Propaganda isn't usually fear of the government. Instead, propaganda persuades that the government is right. Stalin certainly used propaganda--he touted the Bolshevik idea and persuaded many that only his leadership could keep the ideal pure. In the meantime, he murdered millions and kept fear ever-present in the Soviet Union. Interestingly enough, most of the people who died and went to the camps believed that if Stalin just knew what was going on, he'd save them. That is propaganda--the ability to make the manipulated population believe in you even as you are murdering them.
2007-04-20 16:41:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by Still reading 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Propaganda usually requires the population to be in a state of fear, and therefore it often has an aim of heightening or creating fear (like the War on Terror).
Communism, like most social movements, quickly identified propaganda as a major element (today, we call it 'spin' or 'news')- 'Peace, Land and Bread' was an effective Bolshevik slogan from World War 1. Those in power will always have control over the conventional mechanisms of public information, either by formal control in the period to the 1930s, or through alliances with a tiny number of media owners, and the politicisation of public information, today. So a rival source of information has to be provided- otherwise you'd be relying on everyone to think the same thing at the same time by coincidence.
Modern spin, PR and advertising all use the methods pioneered by Stalin and Hitler.
So Stalin inherited a sophisticated propaganda machine, and he built on it. There are many books highlighting his techniques and methods- in particular he spent the first part of his reign marginalising his rival, Leon Trotsky, and a lot of this focussed on Stalin presenting himself as the true heir to Lenin's legacy (Lenin died in IIRC 1922 and was made into a big hero). Later, when he killed rivals, he would often have old photographs remanufactured- removing the 'villains'.
Much of the inspiration for George Orwell's classic 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' was Stalin-era manipulation of information, both by Stalin and by other communist parties in Europe. Fascist methods were little different, and today we see very sophisticated machines all around us- explaining why Osama Bin Laden is a freedom fighting hero (1992), then an evil psychopath (2001). Or why Saddam Hussein needed to be given military support and bio warfare germ cultures (1982), then disarmed as a reckless and imminent threat (2006). Or why global warming is unproven scaremongering (2005), then an important issue to address with nuclear power and ethanol (2007).
Much of Stalin's mid-term propaganda was simply uniting people behind his 5-Year Plans which modernised Russia, and which caused many Russians to see Stalin as a good man and an achiever. Stalin's role was always emphasised, creating a 'cult of personality'- a situation where people will agree with something just because of the individual who says it. This is ideal because then actual policies can be reversed without people seeing a problem.
In WW2 Stalin's propaganda took a different tack because he had to accept few Russians would fight out of love for Stalin himself. Propaganda focussed on ancient notions of protecting mother Russia, the creation of hero-cults around resistance fighters murdered by the Nazis, and on demonising the Germans.
Although Stalin used fear directly to control people, I would not say this was a form of propaganda in itself. But certainly, he used propaganda to support and justify his evil, and to persuade people to accept it.
2007-04-20 19:33:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by llordlloyd 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Stalin used propaganda to force the people to accept his ideals. Every form of learning (schools, lierature, arts, mass media, parades, and military demonstarions) taught that stalin's ideas were the only ones to blieve.
2007-04-20 16:42:52
·
answer #3
·
answered by Cutie 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
certainly the whole of a dictatorship is about selling a bad product fear on every level of a totalitarian state there where block captains that reported to the regular police andthe party members were also spys and the military operated in the country its own GRU system of inteligence officers and then there was the KGB outside butt hey still operated inside the borders picking up traitors in the night , for outside executions they used the albanians and the east german stasi as killers and spys and later the cubans as mecenaries to help spread communism or stalinism to other countries in all area of the world stalin killed more folkes than hitlers troops in his progroms against disidents and others
2007-04-20 16:45:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes. Fear is not the same as propaganda. Fear may have been the focus of the propaganda, but that is different.
2007-04-20 16:41:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Fear is not a form of propaganda, it is a necessary quality of a government. Fear comes in the form of the police when you're guilty, etc. Propaganda is by definition not entirely truthful. Fear is truthful. If you **** with the governments laws, they will **** you up.
2007-04-20 16:46:11
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Hm, that's strange, because I seem to recall Chomsky saying something to the effect that 'even to enter into the arena of debate about whether or not the Holocaust took place is already to have lost one's humanity." I believe the statement you are referring to came from Chomsky's argument that if a person denies the Holocaust that person should not therefore go to prison. Furthermore, as it is important to protect the freedom of academic inquiry (even ridiculous inquiry such as denying the Holocaust) it is important to acknowledge that questioning the historical validity of a claim of genocide does not necessarily indicate a prejudice of the inquirer against the group making the claim. That is, in theory, one could have crackpot reasons for doubting the Holocaust without also being an anti-Semite. I happen to agree with that. However, assuming that I accept this phrase outside of its original context, and dropping everything that I know about Chomsky (who was raised Jewish, and whose father was a Hebrew school teacher), I think it's pretty obvious that denying the Holocaust usually indicates anti-Semitism.
2016-05-20 00:51:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Oh yeah. His blood purges put anyone in fear of losing their lives. He purged anyone that he felt threatened his position in power in Russia.
What I can remember is that he used propaganda posters as well as films made by Sergei Eisenstein.
2007-04-20 17:15:54
·
answer #8
·
answered by chrstnwrtr 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes but the first time propaganda was used on an extremely large scale was Hitler.
2007-04-20 16:41:54
·
answer #9
·
answered by fruitylil'me 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
It can be used as such. Like in the present so called War on Terror
2007-04-20 17:59:04
·
answer #10
·
answered by brainstorm 7
·
2⤊
0⤋