anarchist of love wrote: Sat Feb 28, 2026 3:55 amSo why is there a distinction made between "influence" and "propaganda"?
They are not two separate things. Propaganda is the attempt to influence/persuade groups of people (or an entire population) in specific directions, and often (though not necessarily) it is a tool of the state. Are more people needed in STEM fields? You use propaganda. Do you need more people to join the military? You use propaganda. Propaganda is often not very persuasive at the level of individual people, but thanks to its broad reach it often (though not always) manages to persuade enough people to fulfill its purpose.
During the pandemic, for example, there was propaganda (at least in my country) to push people to get vaccinated. Many people were persuaded by it (not me, but only because I was already in favor of vaccination and that propaganda was rather ridiculous), others less so.
Then there are all kinds of propaganda, from religious ones to those promoted by groups with economic, ideological, and other interests. More or less persuasive, each with the aim of steering the population toward certain ideas. Which, ideally, would also be nice for us to do regarding the topics discussed in this forum.
Essentially, propaganda refers to the intentionality and the approach.
With you, I am not engaging in propaganda; what I write is not intended to change society’s behavior in any particular direction. But does it influence? Of course. Not necessarily in the way I would like, but anyone who reads what I write will be influenced by it—positively, negatively, or simply by forming a judgment about me as a person.
"Propaganda is an intrinsically undemocratic weapon using half-truths, limited truths, and truth out of context with a purpose to agitate or integrate [into a hidden program or agenda], not inform or promote understanding. Because of this, propaganda is a greater danger to mankind than any other grandly advertised threat hanging over us." --Jacques Ellul
I don’t agree.
Not only can propaganda be based on truthful facts and build a truthful narrative around them, but what you describe is not an exclusive property of propaganda—it applies to any act of persuasion, any form of influence, and perhaps even any dialogue. The very arguments we construct—can we be sure they aren’t half-truths? Are we certain we aren’t embellishing them, consciously or unconsciously, to present our own personal version of reality in the most convincing way?
I believe it is impossible to address a broad audience without the discourse being propagandistic, because I think such communication is intrinsically so. I can reconsider the point about a hidden agenda. But what exactly could that mean?
Let’s take the example of a hypothetical propaganda campaign aimed at increasing the number of graduates in STEM fields. The messaging might focus on individual benefits: job security, the prestige of doing something useful and tangible (with a perspective that downplays other fields such as history or the social sciences, and so on). Is there a hidden agenda? Well, the underlying goal might be to build a domestic market around specific technologies in order to compete with certain foreign countries.
It’s not contradictory, it’s not necessarily harmful… and perhaps it’s not even that hidden. It simply isn’t part of the overt narrative of the propaganda. I don’t see it as something negative.
I apologize for not reading the link, but you shared a really large amount of material. I promise, however, that I will read some of it, and I’ll let you know if it leads me to change my mind drastically.
Anyway, to NOT have a working knowledge of HOW coercion works THRU-OUT Western Societies (and their colonies) is to find oneself trapped in deadening-ends like sacrificing ones' life for corporate profits (i.e. recall USMC general Smedley Butler's book War Is A Racket, where he exposes how most of the wars he fought were to protect transnational business interests!!).
And is this really relevant? I mean, I agree that all wars are fought for some kind of interest and for someone’s benefit, and that not all conflicts necessarily serve the “nation” itself, but perhaps contracts, companies, and so on—maintaining the flow of money for certain interest groups. Citizens spend money, and it won’t come back to them with interest if they win the war. But is this really important to everyone who goes to war? Are we sure this worldview applies to them as well? That they feel this disgust toward tangled networks of interests belonging to individuals whose names they don’t even know?
Of course, some people go to war with the idea of protecting their nation, but others go as instruments, or for the purely personal reasons I mentioned earlier. For the mindset. To build their character. To escape from home. Because they didn’t feel like studying and didn’t want to look for a job. Not everyone necessarily has the same priorities, and not everyone gives importance to the same things.
And if a teenager is persuaded to pursue that kind of career instead of another, well… good for him? He will have his experience, the consequences of his individual choice, even if he was persuaded by propaganda, even if that propaganda was aggressive. Well, at least as long as there isn’t an explicit obligation, as there usually is in wartime.
And how many of these young people grow up hating themselves despite their alternative knowledge? How many grow into groanup-hood Trusting unaccountable Authority? This is BECAUSE they/we all are immersed in a system of thought control and thought management!
I don’t see anything inherently negative in hating oneself; but on that point I would end up going in a completely different direction from what you probably mean. I think it’s normal, and if someone wants to place blind trust in someone irresponsible who serves as a reference authority (and honestly I have difficulty imagining a teenager who considers something faceless to be an authority—I’m increasingly convinced that the greatest act of persuasion comes from the people around them rather than from the state—but let’s suppose a situation in which a trusted teacher acts as that authority and serves as a mouthpiece for state propaganda)… for me, that’s fine. For me, choosing whom to trust is also a personal choice.
Well, there are certainly anarcho-propagandists, but the form i promote openly demystifies [...]
I admit, it’s perhaps a bit unfair to put them on the same level. Traditional political forces certainly have larger budgets and a much greater presence in the media. But despite that, I’ve always had an anarchist in my class, and there has always been an online presence as soon as you enter some kind of niche. (Even if they weren’t propagandistic anarchists—and it’s also true that, as students at the time, no one was really trying to propagate anything.)
So i merely seek to expose this covert coercion in all its forms!
For me, coercion must be concrete to be considered as such: there must be an actual act of violence, threat, intimidation, and so on. Trying to think of possible variations, I wouldn’t consider, for example, the threat of hell by a religion for behaviors deemed immoral as coercion. (Divorce, theft, homosexual relationships, etc.) There is a threat, it’s true, but it is primarily based on adherence to a certain worldview. Is the consequence of violating rules that a person can perfectly well ignore without real-world repercussions truly a threat?