Really, I think anyone considering themselves a Leftist needs to read False Witnesses and Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of "Brainwashing." Both are excellent examples of why people don't change their minds when seeing indisputable evidence, they willingly go along with narratives that they find more comfortable. It explains the outright anger liberals express when anticommunism is debunked. That doesn't mean Communists don't do the same thing, but as we live in a liberal dominated west (most likely, assuming demographics) this happens to a much lesser extent because liberalism is that which supplies these "licenses" to go along, while Communism requires hard work to begin to accept. This explains the mountains of sources Communists keep on hand, and the lack thereof from liberals who argue from happenstance and vibes.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Huh, I’ve come across this False Witness article before, years ago.

In retrospect, this desperate, shotgun appeal to religious authority demonstrated why the dossier itself was probably futile. It was an acknowledgment that the people they were attempting to convince were beyond the reach of mere fact or reason — people who did not find reality compelling.

This reminds me of the requisite Parenti quote:

During the Cold War, the anti-communist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Exactly. I read it for the first time this week, and it's made a pretty big perspective shift. The Parenti Quote is evergreen as well, and tying it together with the conclusions of False Witnesses and Masses, Elites, and Rebels is a cool way to see people independently coming to similar conclusions of observed phenomena.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago

If you’re a glutton for this kind of stuff, I found philosophy prof. Hans-Georg Moeller’s YouTube series on the media to be illuminating.

I think philosophy prof. Jeffrey Kaplan’s video “Advertising doesn't work the way you think it does” is good as well. It too hinges on what Moeller calls the “general peer,” which he gets deeper into in his series on “identity technology.”