Words: Powerful Propaganda Tool or Vehicle of Truth?

Observe the media, politicians, and big business and we see that this is the age of propaganda and non-truth, but are we then to join the spinners and weavers of words, or are we with greater vigour determined to counter-balance such myth-makers with honesty and truth?

A genuine question!

In an age when the powerful say what is useful, leveraging, and self-serving, ought we to join in the game and use words in an equally pragmatic way, as useful, leveraging, and self-serving, abandoning truth as we do so?

Indeed, are words anything more than propaganda tools? Is "truth" in itself merely a useful term, a leveraging and self-serving use of words?  I don't genuinely believe it is. I believe there is truth. There is truth in the sense of authenticity, being true to oneself, and also, there is truth in the sense of words representing empirical data.

Yet, despite this, despite my belief in truth, this doesn't answer the question, alternatively asked: Am I obliged to be truthful, when I'm surrounded by the powerful who use non-truth as propaganda, words as merely useful, leveraging, and self-serving?

Of course, if I were to "join" them, the only difference between us then would be our motive, our agenda. My words would be "useful," "leveraging," and "self-serving" in the sense that they seek to achieve my own agenda of weakening the capitalist economic model. Our values and ends would differentiate us, though our means would be the same.

Finally, I am aware that being authentic, being true to oneself, does not demand that I adhere to speaking only what is empirically true. I might become duplicitous. I might, for example, on the one hand be true to myself, by answering my heart-felt call for justice in the face of the current economic depravity of unregulated capitalism, whereas on the other, I might abandon empirical truth by, for example, propagating false or misleading statistics that would serve me in my aim to create a more equitable society. I would be fighting smokescreens with smokescreens, while all the time remaining mirror-clear about my true values and soul-feelings.

Let me give you an example. Here's a metaphor I came across today. It describes the current psychological situation of most middleclass people in Western capitalist society: "When the cake gets smaller, we're reduced to fighting over crumbs. Time to take over the bakery..."  

Now, this metaphor serves my purpose, in that it proposes "taking over" the way in which capitalism is run. It also accurately captures the reality of what Nietzchse desribed as "resentiment". It's concise. It's smart. It's powerful. However, there is a catch. The metaphor is incomplete, and ignores certain empirical realities. For example, even if we did take over the bakery, we still wouldn't control how much the raw materials cost, the flour, the oil. In a world of limited resources and an increasing population, prices are destined to rise, and so a cake for the same price is bound to get smaller. So, our metaphor collapses.

Now, here's the rub: I can choose to use this metaphor duplicitously, by ignoring this detail, because it would nevertheless help me achieve my agenda of more firmly regulating capitalism; even if to do so I know I am not being fully "honest". 

For sure, feminist, anarchist, and activist theories often bring this to the table, giving a kind of nodding smirk towards duplicity as poltical power.

So, the question is: Is it OK to be duplicitous, to deliberately spread and disseminate half- or non-truths in order to achieve one's authentic agenda? 

I do not know...