5 ms·
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 alternat
by 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 agoInterests 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.
- jltsiren 2y agoI don't understand what you are trying to say. People often change their minds. Sometimes when the situation changes, sometimes as a response to incentives, and sometimes because they have thought about the matter and learned something new. And when enough people change their minds, entire countries change their minds. The world order the US marketed during the Cold War was very attractive, and many countries tried to join it voluntarily. Some of them succeeded and some didn't. The US used various means to advance its interests, but that doesn't mean every other country was just a bunch of mindless zombies with no agency and no ability to make choices. Sometimes people just make a choice, because it's objectively better than the alternatives that are available.
- jmye 2y ago> 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". So no country should do anything to interact with its neighbors and all diplomacy is a waste of time? I should never try to convince you that my opinion is right because what if you disagree? What a strange, insular way to approach international relations.
- slater 2y agoMaybe a better phrasing would be "impose their idea of a world order, with their ideas of democracy, capitalism, and the rule of their laws"
- jmye 2y agoThere is a vast difference between the word I responded to, “build”, and the word you substituted in, “impose”. Hard power and violence “imposes”. Sending you TB vaccines and helping you build roads, well, “builds”.
- slater 2y agoI'm not disagreeing, nor did i claim they're the same word. but your idea of “building” always seems to come with demands, implied or otherwise.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ben_w 2y agoAll nations use all power, soft and hard, to serve their interests, even nations which regard themselves as having the divine role of intermediary between humanity and God e.g. Vatican City, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Soft power doesn't exclude hard power — though it is less painful to be on the receiving end of.