Propaganda lives and often wins because the state needs it

In reality, propaganda is needed by all states, even the most democratic ones, because any rulers need a single model of reality in the minds of the population, because this makes it easier to control the mass consciousness. The facts are always the same, but they can be interpreted differently. It is easier to control those who think the same way than those who think differently. At least, it is definitely cheaper...

The only question is the methods of combating those whom the state sees as its enemies. Russia, for example, almost automatically repeated the experience of combating “enemies of the people” in 1937, renaming them in our time as “foreign agents”. Now they are not allowed to teach, their books cannot be sold, respectively, printed, since publishers will not print what cannot be sold. And lastly, those who left are not allowed to use the money earned in Russia, they can only be kept in a special account. So, an apartment left in Moscow cannot be rented out and lived on this money either.

There is already an anecdote that reflects this new reality:

— Good afternoon, you are being harassed by the authorities. We would like you to return to Russia.

— No.

— But you can be stripped of your ranks.

— I won't come back.

— Your property may be taken away.

— I won't be back anyway.

— A criminal case will be opened against you.

— No.

"We'll put you down."

— I won't come back.

— But why?!

Those who said, spoke, and wrote things that the authorities did not like left, meaning that public communications were thus cleansed of “sedition.” But states have no particular need for people who are critics. They love people only when they generate “correct” thoughts, and it is clear which ones.

The state does not so much censor, but helps to replicate only what it does not interfere with, but helps, which is quite understandable. Historically, this has always been the case and in many ways it remains so today. A person first of all always sees and hears around him what the state wants, the rest of the information is more difficult to get through.

The state does not so much censor, but helps to replicate only what does not interfere with it, but promotes it, which is quite understandable. Historically, this has always been the case and in many ways it remains so today. A person first of all always sees and hears around him what the state wants, the rest of the information is more difficult to get through.

When visible information flows are controlled, the “invisible” ones, where a minimum of people are involved, as in the case of the transmission of a political joke, flourish. Any such official pressure causes an intensive generation of unofficial mini-genres. The oral environment always “flourishes” during periods of increased censorship. Let us recall how in the USSR only jokes could live without censorship, and songs could not, since they were associated with public performance. And the jokes, which were then called “anti-Soviet”, were quite witty, it must be admitted.

The state does not like those who cause it trouble. Even the famous Soviet song “In the dugout”, for example, was once banned, because the words “it is difficult for me to reach you, and four steps to death” were seen as pessimism, as stated in the user article “The absurdities of Soviet censorship: five songs banned in the Soviet era for strange reasons” on the Russian resource “Zen”. The comrade censor was strict but fair, indeed — pessimism.

The Soviet Union, while supposedly a strong state, nevertheless fought excessively not only with ideology, but also with everything that could be seen as manifestations of “Westernness.” Everyone lived with great caution even about words spoken in their own circle, so what can we say about public communications.

The USSR in its heyday fought against everything. They fought against jeans, against the wrong music and youth songs, seeing politics in everything, and dangerously Western politics. In principle, you can ban everything: "Hipsters are arrested on the street for outwardly imitating the bourgeois West and are persecuted in every way by the law. It is not allowed to dance at discos dances that resemble those that are popular in the West at that time. Almost all music associated with the West - rock and roll, jazz, boogie-woogie - also falls under the unofficial ban (the official explanation: it compromised those who listened to it). At the same time, you could go to prison for selling records from your hands. A well-known and interesting way of distributing banned artists, which, although it did not last long, is associated with hipsters, is recording on records from X-ray images ,” writes author Sasha Schneider in an article on the Teletype service “Music Behind the Curtain: The History of the Soviet Underground . ”

The USSR was ideologically oriented, so everything that might seem like a repetition of the West was immediately perceived by ideologists as a threat. True, Marx and Engels were not affected by this, although they were Western scientists... Censorship, and the previous one, was a very important institution that kept all information and virtual flows in ideological purity. Fortunately, neither the multiplication table nor physics and chemistry are ideological in their basis, since airplanes and satellites flew on both sides of the ideological curtain.

But the sphere of leisure has always tried to follow the lead of the West, or rather, even like this: it has tried to repeat the methods of influencing mass consciousness, which have already been tested in the West. Popularity is often built on completely understandable methods. But often these are creative methods, which can cause fear even in the political order.

For this reason, the new always scares all bosses, as the famous phrase “no matter what happens” says. Due to the specifics of the profession, a creative person does the opposite - he is looking for the new. And the new without prior censorship can be dangerous. Their profession constantly takes them beyond the limits of what is permitted. Creativity is always working with the new. Even new songs glorifying Stalin had to have novelty, otherwise they would not be accepted by the mass consciousness.

For this reason, people who create new things always need state supervision. And the state has two tools of this type: either award or imprison. You can’t award en masse, but you can press: “the period of Stalin’s rule over the country is a period of mass repressions against creative people. Of all the musical styles, jazz was especially persecuted, but this was not always observed. Proof of a neutral attitude towards this style was the hit of the thirties “Merry Guys” with Orlova and Utesov in the lead roles. Everything changed after the end of the war, when it became clear that the Soviet Union had a strong rival — the United States of America. Since then, all trends in Western culture have been perceived as hostile ,” writes another author of the Russian resource “Zen” in the article “Beware, censorship: what kind of music did the leaders ban in the USSR.”

Bans are the most important tool in the hands of the authorities. It is very difficult to manage culture. On the one hand, something new is needed, on the other, it must be based on the old. This is how the authorities have to get around it. Banning is, in principle, a safer action for the censor than permission.

Here is one such example: “the concert was probably banned because Shnurov was swearing on stage — according to rumors, Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov listened to the song “Leningrad” just the day before the concert. And Shnurov himself either complained or bragged to his friends: “I have made history. I was canceled in 2002 for censorship reasons,” writes author Katya Arenina in the article “From Letov to Noize MC: A Brief History of Censorship in Russian Music” on the Russian resource “Afisha Daily.”

In a 2007 interview, Shnurov repeated about censorship: "I simply know that the ban still exists. If it didn't exist, some organizers like "Melnitsa" would have long ago made us an offer for a concert in the Palace of Sports or at the stadium. This is not only the situation with "Leningrad", this is the entire policy in the country. Formally, there are no bans, you can talk about anything, but everyone knows that in reality there are bans ," the same article says.

“Accounting and control” was the main Soviet maxim... Without it, production seemed impossible. The state always tried to know everything, including about its citizens. They too had to be kept in check. In 1990, Putin became an assistant to the rector of the Leningrad State University Sobchak after returning from the GDR, being an active KGB employee. Everything was always under control. As was noted, during the putsch, Yeltsin was in Moscow and Korzhakov stood next to him, and Putin stood next to Sobchak in Leningrad... So the “putschists” were protected by the very people they were opposing.

Any state-controlled information, virtual, physical flows simultaneously carry a certain ideological burden that the state requires of them. These demands can be direct and indirect, for example, providing premises in Soviet times, broadcasting, printing and selling a book. The state in this regard acts as a certain “monster” who has everything and is ready to share it for certain actions that it needs. The state shows kindness only to those who praise it: from Sergei Mikhalkov to Nikita Mikhalkov, who are always in favor. And this is a completely natural reaction...

Moreover, even such demands are possible, as Katya Arenina wrote about in the above-mentioned article: “In March 2005, the organizers of the rock-cinema concert “Petersburg Maidan”, at which Russian and Ukrainian bands were supposed to perform, were forced to cancel the event after the inscriptions “Beat the Oranges!” appeared on the concert posters. The concert was scheduled for April 3 - a few days before that, the main sponsor refused to participate, the organizers received phone calls with threats: activists of some movements promised to put up a “barricade squad for the orange plague” and to stage provocations at the concert. “In today’s context, when the Word, and even more so the Song, cannot be apolitical, our task is to provide a platform for the free expression of thoughts and feelings,” explained festival producer Olga Konska. “I wonder how musicians and spectators will behave in such a situation of complete freedom. And the position of ‘no politics’ is unacceptable to us.” This is an irrational blow to the “orange people,” but this is its strength. The rational should be in textbooks, and the emotional should be on the streets.

Censorship is a very sensitive area, and as they say, it's always better to be safe than sorry. Here's an example:

“Once upon a time, such an incident happened. On December 31 (it seems to be 1982), the newspaper “Pravda” published photos of the ensemble “Verasy”, Sofia Rotaru and Oleg Popov with the announcement: today, leading artists of the Soviet and foreign pop scene will perform at “Blakytny Vognyk”, in particular Sofia Rotaru, Oleg Popov and VIA “Verasy”. We watch the concert in the evening, we are happy: to get into the New Year’s “Vognyk” on Central Television means to receive the highest assessment of your creativity. And we are not on the program. I call the music editorial office, I am indignant: “How is it that in “Pravda”, the main newspaper of the country, our performance was announced, but it was not shown”. It turned out that during the last viewing of the concert material, the head of the State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company saw a six-pointed star flash behind us - and “Verasy” was excluded from the “Blakytny Vognyk” program. Of course, it was just a traditional Christmas decoration, and not at all a symbol of the state of Israel. But in order to avoid misunderstanding, “measures were taken” against us , — said Elena Morozova in her article “In the USSR there was censorship of the heart and soul. Memories of the soloists of the legendary vocal group “Verasy”” on the website, which is noteworthy, of the Communist Party of Russia in 2011.

Mass communication is always in the center of attention of both the authorities and the population. On the one hand, it is the only main one, on the other hand, it is the most widespread, which has a lot of viewers-readers simply automatically. For this reason, it is not just a picture of reality, but an exemplary picture. It is a model of behavior that is promoted, where the necessary is encouraged, and the unnecessary is condemned.

Censorship becomes as important as the media themselves. Moreover, censorship in the USSR was always headed by representatives of the KGB, since they knew better than anyone else what was allowed to be watched and read and what was not. Any mass action, including informational, always falls under the interest of censorship.

Today we loudly denounce censorship, but at the same time it is a certain coordination of interests. In the West in a much milder form of power and business, in the USSR - power and the media. Today we can easily say: "The history of Soviet censorship clearly testifies to only one thing: the bans on free creativity and attempts to adjust it to opportunistic standards are a clear sign that the disease of dictatorship has taken root and metastasized into the deep layers of the heart of the country, its cultural life. And yet, in such conditions, one cannot help but create. At least when talking about the events around. So, after the night there is always dawn, and the bubble of prohibitions and censorship will definitely burst when it cannot restrain the pressure of freedom - an inseparable part of creativity and culture. In 1980, "Aquarium" was almost banned, and in 2023 Boris Grebenshchikov was recognized as a foreign agent. As they say, “the wheel of Samsara has turned,” but that’s what a wheel is for, to spin in both directions!” writes Sasha Schneider in the aforementioned Russian article. However, the phenomenon of censorship exists everywhere under different names.

Presumably, all this arose with the strengthening of the power of the media. The invention of the printing press, on the one hand, and the appearance of printed "heralds" on the other. No one wants unpredictable consequences, no government tries to prevent this.

Author's (bard) song is another trend that the Soviet government did not suppress—it did not want to or could not at first. However, it quickly figured it out later. The less controlled the information or virtual flows, the greater the danger the state sees in them.

The authorities can allow or prohibit. This alone is enough for effective management. Any deviation is immediately recorded: “Seeing the power of influence of such an author’s song, the authorities began to persecute it. The doors of concert organizations were tightly closed to poet-singers (in 1981, after the XXV Moscow rally of the CPSU, a letter was sent to the regions along the lines of the All-Union Central Committee of the CPSU prohibiting the provision of any venues for stage performances to Yuliy Kim, Oleksandr Mirzayan, and Oleksandr Tkachev), publishing houses, radio and television studios. They were expelled from creative unions, pushed into emigration (like Oleksandr Galich), slandered in every way in the press, etc. At the same time, thanks to the “magnet publishing house”, the author’s song was known, sung, and listened to, copied from one to another ,” says the thematic article on Wikipedia .

But here is the appeal of these songs: “These songs had some incredible magic — simple melodies with three chords, simple lyrics, but very unusual for those times, because they sounded not “we”, but “I”. And in this “I” everyone recognized themselves and their anxieties, feelings, and wanderings... Yuriy Vizbor recalled: “...with Lyala Rozanova’s poems we saved suicides. And ourselves, why hide it…”,” says the “List of Outstanding Bardic Songs” on the website for fans of various genres Fandom .

That is, we have before us another version of supposedly authorless creativity, but its coincidence with the moods of the individual soul contributes to its mass distribution. We often love the same thing. This is a certain phenomenon of the human soul. The mind can reject it, but the soul, on the contrary, strives for it.

The phenomenon of author's song, without falling under the full control of the state, began to develop. Here is how the anonymous author of the article "Songs of the USSR: Bards and Bard Songs" on the Russian website "Zen" writes about it:

"In the beginning, the author's song did not arouse much interest in the state. But then bards began to graduate from institutes and universities, but the desire to meet, create and share their songs remained with them. And they began to unite in KSP - amateur song clubs. First in Moscow, and then in other cities of the Union."

The Soviet authorities discovered that bards had a civic position that they wanted to demonstrate. Persecution began at the KSP. Six months later, all bard clubs in the country were closed. Soon after, Galich was forced to emigrate. And Yulia Kim and many other bards were forbidden to perform. The state could not allow musicians to openly sing about “entrances for bosses”, “offices with maids and secretaries”, “stompers” under the windows, about dachas and “Seagulls”, “Tsekov rations” and “vintage motorcycles”.

The state loves controlled processes and does not like "uncontrolled" ones, seeing in them, and rightly so, an element of danger for itself. Anecdotes or a bard's song appear as if from nowhere, which scares the authorities. And since the authorities do not need to be afraid, it is easier for them to ban everything at once. But in these two phenomena there was an interest of the mass consciousness, so it was difficult to restrain it.

A joke (especially a political one) spread without the help of the state. Moreover, prison sentences were even given for it. But it was impossible to stop its spread, because, in addition to humor, it very subtly emphasized the shortcomings of the state. Apparently, there is such a phenomenon: when it is impossible to talk about it, an anecdote comes to the rescue, carrying the same information in the most caustic form. A joke, in fact, was an outlet for the Soviet intelligentsia, since the criticism was mild and funny.

Russian philologist Alexandra Arkhipova, who previously wrote about political jokes of the Soviet era, has now moved on to post-Soviet ones. She sets an interesting basis for her work, its meaning : “I and my profession are called differently. Folklorists - in Soviet and Russian science, these are those who study anonymous texts that arise within communities and represent their point of view: jokes and fairy tales from this point of view fall into the field of view of folklorists. Why study them? Because in this way you can understand how people think and what is valuable to them. This is especially important in a situation where there is no written memory in the culture (in illiterate societies) or when a person cannot say anything directly (in totalitarian societies). By studying anonymous texts, you can understand how people think and what is valuable to them. Social anthropologists study the development of human societies, including all kinds of social practices. The reproduction of texts, in particular anecdotes or fairy tales, is also a social practice, so these two disciplines are related. In Soviet times, there was a strict division, with folklorists dealing with texts, and ethnographers dealing only with material culture (i.e., what kind of pots there were in the villages and what rituals were performed with these pots). This is an outdated and pointless approach. In fact, all scientists in these fields — folklorists, social anthropologists, ethnographers — are engaged in “understanding understanding,” that is, how people perceive and represent the world around them . ”

Our world is not built only by the state, although it pretends that it is, so as not to particularly encourage other “builders”. The USSR often mobilized the population on a mass scale, sometimes to the virgin land, sometimes to war. And in these conditions, extraordinary measures were needed to ensure mass participation. On the one hand, the regime was often harsh (an example is 1937), but it was often necessary to create a voluntary expression of will and consent. As the Soviet song sang, “we love the Motherland like a bride, we protect it like a loving mother…”.

In principle, all types of words and actions (or most of them) are implanted in the mass consciousness through various types of communications, the sources of which include not only the media, but also schools, theater, and cinema... Censorship creates a homogeneous flow of words and actions, preventing access to other options for understanding reality. Let's remember how the USSR fought against Western radio broadcasts, because they reported different facts and different opinions. It was a costly thing, so "jamming devices" were only installed near large cities, not in the countryside, since that was where the bulk of potential dissatisfied people lived. And from there a mass demonstration of discontent could come. Revolutions do not happen in the countryside, their place is always in the city.

All this, as it turned out, is very important and relevant today, since Russia is immersed in serious censorship control, which, moreover, has sharply intensified due to the war. In terms of the system of punishments for the wrong words, it has approached the Soviet limits or even crossed them. Today, with the advent of social networks, the space of control would have to be significantly expanded. But it is difficult. The state always tries to know everything about us. That is why it is vigilant day and night.

Propaganda is a direct and covert conversation directly with the mass consciousness. Individuals have no place here. Cinema and TV appeared, and the state immediately took them over.

Propaganda as an institution was first born within a certain organized space - the Catholic religion. It was propaganda that began to be called effective methods of converting infidels into believers. From here we can draw the first lesson-conclusion. Propaganda always exists in an organized space, and it itself is not a random, but a systemic information product. Soviet propaganda generally functioned in a super-organized space, when violators were imprisoned. Those who retold anti-Soviet jokes were punished in the same way. And this is understandable, the government draws its strength from communications that reflect its monologue or create an artificial dialogue.

Jokes created freedom, so they were dangerous. Even from the point of view of simple psychology, they created new connections in the head that were unpleasant for the authorities. That is why they began to fight them. The same Arkhipova writes: “The camps began to fill up with jokers - so many that in 1937 a special instruction was issued, which ordered to separate those who really told seditious stories against Stalin from those who simply joked and sang a song. People continued to be arrested for jokes right up to the Khrushchev era, and during Khrushchev's time such cases still existed. Researching what I told you about is actually not as simple as it seems. The FSB archives are closed. They were opened in the 90s - well done to those who managed to do it. Now you have to use what has been published. Of course, if you know some internal moves, they will let you in, but they will not let you out from the street. "Personally, the FSB archive refused me, saying that they did not have such materials, that it was a complete lie."

Propaganda is the organization of correct communication from the point of view of the state. Another state sees a different truth, which can sometimes coincide. By the way, Arkhipova states in an interview with the website "Sisblok": "The text of the media is always the "text of the authorities"", explaining this by the fact that newspapers are officially censored. She did an interesting study, finding a serial informant, who now emerged in the search process, turning out to be a man. She collected these denunciations for two years. The author turned out to be I. Abaturov from Yekaterinburg, as stated in her article "Jokes about Putin and the elections 10 years later, or is there folklore of the "Snow Revolution"?". Now Arkhipova even gives lectures with her co-author on how to find informants with the help of science.

By the end of 2024, Arkhipova had 74 texts signed by “Korobkova.” She wrote denunciations of teachers, academics, university lecturers, human rights activists, doctors, and lawyers. This is what real science means, even if it is “foreign agent.” Arkhipova’s Telegram channel has the following text:

My grandfather used to work in the Cheka.

He loved his granddaughter very much.

The grandfather died, and the boy grew up —

He is already writing the seven hundredth denunciation .

All communications are controlled: public — more, private — less. Only a conversation with oneself may not be subject to censorship, and any external listener is already a censorship that transforms the text from the head. Thanks to social networks, we have again found ourselves in a new world that is more difficult to control. But the state will always pay attention to public communications. That is where problems always come from...