About propaganda, ideology and information superiority of the USA
It is difficult to disagree with B. Dzherilievsky and that:
But the question is: where do we get this very “single propaganda paradigm”?
What is propaganda? It is, in essence, a tool for the formation of public opinion. Which, in fact, leads this very opinion to a single denominator - the goal of propaganda is to form a unified opinion on any issue (or many issues) in the overwhelming majority of the population. And, strictly speaking, at first glance, propaganda seems to be unrelated to ideology. After all, ideology is a system of ideas about the structure of society and the state. That is, ideology draws us such a picture of what our being should be now and in the future, and what we should strive for and dream about. Ideology can be promoted in order to achieve an increase in the number of people who share it. Propaganda may be part of ideology — for example, part of the Soviet ideology was the enlightenment of the working class in other countries. But in general, ideology and propaganda correlate with each other in much the same way as the product and its advertising campaign.
But this is only at first glance. In fact ...
Take the same advertisement. Any advertising campaign is focused on a specific group of the population and must take into account their interests, life and presentation. A simple example is that there is no point in advertising mayonnaise of economy class, claiming that it gives a unique taste to lobsters. Just because the target audience, that is, the majority of potential buyers of such mayonnaise have never eaten these lobsters, or at least have no lobsters in their regular diet. In general, advertising should be customer-oriented: that is, it is designed for a certain group of people who have (at a minimum) similar needs and opportunities to meet them, and better - similar interests, and so on. Generally speaking, one of the most important tasks of an advertiser is to identify the target audience and its interests - an error in this important matter with the rare exception leads to the ineffectiveness of the advertising campaign as a whole.
So, with propaganda, oddly enough, everything is the same way. It effectively affects only a society that has some common, similar interests and perceptions. Let us explain this with an example.
Take the reunification of Crimea with Russia. Our propaganda presented this process as it is - that is, the return of a part of our country that was torn away from Russia and was once artificially separated and who did not accept this and did not want to become part of another society. Thus, the annexation of Crimea is a restoration historical justice, and, at the same time, accomplishing the will of the overwhelming majority of Crimean residents who want to become Russian people again. This is exactly how the act of the annexation of Crimea was presented to us by our official propaganda.
And now let's imagine how this propaganda had an effect on the bearers of various ideologies existing in our country. Let us take the rank-and-file members of the LDPR and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation — namely, the rank-and-file members (and not the leadership of parties whose interests, alas, do not always coincide with the declared ideology), which fully share the ideology of their party.
I must say that the ideologies of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Liberal Democratic Party are essentially antagonistic. The Liberal Democratic Party, in favor of liberalism and democracy, categorically rejects communist ideology and Marxism. Well, the communists of the Russian Federation, like the communists of the USSR before that, retain the rejection of capitalism, although they have to make some compromises with it. Nevertheless, despite all the difference in ideology, both the communist and a member of the LDPR rejoice in the return of the Crimea to the Russian Federation. Why?
Because, despite the antagonism of ideologies, both the LDPR and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, oddly enough, have a certain common basis, a commonality of a number of global goals. Both the liberal-democratic ideology (performed by the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia) and the communist ideology seek to restore to Russia the status of a great power, make it a powerful and prosperous state. That is, in this case, both the Liberal Democratic Party and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union have the same goal, but differ in the ways of achieving it. Without a doubt, the return of the Crimea to Russia contributes to the revival of Russia as a great power, and therefore it is warmly welcomed by an ordinary member of the Liberal Democratic Party and an ordinary communist.
Thus, we see that the official propaganda of the event in the form in which it was applied, caused a similar reaction from representatives of antagonistic ideologies - but only because, despite the contradictions, there are common goals in the ideologies of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Liberal Democratic Party.
And now let's imagine a kind of classic domestic “Westerner” of the 90's times with its basic set of ideological attitudes: he lives in “this country”, which is forever behind 500 years from the democracies of the West, in which there was no, there is no and never will be good Is that crazy enough in the West to buy something, but they will still immediately break or lose ... Neglect of fellow citizens is combined with fawning on foreigners. Any failure of Russia is perceived by him with gloating: well, of course, here it is, confirmation of the correctness of his point of view! Any achievement is declared a lie or propaganda, because in "this country" there can be nothing good, and if it does appear, see the first paragraph.
Could our official propaganda affect such a citizen? Yes, not at all. The concept of patriotism is alien to him, because it is “fables for cotton”, but the fact that people of the whole peninsula of their own will wish to become part of “this country” is generally wild and speaks only of the mental inferiority of the population of Crimea. Well, or that they were actually forced to enter Russia by force, at gunpoint. Accordingly, our official propaganda will not cause anything like a contemptuous and vile smile at such a person.
Or take another person, say, a small-scale entrepreneur, who was in grief and with thugs on 90, and with government agencies, who was disappointed in everything and lived by the principle: "Here I am and my family, I will take care of them, and the rest of the world will be me damn it and I didn't give a damn about it from a high tower. ” Will he rejoice at the patriotic rhetoric when the Crimea returns? No, it will not, he is from this neither cold nor hot.
Generally speaking, official propaganda can affect such people. But for this it will need to be completely rebuilt. It is better not even to mention patriotism, historical justice and other things, but to stick out the economic benefits of such a reunion (if they are not there, come up with it!). In general, something in this style: “We returned the Crimea and now we do not need to pay rent to Ukraine, we do not need to spend money on the construction of the base fleet in Novorossiysk, we “squeezed” first-class shipyards from an independent one, now the Russians will have an affordable vacation in the wonderful Crimean resorts, the stalls will be filled up with fruits from the sunny Crimea, Crimean wines will become cheaper, and in general it’s very European, let’s recall the unification of Germany, Germany and East Germany, the fall of the Berlin Wall ”, etc. etc.
Something like this may affect some of the strings in the souls of the “Westerner” and “disappointed”, but you need to understand that such propaganda will cause a feeling of rejection and disgust in a communist and a member of the Liberal Democratic Party, whose reaction we have analyzed earlier. The patriot, of course, will still rejoice at the return of Crimea, but he will be abhorred by such a purely utilitarian position of the government, voiced officially. “We count all rubles, but don't you care about people?” Who do they take us for ?! ”- such feelings would be caused by such propaganda.
But what is interesting is that neither the patriotic nor the “utilitarian” form of propaganda will in any way affect the senses ... say, a certain Tatar who was instilled in extreme nationalist ideas and who dreams of separating Tatarstan into an independent state. For him, Russia is an oppressor, and no reinforcement of such a person will please: he, of course, is a patriot ... but only of another country.
And what have we come to?
But to what. We see that to win the information war (or at least to achieve a certain parity, in which we do not allow foreign propaganda to wash our brains), we must oppose our own centralized propaganda. But propaganda will only be effective when it is focused on a group of people who have similar views on the structure of the state. Thus, official propaganda will be successful among a large part of the country's population, if this population is united by some common views, general ideas about the state structure, life goals, the country in which they live ...
In other words, it will be united by a common ideology. But how then is the freedom of speech, will and so on? After all, state ideology is a direct path to monopolization of power, the elimination of a multi-party system, the end of democracy, etc. etc.? And what about the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article No. 13 of which reads:
2. No ideology can be established as a state or mandatory.
3. The Russian Federation recognizes political diversity, multi-party system.
4. Public associations are equal before the law.
5. The creation and activity of public associations whose goals or actions are aimed at changing the foundations of the constitutional system and violating the integrity of the Russian Federation, undermining the security of the state, creating armed groups, inciting social, racial, national and religious hatred are prohibited. "
Dead end?
It looks like yes. But let's see how the Americans dealt with this.
In the US, there are a lot of political parties of various kinds. We used to talk about the United States as a two-party system, but there are enough “third parties”: the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Independent Party, etc. There is freedom of speech, and there is a lot of this freedom. That is, having arrived in the US and fluent in English, you can turn on the TV and find a channel to your liking - the one where, for example, the current US President D. Trump is praised, or the one that gets him in the mud, or which gives a more balanced or neutral assessment of its activities.
The US parties do not duplicate each other at all - their Democrats and Republicans are still antagonistic. Interestingly, many Americans do not vote for a particular candidate for the presidency of the United States - they vote for the one who nominated the party they sympathize with. And it is worth remembering the division into states, and the very broad powers that these states enjoy - here and various laws that are in force in some states, but not in others (up to the death penalty!), Fundamentally different judicial systems (in most states English law is in effect, but in Louisiana there is a Roman-Germanic), and so on.
It would seem that, with such pluralism and polarity in the opinions of the United States, they would simply be doomed, falling under the influence of hostile propaganda: the split of society, one might say, is guaranteed. Meanwhile, we see the opposite picture: despite the many parties, internal contradictions, freedom of speech, etc., the US society is very, very monolithic, and very resistant to external information influences.
How so?
A very simple. The fact is that with all the breadth of American pluralism, this pluralism is contained within certain limits that every American literally absorbs with mother's milk. What is it beyond these? Here are their main points:
1. United States of America - Great Country. With two big letters, yes.
2. USA is the coolest in the world. Point.
3. Sometimes other countries manage to do something better than the Americans (Japanese - cars, Russians - rockets, etc.). But compared to the US, they are still losers, because ... see p. 2.
4. The United States has become so cool because they have a democracy. Some other countries also have democracy, and they are also cool, but the Americans are anyway cooler, because American democracy is the most democratic democracy in the world.
5. Every citizen of the United States has rights - they are given to him from birth, he knows them well and knows how to achieve their execution. And even has the right to own weapons and apply it in defense of your rights.
6. Since all US citizens have rights, they are all equal. Black, white, yellow and green (from drugs). But some citizens were previously not equal and were persecuted on a national, gender or any other basis. The United States is very ashamed of this, and they feel guilty in front of those who were previously persecuted. Such persecution in the United States is now and forever strictly forbidden.
7. Once all citizens are equal, then the law is the same for all, and its violations are unacceptable. But you need to understand the nuances. For example, if you saw how your neighbor got into a drunken car and reported this regrettable fact to the police, you are an exemplary citizen. But if your neighbor is a Negro, then you are most likely just a Nazi and a Kukluksklanovets. However, if you manage to zakosit under the face of gay sex, then maybe you are still an exemplary citizen, but this is how the court will decide. But he can decide in any way, because if at the trial it turns out that the Negro is “blue”, then you should be a Nazi, with no options. And since the Negro is easier to follow under the “blue” than the “blue” under the Negro, then, unless you yourself are African American, your work is definitely losing, and therefore you should not start.
8. A US citizen should be successful. Success is measured by the money you earn and your material wealth. However, the concept of "success" in America does not divide the country into "millionaires" and "losers", because it is tied not only to absolute, but also to relative values: the concept of "success" applies both to those who have reached transcendental heights and for those who are just getting better than they were before. In other words, the scavenger loader who became the driver of the garbage truck is, in a way, successful. And the overall success of citizens is the basis of success of the United States as a superpower.
9. Professionalism is one of the formulas for success. The United States respects the pros - only by becoming a professional can you succeed in your chosen occupation, i.e. to be successful.
10. A US citizen loves his country, because in no other country in the world can he be so free, have so many rights and be as successful as possible for him in the USA. This is called the American way of life, and it is the best of the best.
All of the above can be called ... but somehow. A national idea, for example. Over-ideology if you want. But the above-mentioned postulates unite Americans, give them a single basis, turn them into a society of like-minded people at a certain macro level, and all these party republican, democratic, libertarian and other ideologies are a step down. Because, no matter how antagonistic the ideologies of the same Democrats and Republicans, they generally recognize all the above 10 points and do not go beyond them.
That is, as in the example of ordinary members of the Liberal Democratic Party and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the antagonism of ideologies does not manifest itself for the purposes of parties (for example, both Democrats and Republicans want to see the United States as a successful superpower, they advocate the preservation of the “American dream”, "They do not give offense to blacks, more precisely, allow them to offend whites with impunity, etc.), and in the means to achieve these goals.
Of course, not everyone in the United States unconditionally shares the above-mentioned 10 points of their national idea. But those who share, the majority, and, one can say, the vast majority. Thus, despite the many parties, the US society, in general, is united in the perception of what the state in which they live should be, what are the goals, roles, rights and duties of the citizens of this state.
This, in turn, means that American society is a single target audience for centralized, official propaganda. And, of course, the US government uses it quite effectively, presenting certain events in the world so that it is understandable and acceptable to US citizens. In other words, the United States has a state ideology, a national idea, if you like, and, although we can chuckle at its individual postulates, it is shared by most Americans. At the same time, official American propaganda, of course, is strictly focused on this audience. That is, in fact, the reason that our attempts with RT and similar broadcasting facilities in the USA are more like attempts of a mosquito to forget the rock festival. Possessing a national idea and not stopping to use the methods of modern propaganda, the United States, in fact, is an invulnerable bastion of information warfare.
And we? Alas, nothing can be said about the Russian Federation. The reason is very simple - we managed to confuse the concepts of pluralism of opinions and national ideas. In the US, there is a set of rules that are not discussed and for the attempt on which you can easily fall behind bars: this is a national idea. But here ways of its realization are discussed - here pluralism and freedom of speech. There is freedom of ideology of any parties, but! Exactly as long as this ideology does not go beyond the framework outlined by the national idea. We have no national idea - we did not create it and destroyed the very possibility of its occurrence by the 13 article of the Constitution, confusing the national idea with party ideologies.
Thus, we have not created the prerequisites for the emergence of Russia as a society united by some sort of common ideas. And this is very bad, and for many reasons ...
To be continued ...
Information