Simplifying complex socio-economic issues into personal responsibility is a common propaganda strategy, but it needs to be clear that this approach may mask deeper causes such as structural inequality, institutional discrimination, and unfair resource allocation. The following are the measures that may be used for such propaganda in history or in theory, but attention should be paid to their ethical disputes and social implications： --- ### **1. Narrative shaping: Emphasizing the "myth of Success”** -**Personal struggle stories**: A large number of “self-made” cases are disseminated through media, film and television works, advertising and other channels, rendering the narrative of “as long as you work hard, you can succeed”, ignoring external factors such as family background, educational opportunities, and social capital. -**Survivor bias**: Highlight the efforts of individual winners and dilute the structural dilemmas of losers (such as the lack of upward channels for low-income groups). ### **2. Stigmatize poor groups** -**Labeled description**: Associate poverty with negative labels such as “lazy”, “short-sighted”, and “self-discipline”, for example, through statistical data, one-sided emphasis on the consumption habits of the poor (such as the purchase of non-essential goods), while ignoring the fundamental problem of insufficient income. - **Moral criticism**: Link economic status to personal morality (such as “poor is because you are not frugal” and "rich is because you are more diligent”), and use religious or cultural concepts to strengthen this logic. ### **3. Simplified economic theory** -**Market fundamentalist propaganda**: One-sided promotion of “free competition and absolute fairness”, ignoring the influence of monopoly, power rent-seeking, inheritance, etc. on wealth accumulation. -**The myth of ”trickle-down effect"**: It is claimed that the growth of wealth of the rich will naturally benefit the poor, diverting the discussion of redistribution policies. ### **4. Shift the focus of structural issues** -**Cultural attribution**: Attribute the gap between rich and poor to “cultural differences” (such as certain groups “not paying attention to education”), rather than the uneven distribution of educational resources. -**Technological optimism**: Emphasize ”equal opportunities in the era of digital economy“ (such as ”everyone can be an Internet celebrity") to mask the reality of the digital divide and technological monopoly. ### **5. Using psychological mechanisms** -**Basic attribution errors**: Use the cognitive bias that people tend to attribute the failures of others to personality defects (not the environment) to strengthen the “theory of personal responsibility”. -**Fear incentive**: Create a panic of "welfare for the lazy" and weaken public support for the social security system. ### **6. Education system and ideological output** -**Textbook content design**: Weaken class analysis in textbooks and emphasize the importance of personal struggle (such as “American Dream” education in the United States). -**Popularization of successful learning**: Spread the concept of “self-improvement can change destiny” through courses and books, and dilute the constraints of social structure. --- ###**Ethical Warning and Critical Thinking** 1. **Systemic factors cannot be ignored**: The gap between rich and poor is usually caused by multiple factors such as tax policies, educational resources, industry monopolies, and globalized division of labor. Personal efforts are only one of the variables. 2. **Risk of social cohesion**: Such propaganda may intensify class antagonism, weaken empathy for vulnerable groups, and hinder the advancement of social equity policies. 3. **Critical thinking education**: The public needs to be wary of simplistic narratives and understand the complexity of inequality through data analysis and historical research. ###**Conclusion** Such propaganda may affect public awareness in the short term, but in the long run, solving economic inequality requires facing structural reforms, not covering up the problem. Healthy social discussions should be based on a balance of facts, data, and multiple perspectives.