This is why all good communists in history just slam bullshit out of the air and mock anyone who disagrees with them relentlessly.
Just read any of the stuff Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Castro, etc. said when talking to heads of state. There's never any sarcasm or couching of ideas, only blatantly stating the consequences of the other person's ideological position and following up with clarity of their ideological position.
There were absolutely Soviet satirists, and the USSR produced satirical media alongside its other entertainment productions. While I argue constantly that satire shouldn't be subtle and should instead be a polemic utilizing satire, one really can't compare theorists and leaders making direct statements or writing on a topic with artists producing entertainment media.
Agreed, satire has its place, but it's not a revolutionary way to communicate. It's a way to filter out people who are in the "in" crowd. Stuff like Soviet satire wasn't convincing people to become communists, it was playing on the fact that they were already communist or had delt with the Soviet system at some point.
The heavy handed propagandist satire, like this was less to convince American's that America was bad, and more to entertain Soviet citizens who understood the context and message that the satire was presenting.
Basically, satire is fine, but you can't fight fascism with satire. You also can't lead a revolutionary movement with satire and satirical propaganda only works when the satirist is coming from the position of the dominant political ideology of the time and re-enforcing the "in group" mentality that satire re-enforces.
This is why all good communists in history just slam bullshit out of the air and mock anyone who disagrees with them relentlessly.
Just read any of the stuff Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Castro, etc. said when talking to heads of state. There's never any sarcasm or couching of ideas, only blatantly stating the consequences of the other person's ideological position and following up with clarity of their ideological position.
There were absolutely Soviet satirists, and the USSR produced satirical media alongside its other entertainment productions. While I argue constantly that satire shouldn't be subtle and should instead be a polemic utilizing satire, one really can't compare theorists and leaders making direct statements or writing on a topic with artists producing entertainment media.
Reminds me of how many people, then and now, got extremely mad at "a Modest Proposal" for... it's endorsement of cannibalism.
Agreed, satire has its place, but it's not a revolutionary way to communicate. It's a way to filter out people who are in the "in" crowd. Stuff like Soviet satire wasn't convincing people to become communists, it was playing on the fact that they were already communist or had delt with the Soviet system at some point.
The heavy handed propagandist satire, like this was less to convince American's that America was bad, and more to entertain Soviet citizens who understood the context and message that the satire was presenting.
Basically, satire is fine, but you can't fight fascism with satire. You also can't lead a revolutionary movement with satire and satirical propaganda only works when the satirist is coming from the position of the dominant political ideology of the time and re-enforcing the "in group" mentality that satire re-enforces.