That's a rather relativist approach.  All movements or social changes require persuding people to get on board, so I don't think we can judge the merits of one system or another on that alone.  

As for "advertising", I might be parsing words, but telling people who don't have the right to vote that you think they should have it, who don't have the right to organize, ditto, who are starving due to class inqualities that you think that removing those inequalities will provide them with more sustenance is hardly comparable to pressuring people to buy things they do not need whatsoever to survive so that you can get rich.

Abolishionists had to convince people to follow them.  So did the NeoCons.  But one group wanted to make all people's lives better, and one wanted to make their own lives better.  

Calling it a "marketplace of ideas" rewards those who best sell their ideas, not those with the best ideas.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire