Art and the propaganda to build a new society

“All art is propaganda. It is universally and inescabably propaganda; sometimes unconsciously, but often deliberately, propaganda.”  Upton Sinclair 

(All images are public domain, click upon them to see them in larger form.)

Art is a means of expression.  Creative ways of presentation can draw new ideas, and new perspectives.   Or art can serve the corporate state and allow and encourage the state to dictate values, ideas, and desires, or more, create a new version of the history of that state.  Beyond that, the corporate state can cause a false memory to grow.

“The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.” Adolf Hitler

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”  George Orwell

Human minds wander, gathering recollections and beliefs, and a disciplined presentation of a certain few points can cause the mind of an individual to believe in, but actually remember falsehood.

Not every piece of propaganda by a state is wrong, necessarily, but causing people to believe in space exploration isn't an enormous or great thing. Most consider exploration and space to be a fine thing.  But add space exploration which is a far off desire to that of the presentation that the state can only grow and serve more people if you accept its version of reality, means, getting people to agree that space exploration is great is not the point, but, the concept is, only by following the Soviet leadership can we achieve this great goal.  Of course we think the environment deserves saving, we only have one planet.  But, saying such through the auspices of the Soviet state means, only by supporting the state can we save the planet.

The Soviet Union was not, necessarily aimed at evil goals.  The rise of the collective state is meant, at least in the theoretical, to be a beneficial spreading of the resources to all the people, rather than to the wealthy, the elite or the powerful.  In practice we know that the truth was quite different.  The state served the political elite.  Does that mean we should declare all of the state bad?  In this case, we should at the very least recognize that the corporate state killed anyone who disagreed with it.  It starved 5-8 million Ukranians who refused to go along with farm collectivism.

You might rightly think that one failed experiment doesn't remove the rightness of the goal.  But in practice collectivism does not work.  It hasn't worked.  The small European states that had a working socialist model had a small population, a generally ethnically similar population, and most of these efforts ended up failing.  Cherry picking the results leads to a overly bright view of collectivism.

"Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both."  Martin Luther King, Jr.

I might here be accused of suggesting I think Communism is evil. I think how it was practiced was evil.  Do I throw in Socialism with the Communist failures?  No, but, I think we have ignored the mass insanity it often requires to make it work.  If you tore the theories apart as people tear apart capitalism, you might end up thinking nothing works.  And the truth is, there are reasons why capitalism works that are often ignored.  Did the US grow economically due to pure capitalism?  No.  It grew upon the backs of tobacco and cotton farmers and the availability of cheap, indeed, even slave labor.  If you think slavery would have been removed if it wasn't a waning economic boon, well, you need to reassess your view.

But maybe, if it makes you feel better, I should be seen as thinking economics are rarely moral agents.  Distribution of wealth often follows how much or little the citizens desire wealth.  My values are not conducive to being a participant in any society.  And if you suggest I deserve to starve or not thrive as a result?  Ok.  I think humans have systems that require exploitation, wherever monetary wealth is concerned.

“There is nothing in the record of the past two years when both Houses of Congress have been controlled by the Republican Party which can lead any person to believe that those promises will be fulfilled in the future. They follow the Hitler line - no matter how big the lie; repeat it often enough and the masses will regard it as truth.” John F. Kennedy

Art that expands the state and the corporate state's ideology serves a master that we should be wary of, and distrust the message.

“It is possible to argue that the really influential book is not that which converts ten millions of casual readers, but rather that which converts the very few who, at any given moment, succeed in seizing power. Marx and Sorel have been influential in the modern world, not so much because they were best-sellers (Sorel in particular was not at all a widely read author), but because among their few readers were two men, called respectively Lenin and Mussolini.”  Aldous Huxley