[mirimir]

Yes, I ought to read that.

From the Wikipedia article:

> On the other hand, writers such as Marvin Olasky justify Bernays as killing democracy in order to save it. In this way, the presence of an elite, faceless persuasion constituted the only plausible way to prevent authoritarian control.

That last sentence makes no sense to me. Why wouldn't authoritarian governments use propaganda?

[someguyorother]

It appears to be saying "authoritarian governments can use both direct persuasion and faceless persuasion. Democracies can't use the former, and can't use the latter unless they allow themselves to by the methods shown here."

Direct persuasion would be something akin to Weber's charismatic authority: the typical cult of personality stuff. A representative democracy, not having its identity tied to one singular leader, can't do that.

[andrewprock]

Democracies use direct persuasion extensively, typically on non-majority groups, for obvious reasons.

[mirimir]

You're using "direct persuasion" differently from parent. And I have no clue which is accepted. Parent seems to equate "direct persuasion" with "charismatic persuasion", but for you it seems more like coercion.

Right?

[andrewprock]

I read "direct persuasion" as a reference to "authoritarian control" as quoted from the Wikipedia article.

[mirimir]

OK, makes sense.

[hobs]

He thought that they would, but that the smart west would out propagandize and that our better natures would be convinced to win out.

[ncmncm]

He wanted us to think that. But of course the end state is necessarily authoritarian, regardless of anybody's apparent or expressed intentions. And Bernays really was fine with that.

Anybody advocating affirmative use of propaganda will also be using it.