraine. Shows no sign of stopping. Trying to compare that to things like NATO or SEATO, or even the post-WW2 occupation of Germany implies very poor knowledge of history. The US has never purposefully tortured or starved to death millions of people. One million casualties is 10 Hiroshimas. The Soviet system, especially at the start, was so brutal that I believe most people in democratic countries can't really comprehend it without spending days or weeks studying the history. That's why some people can compare the two empires as somewhat equal and not feel shame at the same time. They were only somewhat equal in military strength, and nothing else.

kstenerud 3y ago
Yup. The West doesn't understand (and never has understood) the East. Even at the levers of power, it's often shocking how little people know. Russia understands this, which is why their propaganda is so effective. Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and Ukraine have been warning the "West" for decades, to deaf ears. And still today, their warnings go unheeded.
- Enk1du 3y ago
  Funny that. In Farley Mowat's "Sibir" (1970), he reports a conversation with a Siberian Russian explaining the difference between the two superpowers like so "In the USSR, our propaganda is poor and we don't believe it at all. In America, your propaganda is very good ..." with the _and you believe it_ left for the listener to fill in. I suppose the culture of samizdat gives you a bit of perspective on controlling naratives.
  - pydry 3y ago
    Closed off societies don't need sophisticated propaganda because the competition is blocked off. One of the things that struck me about propaganda in North Korea was that it was incredibly unsophisticated. It was like watching 1950s adverts. Glasnost produced an opening for the most sophisticated western tactics to be applied in the Soviet Union and it was used to maximal effect. Russia has recognized the shortcomings and has adapted. Their propaganda is pretty much every bit as sophisticated as ours these days. Enough to cause Congress to have conniptions.
    - H8crilA 3y ago
      Today's Russian propaganda is entirely different from Soviet propaganda. It creates a depoliticized society by generating as many incompatible statements as they can and blasting that from every tube. This is a lot more advanced than western propaganda. Russia today is actually already "in the future", some of the patterns we can see in democracies are fully rolled out there. Tim Snyder often says that this is why Russia is interesting analytically. Soviet propaganda pretended that black is white, while Russian propaganda will essentially try to convince the listener that colors cannot be assigned to any object whatsoever.

smeej 3y ago

I feel like this summarizes my experience of life, that I'm for some reason constitutionally incapable of assuming a binary accurately captures the range of possibilities for a given situation, but I live in a world where this is a baseline assumption. Even as a child, I couldn't process the questions correctly. My parents would ask, "Do you want Cheerios or Froot Loops for breakfast?" and I would reply, "No, I want waffles." I wasn't intending to be a smartass. It wasn't until my late teens that I finally realized why people got so annoyed with me when that happened. Now I mostly notice it in the political context: "Are you voting for [donkey] or [elephant]?" "No, of course not. They both suck." The reply I always get is, "Well not voting for [the one I think is less bad] is a vote for [the evils the other will promote]," but no! No it isn't. If you assume the entire range of options is captured by the binary in front of you, you've already lost.

llbeansandrice 3y ago
Voting in a two party system is pretty clearly binary if you’re really choosing to participate at all. The off-script big-brain move in this case isn’t abstaining from voting, it’s discussing changing the voting/election system to break the two party dominance. Abstaining from voting bc you’re unhappy with the current options doesn’t make you super smart galaxy brain guy.
- mandmandam 3y ago
  > The off-script big-brain move in this case isn’t abstaining from voting, it’s discussing changing the voting/election system to break the two party dominance. You are not interpreting OP in the best possible light - or even remotely accurately. OP didn't say not voting is big brain galaxy stuff, nor did they exclude the idea of changing the voting system. To me, when the choice is between pro-war, pro-oil, pro-corporate theocratic fascism from wealthy old white guys, and pro-war, pro-oil, pro-corporate cynical neoliberalism, not voting for the lesser evil can be seen as simply not voting for evil. After seeing what the Dems did to Bernie, I can't ever vote for them again; not even if Trump is the alternative. Nope. Not doing it. I have a line, and I won't be forced to vote in a system that's killing the planet. Will I work to change that voting system? Happily. Will the Democrats? Hell no.