Talk:Communist propaganda

This must be a general topic
Please keep in mind that this should be a general article, about common traits of Communist propaganda. For particular states we have Propaganda in the Soviet Union Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, must have Propaganda in Cuba, etc.

Please consider putting more and detailed content into the corresponding national articles, while keeping this one as a summary.

It was a good catch with extermination. It was indeed a common trait of communist propaganda. Please consider other common topics, such as "we are better", "they want to destroy us", etc. (Please keep in mind that many of these topics are common to any propaganda.) 00:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I basically agree with your comments, and you are very welcome to contribute here. This is a really big topic and perhaps too much for me to do. I will try to improve myself this article, but any help would be good.Biophys 03:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * O'K, I will check this and correct as needed.Biophys 22:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Propaganda of extermination"
While the pint is valid, I deleted all "animal" part as original research. All these pigs and rabid dogs is a regular slander you may see anywhere and hrdly specific to "communist propaganda". In any case, you must provide refs to reptable sources which pay attention to this topic. `'Míkka>t 16:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have cited the source, including the number of page. The source (e.g. "Black book" but also other sources) claim that such slander was a typical feature of Communist propaganda in many countries during certain times. There is no any OR here at all. If you think I should cite more reliable sources and elaborate the subject of Communist propaganda representing enemies as sub-human species, this is not a problem. Do you suggest that?Biophys 17:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no doubts as to quotations. The issue is that at these times all Russian politicians used extremely foul language: bolsheviks, SRs, anarchists, white guardists, and everyone called for killing each other. I know extremely aggressive language of Lenin, Trotsky, Vyshinsky and others very well. My point is that you don't provide citation to the generalization: "To achieve this objective, the communist propaganda described "class enemies" as subhuman species or animals." Please provide a reference to a book that discusses dehumanization of targeted enemies as a standard tool of communist propaganda. BTW the "dehumanization" article is extremely poor and you may want to expand it with these examples (provided you find the reference I request here) `'Míkka>t 19:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I checked this. Yest, sources tell that dehumanization of targeted enemies was tool of communist propaganda. Of course, that is only one of many propaganda tools.Biophys 06:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition of the term
"Communist propaganda" obviously refer to propaganda by communists. This is not an opinion of a "Catholic thinker"; this is implied in hundreds of books and other publications. How many of them do you need to "support" this obvious definition. If you think this definition is wrong, please provide another per sources.Biophys (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article defines "Communist propaganda refers to propaganda by communist leaders, states and political parties". I need a source which clarify the statement that it is by "communist leaders, states and political parties" as opposed to by some handful of persons like Stalin or Trotsky. I found no definition of "communist propaganda" in google . May be some people use the term, that does not imply this is a well-defined term used in non-biased scholarly works.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This article should be converted into a redirect to agit-prop. At this point is simply a ranting pov-fork, and I cannot see how any major piece of material of the present state of this article could fit into a encyclopedia. It is remarkable that there is an article titled 'communist propaganda', which hardly decicates a single line to the subject 'communist propaganda' (the correct title of the current material would be some things I don't like about communism). The editors need to understand that 'propaganda' in this case of communism is not to be understood in the connotation of the word propaganda in current Western usage. 'Communist propaganda' was a system of political methodology of mass communication developed by the Bolshevik Party and the Communist International, which has had a deep impact on mass communications, far outside of the communist movement. It cannot be reduced to 'censorship'. --Soman (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. An obvious POV-fork. Relata refero (disp.) 17:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Or a disambiguation page with the Propaganda by country options. Relata refero (disp.) 17:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * - 234,000 hits for "Communist propaganda" and  - 29,300 hits for "anti-communist propaganda". This term is well established.Biophys (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It's a notable concept, just like Nazi propaganda.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Make me laugh, why don't you. Find an academic study that defines what "communist propaganda" is rather than giving me ghits on a phrase. Are we running an encyclopaedia here or a web directory? Relata refero (disp.) 22:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are confusing article pages and talk pages. We are in full our rights to run a web directory in talk pages during the work on article text. I am glad that you are laughing, not crying. Your criticism is useful to prod people to write something, but people are also equally free to start ignoring your bickering which is not helpful. If you can prove that there is no such thing as "communist propaganda", you are welcome to write an article which debunks this myth. `'Míkka>t 23:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have to prove it doesn't or didn't exist. You have to prove that this article is not a POV-fork, and that there are studies that unify all propaganda from Communist sources in such a manner that we can write a single article.
 * Looking at ghits is OK for a web directory, but you need to do the above for an encyclopaedia. Relata refero (disp.) 23:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This term is very widely used but rarely explicitly defined because it is self-explanatory, just like "apple tree". For the purpose of law, it has been defined as follows:


 * "Communist propaganda" means any oral, visual, graphic, written, pictorial or other communication which is issued, prepared, printed, procured, distributed or disseminated by the Soviet Union, any of its satellite countries, or by the government of any other communist country or any agent of the Soviet Union, its satellite countries or any other communist country, wherever located, or by any communist organization, communist action organization, communist front organization, communist infiltrated organization or communist controlled organization or by any agent of any such organization..." .Biophys (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Even it is very long (you quoted only 1/3 of it), it is very narrow, because this law consists of two equally important parts: a ComProp is
 * commie messages
 * aimed at subversion of the United States
 * IMO it may be added to the article as a curiosity, but not really as a definition.
 * By the way, it is amusing how it resembles the Soviet Article 58.10 Anti-Soviet and counter-revolutionary propaganda and agitation! `'Míkka>t 23:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is well known Louisiana law (1962) that was challenged in US court as violating human rights; so yes, it sounds like article 58.Biophys (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)A quote from a Cold War-era Louisiana bill is not particularly encyclopaedic.
 * Oh it is very encyclopedic and interesting to see how oppositions meet. `'Míkka>t 23:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Many phrases are widely used but rarely explicitly defined. Most of those are not because they are not well-defined topics and as such not fit subjects for articles. For example "widely used" gets me 25 million ghits. For all I know, some minor legislature somewhere defined that as well. But its not an encyclopaedic topic, however self-explanatory a phrase. Relata refero (disp.) 23:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously, it is not self-explanatory, since there are two polar views on the term. Also self-explanatory does not mean that there is nothing to write about. Wor example, "2000 United States Census" is very self-explanatory: it is census in the United States year 2K. Some people think this is all you need to know about it to live happily. But some stupid people want to know what exactly this census did. Just the same, people would like to know how ComProp works. `'Míkka>t 23:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are quite comprehensively missing the point. Merely saying a term is widely-used is not a reason to consider it encyclopaedic. No article on Widely Used. Relata refero (disp.) 23:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And you are just the same missing the point that "widely used" is just one but quite important criterion to determine which topics people might be interested to read about or to write about. People are citing ghits not to prove the point but to indicate that quite probably there is something over there for those who are not lazy and can find some serious text.  `'Míkka>t 23:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If its just one criterion, please satisfy the others, or it is irrelevant. Relata refero (disp.) 08:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My main problem with this article is that it doesn't really deal with the subject 'communist propaganda', rather its an essay on censorship, indoctrination and stereotyping. Propaganda is an act of reaching out with a message, censorship is hindering a message to reach others. These two terms should not be confused. The idea of presenting a chapter on the stereotypes in communist discurse is, imho, bluntly included to facilitate analogies with Nazi propaganda, a portrayal done with a pov-pushing purpose. If there were to be an article actually dealing with 'communist propaganda', i.e. uniqueness of communist discurse on propaganda work, style, methods, etc., such an article would be largely duplicating agit-prop. --Soman (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For the fourth time, you obviously don't know what agitprop is. Also, censorship is an important part related to ComProp: it is the way to enhance ComProp by killing everything that speaks differently. Of course, You have to find reliable sources that say so. Indoctrinating is precisely the goal of any politiacal propaganda and stereotyping is a very much used tool of any propaganda. This article is to write specifically which tools and goals are for ComProp. `'Míkka>t 00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please source all this, or I am afraid that it is, again, unimportant. -- Relata refero (disp.) 08:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

PROPOSAL I would like to suggest Biophys, Piotrus &C to disengage from this fruitless discussion and start writing the real article, because obviously will go nowhere. We already see the major objection of Relata: lack of reference to scholar definition. The rest is just bugging. Citing dear Leonid Ilyich: Za rabotu, tovarishchi! (Arbeiten muß, Kameraden! Do pracy, towarzysze! Lao động, tình cảm!) `'Míkka>t 00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there's also the claim that you need to find if there's a well-defined scope for this article. This is the first question asked in academia when a paper is being considered, and it is one that we also expect. -- Relata refero (disp.) 08:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide your understanding what criteria must be met by a "well-defined scope". Otherwise it is a childish bickering: "no it is not"-"yes it is". It would be great if there is a wikipedia policy. If there is none, time to suggest one. This in not the first time such a discussion pops up. `'Míkka>t 14:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree and suggest that you also can contribute to this article.Biophys (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I will see if I can add a section on communist propaganda in Poland in the nearby future.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not write an article on it? That has well-defined scope. -- Relata refero (disp.) 08:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a valid suggestion, but this does not exclude the existing common, umbrella article. Relata's suggestion is like to write an article about birch while rejecting the idea of the article "tree". `'Míkka>t 14:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems in article
--Soman (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC) --Soman (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Communist propaganda is propaganda aimed to advance the ideology of communism.' is incorrect. Communist propaganda is mass communication directed at strengthening the political influence of the communist party. Ideologies are advanced through theoretical debate, not propaganda.
 * Already in the third sentence, the article strays away from its said subject. The section 'In societies with pervasive censorship, the propaganda was omnipresent and very efficient. It penetrated even social and natural sciences giving rise to various pseudo-scientific theories like Lysenkoism, whereas fields of real knowledge, as genetics, cybernetics, and comparative linguistics were condemned and forbidden as "bourgeois pseudoscience". With "truths repressed, falsehoods in every field were incessantly rubbed in in print, at endless meetings, in school, in mass demonstrations, on the radio"', is not only grossly pov (how about the formulations real knowledge, truths repressed?), it confuses communist propaganda (i.e. the propaganda activities of the communist party and its mass organisations) with a general description the political climate of Soviet society. Moreover, to say that communist propaganda gave rise Lysenkoism is completly faulty, and gives the impression as if the propaganda apparatus was a metaphysical force of its own.
 * The next passage relates rather to censorship and repression in the Soviet Union, which is another topic.
 * The last passage relates to the perceived political rewriting of historical texts, again not propaganda as such. Any attempt to say the book X is 'propaganda' is inherently pov.
 * 'Use of Marxist ideology' gives a brief account of M-L worldview at the time, but details on the subject communist propaganda.
 * In the 'Indoctrination of children' chapter, I see only one detail of intrest for the topic of communist propaganda, namely the mythology of Pavel Morozov (albeit the wording 'betrayed' is clearly unsuitable). This is an important example of communist discurse, portrayal of an ideal communist.
 * 'Propaganda of extermination' is laughable, and doesn't really touch on the topic of propaganda as such. To state that the purpose of communist propaganda is to kill people is grossly pov. I would not mind having a description of recurring themes of portrayal in communist discourse (imperialist = octupus, capitalists = fat, etc.), but speculation on intentions like this is unwarranted.


 * Everything you tell here is your personal opinion and not supported by any references. All statements in the article are based on sources. If you think that some specific statement is unsourced, please tell exactly what it is. Are you asking for an exact page? If you think that text is unbalanced, please provide alternative views supported by sources.Biophys (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, source [1] tells that Lysenkoism resulted from the Soviet/Communist propaganda, or perhaps it was a part of this propaganda (I have to check).Biophys (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Look. It would make (some limited) sense to state that Lysenkoism was a theme of Soviet propaganda, but I cannot see how it could have resulted from it. My understanding is that Lysenkoism emerged out of a political climate, where complete accordance (not sure this is the correct wording) between an orthodox understanding of Marxist philosophy and natural sciences was sought for purely political reasons. I don't think these reasons were results from propaganda, rather the propaganda would have reproduced it. --Soman (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda of extermination and The Black Book of Communism
The "Propaganda of extermination" section completely depends on The Black Book of Communism. I am trying to clarify it "According to The Black Book of Communism...", but my edit is reverted by User:Biophys.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it was also said in other books that I included as references. Do you want exact pages or what? If you do, please let me time to check this out.Biophys (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An example of Communist propaganda in wikipedia . Someone wrote about Gulag prisoners:

"As other governments in the world would not tolerate common criminality or betrayal by its citizens, so has the government of USSR retaliated against these criminals by sentencing them to work in labor camps. Most of these criminals were given a chance to realize the error of their ways and to become productive citizens, but most have stubbornly refused. Thus, harsh camp conditions were implemented to deal with these individuals." Biophys (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To lighten the mood
Check for the classic (1950s?) Polish propaganda video about the evil Americans causing hunger in the socialist block by using stealth bombers to drop potato beetles on communist lands... LOL :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Soviet propaganda and communist propaganda
I mostly agree with edits by Mikklai, but it was hardly a good decision to arrange material here "by countries". The books by Conquest and "Black book" are telling about the "Communism" (including Communist propaganda) in general and discuss Soviet Union only as a specific example. I think we should organize material by specific features (such as use of Marxist theory in propaganda, etc.) rather than by countries. The specific examples can be taken for the Soviet Union and other countries. Current placemeny of material fits better "Soviet propaganda" article, rather than this one.Biophys (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I found a large section on Polish wiki, propaganda article, about propaganda in communist Poland. Some of it is rather specific - for example, portrayal of Polish-Russian relations as eternal friendship; censorship of past Polish-Russian conflicts; replacing of the word Soviet (which had a negative connotations) with "radziecki", propaganda against cursed soldiers (pl wiki even has an article on the propaganda term "pl:Zapluty karzeł reakcji"), propaganda against Polosh non-communist icons such as Piłsudski, "success propaganda" of the 1970s and the Gierek era (pl:Propaganda sukcesu). I think we should discuss both propaganda specific features, common in all or most communist countries, as well as propaganda in specific countries (those would have their own subarticles, Polish communist propaganda is not much less notable than agitprop or Chinese communist propaganda, which have their own articles now).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * O'K, let's try this approach and keep the both "Communist-specific" and "by country" sections.Biophys (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK candidate
After votig for the article to "keep" I felt obliged to expand it, so I added a little bit more structural elements to the article after some minimal google searching. (I am increasingly surprized that some people found this topic "nonexistent").

It now occurs to me that by updated rules of WP:DYK it qualifies for DYK nomination, since it was radically rewritten [DYK candidate on April 6/7]. So I would like to ask you to keep expanding it while always supplying reputable references, to avoid unnecessary edit wars, at least until after DYK.

I would also wanted to try and keep it to general discussion, in the way as it goes. I understand that it is tempting to flood this article with numerous examples of communist propaganda, which I am sure very easy to find. I would suggest you all to put these examples (when they are notable and representative) in to the corresponding articles about propaganda in particular countries. Instead, I would suggest to focus here on fleshing out the general structure and scope of this general-purpose article.

Unfortunately, I am of little help in this topic. My insignificant addition was just something rather evident that was on the very surface. Thank you. Mukadderat (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Delimitation
I think its best to talk about propaganda in general, and avoid exemplifications and listings of publications, etc., considered as propaganda, in order to avoid pov judgements. I myself might consider Animal Farm as a piece of propaganda, it was certainly at several occasions used for propagandistic purposes, and I could in a private discussion argue for this position. To include it in a list of 'capitalist propaganda' at wiki, would however, be a pov judgement. --Soman (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Communist press was a centralized tool of propaganda, it's not a POV but the basis of the ideology. It should be compared with the Nazi press (I know too little about the Italian fascist one).Xx236 (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be clarified
Communist_propaganda section lists English titles: Daily News, Demokratis, Polish Review. I am not familiar with them. Were they English language publication, or are they English translations of Polish language news? The largest Polish communist newspaper, for the record, was Trybuna Ludu.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The list should start with Pravda and other leading Soviet titles. It should also include Communist newspapers and journals outside the Soviet block and KGB controlled newspapers quoted as Western press.Xx236 (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly. That said, such a long list perhaps should be split off from the article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I oppose listification, as previously stated. Rather the article should explain the concept of the relations between communist parties and its organ, seeing the communist press as a propaganda weapon. The first of the Twenty-one Conditions quite well describes this concept. --Soman (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's true that the number of propaganda newspapers and journals was above 1000 and is still growing. So yes, the current list shoud be moved to another article(s). But Pravda was important as the central title, and a number of other newspapers and journals in different cathegories should be also mentioned, to show different methods, e.g. PAX press in Poland adressed to Polish nationalists, RC believers.Xx236 (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Education section
Perhaps this can be of use, either here or in the targeted merge articles? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it can be used here. As a side note, this "Communist propaganda" article is boring.Biophys (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Communist propaganda was terribly boring, especially Władysław Gomułka's speaches.Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding section "Propaganda in East Germany"
I suggest this new section because one is currently not available. I've searched a bit but no article even came close to any details relating to DDR propaganda. If someone would mind starting it, that would be much appreciated!  Letter  7  00:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Imperialist propaganda
How come we have article about communist propaganda, and not about imperialist propaganda, which is still extremely influential? Imperialist ideology changed from racism to nationalism, and White man burden and other similar works are examples that racists won Nobel prizes and supported eugenics program. There is not a word about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxond (talk • contribs) 06:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Communist propaganda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006145611/http://www.ptwf.org/Downloads/Ion%20Mihai%20Pacepa%20on%20Soviet%20Union.pdf to http://www.ptwf.org/Downloads/Ion%20Mihai%20Pacepa%20on%20Soviet%20Union.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929143540/http://www.jewishledger.com/articles/2008/11/25/news/on_the_cover/news01.txt to http://www.jewishledger.com/articles/2008/11/25/news/on_the_cover/news01.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091016090852/http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2007apr28_p275408.html to http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2007apr28_p275408.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy people (7360943944).jpg