5 ms·

What characteristics distinguish “soft power” from propaganda and why is it good? Is it just good in a Niestczhean kind of way in that serves American interest

What characteristics distinguish “soft power” from propaganda and why is it good? Is it just good in a Niestczhean kind of way in that serves American interests?

cassepipe 2y ago
Have you ever tried to be nice to people instead of threatening them to get what you want ? That's the idea
- coldtea 2y ago
  Doesn't work if what you want is against their interests. Hence "soft power" and, if that fails, "bombing for democracy".
  - fn-mote 2y ago
    > Doesn't work if what you want is against their interests. There’s a world of difference between “against my interest” and “worth my effort”. Soft power could help in that gap. I’m not actually sure we disagree - this is more of an elaboration.
  - jmye 2y ago
    Soft power is also building roads and hospitals in Africa (see: China) because you want the country to deal with you first (because they’ve you as a friend, even if you both know it’s a transactional relationship) when they go to sell resources they have. It’s not just trying to strong arm people into doing things they don’t want to do. You have a deeply antagonistic view of all of this. Is there a reason? Do you think that the EU doesn’t employ soft power? That China doesn’t? Do you seriously see no difference between, for instance, seeing value in large numbers of people speaking some English and having a positive view of your country, and whatever “bombing for democracy” is supposed to represent?
reaperducer 2y ago
Why try to divert the discussion into an off topic quagmire?
- grandempire 2y ago
  He’s saying this is bad because it reduces soft power. I’m asking why that’s a bad thing.
  - reaperducer 2y ago
    This is a basic high school question. It serves no purpose other than to deflect the discussion. If you genuinely don't understand soft power, Google is your friend.
    - grandempire 2y ago
      There are several different replies here and they are all very different. Some replies even say it is bad, but that it’s a kind of necessary evil. So no I don’t think I’m asking a leading question and no it’s not obvious. That’s a reply that’s used when you don’t want to test your answer. And why would we be so naive to think that Google would discern the intent of American political propaganda for us?
      - ouilala 2y ago
        (copying another reply) It might be an unpopular viewpoint....but neocolonialism is necessary. Perhaps not the right choice of word but I mean the term 'neocolonialism' here in the sense of introducing peoples to our ways of life: democracy, capitalism, human rights. The long and short of it is that, you can only get with the web of conflicting interests, pure monetary dealings, etc so far. You don't make any lasting alliance with a peoples and a system fundamentally opposed to you. If you isolate away, they will continue falling into the trap of systems like China and Russia who are quite happy to take your place and have completely opposite ideals to you. Eventually you will be left more and more alone on the world stage with no true allies if you let them keep doing it, and one day you will be finished off by soft or hard means when those entities, who kept expanding their outreach, became powerful enough. Tldr; Defensive fire. Its not that you want to engage in neocolonialism, but you will have to do so as long as your enemies engage in neocolonialism. The logic is no different than that behind maintaining a traditional military power really.
leptons 2y ago
America provides copious amounts of aid all over the world. That's soft power. It's not "propaganda", it actually helps people survive.
- grandempire 2y ago
  That makes sense. But then this kind of journalism/talk radio, would not be included.
  - whatever1 2y ago
    They even burnt the card of elon musk who was a great asset in the storytelling of US of how innovation is rewarded better here than anywhere else. Now he looks like a nazi pos, only damages the US image.
    - cassepipe 2y ago
      I am afraid he looks like one because he is one. The modern Henry Ford.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- kcplate 2y ago
  It’s only power if the recipients view the US positively, or if other countries view the US positively for that aid. Unfortunately I think it backfires when US power of all sorts (both hard and soft) is viewed as meddling. At that point is the altruism worth the negative optics? I wonder.
  - leptons 2y ago
    There is aid, and there is meddling. The two aren't always intertwined. It's best when they aren't. If "The US" drops a bomb on civilians, by accident or not, does that make all Americans bad, when it was really just a few military people that ultimately pulled that trigger? With regards to optics, if the picture is blurry, then maybe put on your glasses. "The US" isn't only one thing or one entity.
krapp 2y ago
Propaganda is a form of soft power, as is foreign aid, as is trade and cultural exchange. These things are "good" in the sense that they allow a nation to further its interests and strengthen its influence, and thus maintain stable and peaceful relationships with other nations, as opposed to furthering those interests through the direct use of violence. Also what on earth does Nietzsche have to do with anything?
addicted 2y ago
Soft power is simply the capability to persuade others without coercion. So it’s usually a much less destructive tool to achieve the same goal when the alternative is “hard” power. Whether you build the soft power ethically or unethically (and false propaganda could be one of the many unethical ways to build soft power) is upto the country in question. And whether that soft power is deployed for “good” or “bad” purposes is also dependent on the actions and goals of the nation. So it’s kind of as meaningless to ask whether soft power is “good” or “bad” as it is to ask whether a hammer is good or bad, except generally “soft” power tends to be a better way to achieve the goals of a country than the alternative (which involves the threat and/or actual dropping of bombs) and the methods of developing soft power tend to generally be better than the alternative (distributing medicines for Thberculosis, cultural exchanges, etc instead of building a bigger and more dangerous military).
- coldtea 2y ago
  >Soft power is simply the capability to persuade others without coercion. So it’s usually a much less destructive tool to achieve the same goal when the alternative is “hard” power. Powerful countries don't use soft power to bring good, they use it to serve their interests - when the target country's interests and its people's inclinations are not favorable to them.
  - jltsiren 2y ago
    Interests are not immutable. For a long time, the US announced that it wanted a world order based on democracy, capitalism, and the rule of law. Countries that chose to support the same values often benefited greatly. And when other countries saw the outcome, they sometimes changed their priorities and chose to support the American world order.
    - coldtea 2y ago
      >For a long time, the US announced that it wanted a world order based on democracy, capitalism, and the rule of law. Yeah, that was still bogus. It collaborated with dictators (they are good, as long as they serve it's interests, they're a "regime" when they dont), brought down democratically elected governments, funded orange "revolutions" and opposition parties, and of course bombed, invaded, etc sovereign nations. Further more, it's no place of any single country to try to build "a world order based on democracy, capitalism, and the rule of law". Even if that wasn't transparently and extremely self-serving hypocritical, not every people share its ideas about democracy, or about capitalism, or what are good laws. >And when other countries saw the outcome, they sometimes changed their priorities and chose to support the American world order. Oh, sweet summer child.
mike_d 2y ago
Propaganda is a message. Soft power is a means. For example, Voice of America publishes "Learning English" radio/tv broadcasts, podcasts, and news articles. They are produced with a limited vocabulary (I think a few thousand words), shorter sentences, and are spoken slower. They often match up with native language reporting of current events so you can listen to both for context clues. Having people all over the world able to speak a basic level of English helps further the dominant role of the US in international trade, allows our military to use friendly locals as translators anywhere they go, and gives people around the world some level of "connection" with us - shared common ground to work from. VoA does not broadcast propaganda, they hold themselves to a very high standard of reporting only the truth. Which is why repressive governments hate it, as do people who want to create them.
- coldtea 2y ago
  >VoA does not broadcast propaganda, they hold themselves to a very high standard of reporting only the truth. Seriously?
  - Gud 2y ago
    Do you have any specific counter examples? FWIW I am not American.
    - grandempire 2y ago
      Their Wikipedia page in the controversy section lists at least 5 specific examples where they were criticized for direct political messaging - so certainly not a neutral party (whatever that means). Also you seem to think propaganda means “not true” when it more often is true things that promote your interests. What matters is someone is paying to highlight information over other perspectives.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- grandempire 2y ago
  Is your claim that Va primarily produces English language learning material and the content is secondary?
throw0101d 2y ago
> What characteristics distinguish “soft power” from propaganda and why is it good? A report from the American Enterprise Institute: > To improve the US government’s response to the exploitation of youth by terrorist groups, the report recommends (1) adopting clear criteria to be used in weighing young peoples’ vulnerability to radicalization and recruitment and in creating and targeting terrorism prevention programs, (2) fostering both attitudinal and behavioral change to build youth resilience to recruitment, (3) moving beyond a traditional focus on young men to confront the radicalization and recruitment of girls and young women, and (4) engaging the family as a potential site of radicalization and recruitment. * https://www.un.org/sexualviolenceinconflict/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/report/tackling-terrorists-exploitation-of-youth/Tackling-Terrorists-Exploitation-of-Youth.pdf https://www.un.org/sexualviolenceinconflict/wp-content/uploa... For example: > Cuts to health and food programs that wind up costing lives will embitter affected populations and be exploited in propaganda by anti-American groups. This will have at least a moderate effect in boosting recruitment by terrorist organizations. * https://www.newsweek.com/islamic-state-will-capitalize-after-musks-doge-shutters-usaid-2031069 https://www.newsweek.com/islamic-state-will-capitalize-after...
hermitcrab 2y ago
All countries are in continual struggle for influence, to further their own interests. Doing this through soft power means (student exchanges, radio programs, films, music, building roads, blue jeans etc) is surely preferable to doing it through violent means. If the US reduces it's soft power, then no doubt it's influence will wane compared to other countries.
- grandempire 2y ago
  I don’t follow the argument that if we don’t do this then we must have boots on the ground. We don’t have to do either one.
  - hermitcrab 2y ago
    You can do neither. Then other countries (e.g. China) will happily fill the vacuum. The Chinese aren't building all those hospitals, roads and bridges in other countries out of pure altruism.

What characteristics distinguish “soft power” from propaganda and why is it good? Is it just good in a Niestczhean kind of way in that serves American interests?

cassepipe 2y ago

Have you ever tried to be nice to people instead of threatening them to get what you want ? That's the idea

coldtea 2y ago
Doesn't work if what you want is against their interests. Hence "soft power" and, if that fails, "bombing for democracy".
- fn-mote 2y ago
  > Doesn't work if what you want is against their interests. There’s a world of difference between “against my interest” and “worth my effort”. Soft power could help in that gap. I’m not actually sure we disagree - this is more of an elaboration.
- jmye 2y ago
  Soft power is also building roads and hospitals in Africa (see: China) because you want the country to deal with you first (because they’ve you as a friend, even if you both know it’s a transactional relationship) when they go to sell resources they have. It’s not just trying to strong arm people into doing things they don’t want to do. You have a deeply antagonistic view of all of this. Is there a reason? Do you think that the EU doesn’t employ soft power? That China doesn’t? Do you seriously see no difference between, for instance, seeing value in large numbers of people speaking some English and having a positive view of your country, and whatever “bombing for democracy” is supposed to represent?

reaperducer 2y ago

Why try to divert the discussion into an off topic quagmire?

grandempire 2y ago
He’s saying this is bad because it reduces soft power. I’m asking why that’s a bad thing.
- reaperducer 2y ago
  This is a basic high school question. It serves no purpose other than to deflect the discussion. If you genuinely don't understand soft power, Google is your friend.
  - grandempire 2y ago
    There are several different replies here and they are all very different. Some replies even say it is bad, but that it’s a kind of necessary evil. So no I don’t think I’m asking a leading question and no it’s not obvious. That’s a reply that’s used when you don’t want to test your answer. And why would we be so naive to think that Google would discern the intent of American political propaganda for us?
    - ouilala 2y ago
      (copying another reply) It might be an unpopular viewpoint....but neocolonialism is necessary. Perhaps not the right choice of word but I mean the term 'neocolonialism' here in the sense of introducing peoples to our ways of life: democracy, capitalism, human rights. The long and short of it is that, you can only get with the web of conflicting interests, pure monetary dealings, etc so far. You don't make any lasting alliance with a peoples and a system fundamentally opposed to you. If you isolate away, they will continue falling into the trap of systems like China and Russia who are quite happy to take your place and have completely opposite ideals to you. Eventually you will be left more and more alone on the world stage with no true allies if you let them keep doing it, and one day you will be finished off by soft or hard means when those entities, who kept expanding their outreach, became powerful enough. Tldr; Defensive fire. Its not that you want to engage in neocolonialism, but you will have to do so as long as your enemies engage in neocolonialism. The logic is no different than that behind maintaining a traditional military power really.

leptons 2y ago

America provides copious amounts of aid all over the world. That's soft power. It's not "propaganda", it actually helps people survive.

grandempire 2y ago
That makes sense. But then this kind of journalism/talk radio, would not be included.
- whatever1 2y ago
  They even burnt the card of elon musk who was a great asset in the storytelling of US of how innovation is rewarded better here than anywhere else. Now he looks like a nazi pos, only damages the US image.
  - cassepipe 2y ago
    I am afraid he looks like one because he is one. The modern Henry Ford.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kcplate 2y ago
It’s only power if the recipients view the US positively, or if other countries view the US positively for that aid. Unfortunately I think it backfires when US power of all sorts (both hard and soft) is viewed as meddling. At that point is the altruism worth the negative optics? I wonder.
- leptons 2y ago
  There is aid, and there is meddling. The two aren't always intertwined. It's best when they aren't. If "The US" drops a bomb on civilians, by accident or not, does that make all Americans bad, when it was really just a few military people that ultimately pulled that trigger? With regards to optics, if the picture is blurry, then maybe put on your glasses. "The US" isn't only one thing or one entity.

krapp 2y ago

Propaganda is a form of soft power, as is foreign aid, as is trade and cultural exchange. These things are "good" in the sense that they allow a nation to further its interests and strengthen its influence, and thus maintain stable and peaceful relationships with other nations, as opposed to furthering those interests through the direct use of violence. Also what on earth does Nietzsche have to do with anything?

addicted 2y ago

Soft power is simply the capability to persuade others without coercion. So it’s usually a much less destructive tool to achieve the same goal when the alternative is “hard” power. Whether you build the soft power ethically or unethically (and false propaganda could be one of the many unethical ways to build soft power) is upto the country in question. And whether that soft power is deployed for “good” or “bad” purposes is also dependent on the actions and goals of the nation. So it’s kind of as meaningless to ask whether soft power is “good” or “bad” as it is to ask whether a hammer is good or bad, except generally “soft” power tends to be a better way to achieve the goals of a country than the alternative (which involves the threat and/or actual dropping of bombs) and the methods of developing soft power tend to generally be better than the alternative (distributing medicines for Thberculosis, cultural exchanges, etc instead of building a bigger and more dangerous military).

coldtea 2y ago
>Soft power is simply the capability to persuade others without coercion. So it’s usually a much less destructive tool to achieve the same goal when the alternative is “hard” power. Powerful countries don't use soft power to bring good, they use it to serve their interests - when the target country's interests and its people's inclinations are not favorable to them.
- jltsiren 2y ago
  Interests are not immutable. For a long time, the US announced that it wanted a world order based on democracy, capitalism, and the rule of law. Countries that chose to support the same values often benefited greatly. And when other countries saw the outcome, they sometimes changed their priorities and chose to support the American world order.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    >For a long time, the US announced that it wanted a world order based on democracy, capitalism, and the rule of law. Yeah, that was still bogus. It collaborated with dictators (they are good, as long as they serve it's interests, they're a "regime" when they dont), brought down democratically elected governments, funded orange "revolutions" and opposition parties, and of course bombed, invaded, etc sovereign nations. Further more, it's no place of any single country to try to build "a world order based on democracy, capitalism, and the rule of law". Even if that wasn't transparently and extremely self-serving hypocritical, not every people share its ideas about democracy, or about capitalism, or what are good laws. >And when other countries saw the outcome, they sometimes changed their priorities and chose to support the American world order. Oh, sweet summer child.

mike_d 2y ago

Propaganda is a message. Soft power is a means. For example, Voice of America publishes "Learning English" radio/tv broadcasts, podcasts, and news articles. They are produced with a limited vocabulary (I think a few thousand words), shorter sentences, and are spoken slower. They often match up with native language reporting of current events so you can listen to both for context clues. Having people all over the world able to speak a basic level of English helps further the dominant role of the US in international trade, allows our military to use friendly locals as translators anywhere they go, and gives people around the world some level of "connection" with us - shared common ground to work from. VoA does not broadcast propaganda, they hold themselves to a very high standard of reporting only the truth. Which is why repressive governments hate it, as do people who want to create them.

coldtea 2y ago
>VoA does not broadcast propaganda, they hold themselves to a very high standard of reporting only the truth. Seriously?
- Gud 2y ago
  Do you have any specific counter examples? FWIW I am not American.
  - grandempire 2y ago
    Their Wikipedia page in the controversy section lists at least 5 specific examples where they were criticized for direct political messaging - so certainly not a neutral party (whatever that means). Also you seem to think propaganda means “not true” when it more often is true things that promote your interests. What matters is someone is paying to highlight information over other perspectives.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
grandempire 2y ago
Is your claim that Va primarily produces English language learning material and the content is secondary?

throw0101d 2y ago

> What characteristics distinguish “soft power” from propaganda and why is it good? A report from the American Enterprise Institute: > To improve the US government’s response to the exploitation of youth by terrorist groups, the report recommends (1) adopting clear criteria to be used in weighing young peoples’ vulnerability to radicalization and recruitment and in creating and targeting terrorism prevention programs, (2) fostering both attitudinal and behavioral change to build youth resilience to recruitment, (3) moving beyond a traditional focus on young men to confront the radicalization and recruitment of girls and young women, and (4) engaging the family as a potential site of radicalization and recruitment. * https://www.un.org/sexualviolenceinconflict/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/report/tackling-terrorists-exploitation-of-youth/Tackling-Terrorists-Exploitation-of-Youth.pdf https://www.un.org/sexualviolenceinconflict/wp-content/uploa... For example: > Cuts to health and food programs that wind up costing lives will embitter affected populations and be exploited in propaganda by anti-American groups. This will have at least a moderate effect in boosting recruitment by terrorist organizations. * https://www.newsweek.com/islamic-state-will-capitalize-after-musks-doge-shutters-usaid-2031069 https://www.newsweek.com/islamic-state-will-capitalize-after...

hermitcrab 2y ago

All countries are in continual struggle for influence, to further their own interests. Doing this through soft power means (student exchanges, radio programs, films, music, building roads, blue jeans etc) is surely preferable to doing it through violent means. If the US reduces it's soft power, then no doubt it's influence will wane compared to other countries.

grandempire 2y ago
I don’t follow the argument that if we don’t do this then we must have boots on the ground. We don’t have to do either one.
- hermitcrab 2y ago
  You can do neither. Then other countries (e.g. China) will happily fill the vacuum. The Chinese aren't building all those hospitals, roads and bridges in other countries out of pure altruism.