Serious post warning, sleep-deprived wall of text ahead.
Someone who I dare say I respect publicly discouraged joining or supporting Lemmy on the basis of being The Tankie Place, linking this raddle post, a collection of horrifyingly flimsy evidence that Dessalines (lemmy.ml admin, maintainer of the wonderful dessalines.github.io/essays/) is a freedom hating redfash tankie who likes it when the evil CCP genocides uyghurs and bans femboys.
Naturally it all sucks but now i’m investing too many brain cells into thinking: how do you even refute this garbage?
I’m not proud of it, but I was an “anti-authoritarian leftist” too. I unironically said “tankie” once. And if i were told there is no Uyghur genocide, i would react exactly as if they had told me there was no holocaust. To the westerner, China really is as bad as nazi germany and straightforwardly saying otherwise, in their mind, is no different than if you replace Uyghurs with jews and China with germany. When this narrative is so deeply ingrained, how do you fight it? How the hell did I get here?
i really have no idea how to address it when, to them as it once was to me, it is so obviously true that anyone suggesting otherwise is not even worth listening to. these are fundamental beliefs and challenging them is grounds for instant block and report. its not open for discussion. all i can do is hope they find the truth on their own.
i’ll stop rambling now and sleep instead. so i wont respond for a while. sorry if theres a better community to post this in i just needed to get this out before i spontaneously combust. good night comrades.
Here is a good article that I think can help.
Roderick Day - The Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing”
Here are some choice excerpts: “Westerners aren’t helpless innocents whose minds are injected with atrocity propaganda, science fiction-style; they’re generally smug bourgeois proletarians who intelligently seek out as much racist propaganda as they can get their hands on. This is because it fundamentally makes them feel better about who they are and how they live. The psychic and material costs are rationally worth the benefits.”
“I reject only the common misconception that propaganda “manufactures consent” (Chomsky) or “invents reality” (Parenti), because it exaggerates the feat accomplished by propagandists, and, in doing so, it obscures the real material basis that has historically made even the working poor in the imperial core complicit.”
“Let us look at a specific example. A claim like “There’s cultural genocide of Uyghurs in Xinjiang” is simply unreal to most Westerners, close to pure gibberish. The words really refer to existing entities and geographies, but Westerners aren’t familiar with them. The actual content of the utterance as it spills out is no more complex or nuanced than “China Bad,” and the elementary mistakes people make when they write out statements of “solidarity” make that much clear. This is not a complaint that these people have not studied China enough… It’s instead an acknowledgment that they are eagerly wielding the accusation like a club, that they are in reality unconcerned with its truth-content, because it serves a social purpose.”
“Forget about convincing the person in question. Focus instead on finding other people to whom such a case can be made. This will lead you directly to class analysis.”
This helped me refocus and not become so frustrated with trying to “convince” people who have class interests that make it unlikely they will ever change their minds.
deleted by creator
I’ve seen this article linked a bunch and yet again I want to say that it makes an assumption that people are way more self aware than they actually are.
Basically no one is weighing the cost benefit analysis of falling for propaganda.
At best, this encourages a fatalism of political organization, where we morally condemn vast swathes of the population for something they never consciously chose, and at worst, it’s just an example of us convincing ourselves we’re superior to them.
Not to mention all the examples of people saying their minds did change because of exposure to different facts contradicts this article’s thesis.
Edit: Reading the article and finding myself agreeing with it. This is what I get for being a LIB smdh
I don’t think I disagree with the article, but with the conclusions many people draw from it. It’s certainly true that many Western proles are drawn to accepting propaganda, but that isn’t free license to morally judge them.
An example is the common usage of this article to condemn veterans completely. Veterans suck, generally, but this article is completely irrelevant to that discussion. The point of the article is that this process is mostly instinctive, and for us to be able to start using it in moral arguments, it would have to be a conscious process. Otherwise our moral complaints make about as much sense as trying to morally complain about a cat chasing a mouse.
The article isn’t saying that all human beings are rational actors choosing to fall for propaganda in the “marketplace of ideas”. Instead, it’s highlighting the instinctive complicity of the Western proletariat, not to encourage people to morally dismiss it in its entirety or to give up organizing with it, but rather to give us knowledge of the mechanism with which it is convinced out of class solidarity, and therefore how we can interrupt it, clearing up that it is not because the Western proletariat is “unenlightened” or needs a Great Man critic to “snap them out of it”, but because the Western prole’s current material interests are contradictory towards other countries. That is the root of an issue, and, unlike universal magical propaganda, it is an issue we’re able to actually consider solutions to.
I don’t think it is intended to be a moral condemnation. Rather, I think it just points out that approaching people in the imperial core as noncomplicit, brainwashed and unwitting participants in propaganda is a serious error that will lead nowhere and burn out comrades who think that people are one good article or piece of data away from changing their minds. I think Day does a good job relating this back to the western ideological tendency to cast issues as being entirely orchestrated by a cabal of sorts and imposed entirely on a helpless population. I definitely think the author could do a better job of filling in the edges of his argument though.
But these liberal online spaces that OP is talking about are comprised precisely of westerners intentionally seeking out propaganda to reinforce their world view that their system and society is superior. In my view, understanding that these people are making, on some level, a deliberate choice to accept this propaganda indicates that they are not who we should be seeking solidarity with. I think this idea helps avoid frustrations that OP is experiencing and helps us re-orient to find individuals we can actually build movements with.
I agree but I think there is a tendency, though not necessarily present here in full force, to vulgarize this article into an excuse to further separate oneself from the “masses”, and feel even more smugly self-satisfied in one’s superiority
Only thing I vaguely disagree with in the article itself is the author’s random condemnation of depictions of “utopias without work”, which makes sense when you think about it, but comes out of nowhere on first read
A more nuanced (and correct, in my opinion) way to phrase it would be that current depictions of a perfect society without work or suffering create an idealistic image that is nearly impossible to achieve, and cause people to lose hope. However, desiring less work or less suffering are both reasonable goals that we should focus on