I am of the opinion that Marxist propaganda must take the form of the early method of democratic agitation first used (to my knowledge) by Licinius Macer, of whom Ceasar was a contemporary. It quite simply aims to provide nothing more than they facts of the matter, and let the masses decide (e.g. Lenin and his “3 Methods of Governance”, or in “State and Revolution” where rather than try and convince the reader that communism is correct, he simply states things as they are, and analysis them, allowing the reader to make up their own mind).

As far as I understand it, propaganda is simply a tool used to convey political messages accurately and concisely in hopes to get people over to whatever side it is coming from. Am I wrong in this?

No, you’re absolutely right. The word itself though got a pejorative meaning of “propaganda=lie”, and that’s because two factors: first, there absolutely is good and bad propaganda, just as any information can be good or bad, and overwhelmingly most important second factor, that making word “propaganda” a bad word in itself is the tactic of liberal media - they portray their own propaganda as objective facts, and everything that is not adhering to it as propaganda, therefore automatically as lie. It’s the same postpolitic tactic as TINA, human nature etc. (and the word “politic” is a bad word too in liberal doublespeak).