Propaganda

George Orwell, whilst writing his essay Charles Dickens, penned an insightful perspective regarding the nature of propaganda:

All art is propaganda … On the other hand, not all propaganda is art.

Bertrand Russell, by contrast, provided yet another insight:

Propaganda, if it can create an almost unanimous opinion, can generate an irresistible power.

These two definitions were written, respectively, in 1939 and 1938; thereby presenting an almost equal overlap in historical context. Both definitions are sound and both advance the notion of propaganda with tremendous insight.

Propaganda, however, has changed immensely since that time.

The image above and to the left, conveys some understanding of the ‘archetypes’ of early twentieth century propaganda: recruitment during the world wars, patriotism, civil aid, and the denigration of a common ‘enemy’. These archetypes have remained in the popular mindset. Indeed, if asked to define ‘propaganda’, or provide an example of ‘propaganda’, one might immediately conjure up images of Nazi Germany, the British Home front, etc.

The world, growing ever more sophisticated, and having advanced since those days, has, naturally, sought to advance the agitprop form. One might consider the colossal importance of advertising in this regard. One needs, thus, only consider a public transport ticket, cinema ticket; baseball cap, shoes, jeans; stationary, computers, and so on, to find magnificent examples of the settings in which propaganda has been imprinted.

Indeed, one might seek to divide propaganda into two principal forms (if this notion of a diverse array of ‘propaganda’ is accepted,) including: propaganda of the State, and that of Commerce. Both Orwell and Russell soundly encapsulate the modes of communication in this respect.

A further question might now be posed, however. Which is worse? The State’s propaganda, or the agitprop of Commerce? The first led to international and civil chaos. But did not the other, as well? Transnational corporations, through advertising, continue to exploit poorer nations and the sway of popular products can lead to civil war through economic dichotomies. This author believes that the two ‘modes’ of propaganda are equally responsible for the modern social disorder present in the world, today.