I see. I think you might be affected by media that I'm not exposed to.

Do you watch televised news?

I see. I think you might be affected by media that I'm not exposed to. — frank

Sure, if all you read is this forum, then maybe it seems the case isn't made enough against Putin.

Do you watch televised news? — frank

I do not have a television, but I follow the major news outlets and aggregators to get an idea of what the mass media is saying.

How things are perceived and what the mass media is saying is a critical part of geo-political analysis.

Unfortunately, due to algorithm driven media, we basically no longer know what information "people" encounter in a general sense. There's no longer "the news paper" that everyone who discussed politics or world events would read as a common reference.

The "mass media" is more now a conversation with bureaucrats and technocrats and most ordinary people ignore it.

Indeed, mass media is no longer the best term, but "establishment news", whereas facebook, instagram, twitter, youtube and Tictok "personalised algorithms" are the actual mass media now.

So, I do agree it's hard to actually know what the real mass social media is even saying to most people, we can only really follow CNN, Reuters, BBC, Aljezera, al Jazeera, Times, Fox, Bloomberg, and co. to see at least what elites and bureaucrats are exposed to.

It's relatively simple, where it concerns Ukraine Russia and USA have been fighting each other over Ukraine for decades. In my view both parties are guilty, and to a lesser extent European governments for being useful idiots in looking away. To get a fuller picture I don't need to highlight what Russia has done, plenty of people already do that, which for some reason a lot of people interpret as a defence for Putin. Quite obviously just because more people are to blame, doesn't make Putin blameless. Much like how a murderer cannot excuse his crimes by pointing to another murderer.

The reason why you think I don't have that attitude with respect to the USA is because too many people pretend it's a force for good. So there, to get a fuller picture again, I need to remind people what a shit country it is. From the way it treats its own citizens to its international acts.

I see. So nothing to do with the comment you cited then. Perhaps consider just making a fresh post next time, rather than opening with a completely unrelated comment?

I'm trying to understand people who are quick to defend Russia. — frank

The answers have been given over and over.

1. That Putin's actions are awful is a) obvious and b) all over every form of media in the western world. Why do we need to repeat that every third word?

2. We're almost all either American, European or allies of those blocs. The policies we can influence are their policies, the power we can hold to account are their governments. We have virtually no line of influence to Russia so what would be the point in criticising those policies?

3. America and Europe are a crucial part of any solution. If you're comparing options it vital to be aware of who you're dealing with.

4. Not everyone feels an overwhelming compulsion to inform the world at large how they're feeling every thirty seconds.

So if you presented a balanced attitude about the US and Russia, you think you'd be contributing to an overall unbalanced narrative that's in the world?

You see yourself as having an obligation to create balance by being biased in both cases, in favor of understanding Russia and condemning the US.

Is that right?

One can see it happening here with Bucha: — ssu

Whoever committed the crimes at Bucha, I am not interested in defending them. One thing I must point out is the photographs of more or less evenly spaced out bodies looks suspicious to me. All of them by the roadside, where they can be clearly seen, and photographed from above for effect.

You have to realize I have no way of knowing what those photographs represent, who took them, and when. Impossible. I have to trust someone's version of events.

The reason why you think I don't have that attitude with respect to the USA is because too many people pretend it's a force for good. So there, to get a fuller picture again, I need to remind people what a shit country it is. From the way it treats its own citizens to its international acts. — Benkei

Just filling in the blanks.


Not a peep from our public school system about the American Empire, the blood on our hands. They talk about a city on a hill. Fake news goes back to Gilgamesh. (They were first king who first learned the Big Lie.)



Or possibly things have changed since my elementary school days.

The reason why you think I don't have that attitude with respect to the USA is because too many people pretend it's a force for good. — Benkei

I think I might understand what's going on.

Americans don't see the US the way you do. It's just our home. The rest of the world is like a big glob of non-American. Sort of.

I don't have access to the view you have where there's an unbalanced message wrt the US and Russia. For me, all narratives are internal, American narratives, whether critical, nationalistic, or just flat (as much as there is any unbiased point of view.)

I don't need to worry about balance. So most of the stuff you're saying is just misunderstood by me. I don't have the same concerns you do, so I don't get the intent.

Thanks! That actually helped.

Not a peep from the public school system about the American Empire, the blood on our hands. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Depends on the teacher.

I admit to highlighting a particular view when I believe it broadens the context. I would do the same when talking about the Netherlands but unfortunately nobody here is interested in my little country.

Edit: just as examples here, we have plenty of institutional racism with nowadays zero political consequences for those responsible. Growing inequality. Deconstruction of the welfare state. Etc. That's all the center right politics. Then I have a ton to say about the left's inability to have a coherent alternative narrative. I don't believe in identity politics, still think it's about class struggle in the end where nowadays politics is coopted by corporations, making the struggle for socio-economic fairness that much harder.

I admit to highlighting a particular view when I believe it broadens the context. I would do the same when talking about the Netherlands but unfortunately nobody here is interested in my little country. — Benkei

I understand. I actually am interested. You guys just haven't invaded anybody recently. :smile:

I am not sure that the following possibilities have been addressed:

1. Despite the rhetoric, it is possible that certain behind the scenes agreements may have been taking place here, negotiations that are not only not reported by the news media, but would change the context of the entire situation, and which we will never know.

2. Since no-one is a perfect actor, and no-one is infallible, some of the truth may slip out from time to time especially in real-time interviews. Zelenskyy is the one to watch here.

3. When a particular course of action is taken, for example Fox news has a general on saying "Biden wants Putin to win" it is more probably due to low intelligence + some sort of a plan than due to pure stupidity.

Just a note about Zelenskyy: I don't get it: Why does he not say straight out to NATO: look: give us the weapons we need to win this war or we are going to surrender in 24 hours, and we will be turning back all weapons at the border. Am I missing something?

How would that work?

Cool. Appreciate it.

I see. So from what non-western source did you anticipate this 'education' coming. Which textbooks of say, Senegalese, origin were you thinking of? — Isaac

Education is usually formed in collaboration with the people it is for. It is entirely possible to create a curriculum that is unique to the place the school is being built.

What 'specialist equipment' is required to investigate critical thinking? — Isaac

What "equipment" are you referring to? It's like saying you need "special equipment" to teach 2 + 2 = 4.

No. Again, I disagree that philosophy is built on methods to make sure you don't get stuck in biases. — Isaac

Philosophically speaking, that is not enough as a counterargument. Your disagreement is irrelevant if you don't have any explanation showing the opposite. Bad philosophy might get you stuck into biases, we see enough of that on this forum that's for sure, but if you are educated in even basic philosophy, there are plenty of tools for thought to use when the goal is to investigate a probable truth. And for general education, basic philosophy is enough; how to structure an argument by examining beyond the pre-existing belief of the one examining.

Well I'm a professor of Psychology - so there's that. — Isaac

So you do know about biases in thought then? You understand that "thinking" is never uninfluenced by the surrounding world? That it's not enough to just "think differently", and that the only way to bypass our biased thinking is through methods of critical thinking.

I'm a bit stunned that a professor of psychology seems to suggest that there are no problems with people just following their parents' ideas and ideals. Because that has a good track record of fixing problems for people throughout history. That is not psychology, that is conservative ideology.

And your evidence for this would be? — Isaac

Logic.

You need to build a house. You have a high intellect, but you have no knowledge of how to build a house. Would you A) Be able to use your high intelligence to figure it out? or B) Need the gathered knowledge of other people on the topic of building a house to be able to build it?

If you answer A, you might be able to go far, but when some higher knowledge becomes required, like how moisture in the ground affects the foundation and that it might require specific precautions to prevent rot, maybe even a specially built foundation because of the specific soil the house is built on, you fail. That knowledge requires facts to be learned before building the house. It is therefore impossible to effectively and properly build that house without you learning more about how to do so.

The same goes for critical thinking. If you have no knowledge of the mental traps of biases you get into when trying to figure out concepts or solutions to problems, then you will more easily fall into those traps. This isn't something that just exists in nations in need of better and less politically influenced education, but it exists everywhere. Just the last ten years have introduced higher critical thinking into the curriculum of schools in Sweden. But this is much more important for people living in nations with a high degree of extreme propaganda. Where media blatantly lies and group think traditions have taken roots.

If you have a macro problem to solve and you are highly intelligent, but you are unaware of how the mind works, you are unaware of the knowledge about how cognitive biases functions and have no knowledge of the philosophical basics required to bypass all of it through critical thinking. Do you A) Just use your high intelligence and be able to solve it? Or B) Use tested and established methods to figure out a solution uninfluenced by your cognitive biases?

What is most likely the best outcome of that? And if enough people get an education with this knowledge, don't you, logically, agree that it forms a better foundation of collective thought to fix a macro problem for that large group of people?

Education doesn't magically solve a problem in a nation, but it gives the people the knowledge tools to effectively shape their own change and reforms. It sharpens their intellect to be used more effectively and faster than having to invent the wheel over and over.

Well, if it's so naive then there's something very wrong with the recruitment strategy of England's major Universities. — Isaac

I answered to this strawman you made:

people in these countries have simply failed to work it out for themselves, they need us to teach them, they can't, parent-to-child, simply teach their own children how to be good citizens, they need us to come along and show them. — Isaac

With the implication that there's no need for education, just let the parents teach their kids. In my perspective, that is how you keep a people stuck in traditions and more easily keep them in control of authoritarian systems. Because if the authoritarian systems work under the guise of national tradition, it creates a feedback loop that never breaks and any destructive authoritarian regime could keep doing what they're doing as there's no alternative way to break free of it by the people. North Korea is a good example of this.

By claiming that native education methods limit this access you are claiming that these 'tools' only exist outside of these cultures. That is the racist element. Why do these tools only exist outside of these cultures? — Isaac

You're making the racist conjecture by dividing everything into a clear us and them where they have some magical alternative to western thinking and also that western thinking is some singular entity of idealogy and opinions, exactly the kind of simplistic viewpoints that Hans Rosling opposed the west to have. It is entirely possible, as mentioned before, to structure a curriculum in nations with low to no educational systems, to be entirely based on that nation's culture. However, a good quality education also teaches about other perspectives in the world, it's part of broadening knowledge. And when it comes to critical thinking, methods of logical deduction, and induction, those are close to universal methods of math, but for structuring arguments and conceptual ideas. And what about facts? Like facts of building a house as in my analogy? If one part of the world has developed a lot of factual data about effective house building, then that data is objectively good for everyone to know. Most of the time educational content forms as a synthesis of previous knowledge, and from all over the world.

The problem is that you are viewing education as indoctrination, not learning skills and knowledge. You base your argument around how the west reshapes third-world countries by establishing schools with western thinking. This is not how things are done. Schools in these nations are primarily run by teachers from that nation itself. Starting off with teaching reading, writing, math, and universal skills like that. Do you think that beyond the basics, they don't include things like philosophy rooted in their own nation?

The problem is that you structure your entire argument around a strawman that I argue for invading these nations with western education. And then you are unable to think past this and realize that I'm not doing that, that I'm arguing for education, quality education in a shape and form that is free from political influence of any kind. That focuses on knowledge from all over the world that is a synthesis of all the best knowledge, facts, and methods that humanity as a whole has to offer.

This blind division between "the west" and third world that you force your arguments through is much more racist in rhetoric than you try to apply to my argument. And if they have a method of critical thinking that is better, I wish to hell that we can learn from that, so if you know about any such alternatives to the common logical methods used broadly across the world, then that would be wonderful to learn. I'm just going by what is known right now about logical thinking that bypasses cognitive biases. And that these are powerful tools of thought that is effectively piercing through propaganda more easily than any traditional thinking learned from parents to children within authoritarian nations filled with groupthink problems.

Known to you. I know about Liverpool's chemical waste dump. — Isaac

And Liverpool's chemical waste dump was not a threat to the entire region of Europe or reshaped the entire topic of nuclear power safety. Stop making attempts at a point that doesn't work. Chernobyl was a significant incident that is known throughout the world.

And you also fail tremendously with that point because Liverpool is in the UK and it's probably part of common knowledge within the UK, even for a smaller incident than Chernobyl. So by that logic you would assume that people within the same Soviet Union should know about Chernobyl, especially when the iron curtain fell and things were declassified and schools started teaching about history without propaganda. Or just basic chemistry or physics in grade school teaching about radioactivity. That people from Russia don't know about Chernobyl or how radioactive material from a failed nuclear power plant works, just proves my point of how important education is. Chernobyl could have made Russia uninhabitable. It was a major event that is still a dangerous risk and that knowledge isn't taught properly in Russia, or the soldiers who were there gave an insight into just how bad education is for many in Russia.

Of course America is not the sole representative of 'the West', but it is a significant power. So when you say 'westernise' that could lead either to Sweden or America. What prevents one route and promotes the other? Not 'western' values clearly - they're represented by both. — Isaac

What leads you to automatically gravitate towards the US as the form of "westernization" I talk about? Isn't that racist towards me as a Swede to automatically assume that I have no ability to form a westernized system based on Sweden and not the US? Also based on Sweden's tradition of charity and help to nations in need that is in no way close to the US or UK's use of charity as a form of imperialistic establishment in other nations?

Because instead of asking questions first about how I think it should work, you directly assume me to be a racist western imperialist of the US standard and you then argue accordingly. You see, this is what is wrong with you and your rhetoric.

Right. So what Senegalese thinkers were included in your oh-so-non-westernised education? — Isaac

If establishing a school in Senegal and building the curriculum, it will be a collaboration with the people of Senegal to form that education. If there are alternatives to logical and critical thinking by any thinkers in Senegal then that will be a great addition, maybe you should mention which ones you are thinking about? If I were to establish a school there, then maybe I would include Souleymane Bachir Diagne in the collaboration of building that curriculum and include teachings of Kocc Barma Fall as part of the general philosophical education. But most importantly, Senegal needs basic education since literacy is among the lowest in Africa. Here's a good example of how quality education can help the nation as a whole. If one of Kocc Barma Fall's most famous ideas was to reject foreign aid, then that should drive building up knowledge of food production and that kind of industry to help fight both poverty and food shortages. Such projects need people with education to establish those projects. Helping with establishing more schools and a curriculum in collaboration with the Senegal people is then a form of aid that doesn't make them dependent as servents (as Kocc Barma Fall's said), but able to reject aid and become totally independent from any kind of aid.

You see, you cannot just pick and choose a nation like that and try and make an argument that strawman my concept into some blanket solution for everywhere. The actual practice of establishing schools needs to be done in collaboration with the place it is being established in. But the knowledge of critical thinking I'm referring to is not some "westernized" idea, it has formed out of thousands of years of philosophy from all over the world, but established itself primarily within western philosophy as practice. That it is western philosophy does not equal it being an invasion of western culture, especially not if combined with philosophies of the nation the school is established within.

You think that because I write a summary of how education on critical thinking can form greater independence for the people by them having tools of thought to critically view and reform their own destiny as they like, there's no depth to the actual practice of how to do it?

This is a failure of thinking on your part, requiring the entire plan for establishing specific nations' educational systems or helping them establish them instead of understanding the foundational concept I presented. You aren't arguing in any rational or philosophically balanced way, you are biased towards your already established picture of me as a racist imperialistic pro-western spokesman and you reshape everything you read into that narrative. But that also informs me of why you cannot understand the concept I present because you seem so much a slave to your own biases that the concept of critical thinking seems foreign to you, you already have a bias in this discussion, a bias that makes you unable to see what I write in any other shape than your pre-existing viewpoint. Which becomes very ironic because of the topic of what I write here.

Yes. That's exactly what I disagree with. — Isaac

Ok, then elaborate on that disagreement because unestablished disagreement in itself is irrelevant to the discussion.

What exactly do you not agree with? Or are you saying... on a philosophy forum... that the concept of philosophy itself is bullshit?
— Christoffer

Yes. Again, that something seems to you to be the case does not mean it actually is the case. Your incredulity is not an argument. — Isaac

Yes - that philosophy is bullshit? For a professor at a University, you write pretty badly if you don't see the error in reference here. I guess you don't mean that because that would be fundamentally stupid.

But in terms of "the case" I've spent a lot of time presenting "that case", you presented nothing but conjecture with loaded terms like calling things racist and just disagreeing without elaboration of that disagreement. As well as strawmen, false dichotomies etc.

Is a high level of knowledge required to reach wisdom?
— Christoffer

No. — Isaac

If a high level of knowledge means knowing a lot about much, it is. Wisdom is combining pure knowledge and facts into balanced ideas.

you don't even understand that my idea of quality; unbiased education is about gaining the ability to see different perspectives. It's the core point of how to be able to think critically.
— Christoffer

I perfectly well understand it. I disagree with it. — Isaac

Elaborate on the disagreement.

You don't agree that gaining knowledge through unbiased education enables an increase in the amount of knowledge you have, which through the quantity of knowledge enables more perspectives to be known and more perspectives to be viewed at the same time to form an unbiased critical view and increase wisdom about a topic?

What is it that you don't agree with? Are you unable to form an explanation for this disagreement?

Since education and development aid, growth in fair trade, reduction of debt, withdrawal of support for corrupt regimes...all tend to go hand-in hand. I don't see how you could present any evidence that it was the education that did it. — Isaac

I don't, it is a part of it, but you cannot start change if people aren't educated enough to act upon the change they want. The things you mention starts with people well educated to handle those things and if the people handling those things are the educated people of the nation doing these changes and not outsiders, they have become independent of outside help. The most effective way, as I've been saying over and over, to help people become independent from any outsiders is to help them with education so that they can shape things themselves and not rely on outsiders to help them. Imagine a class of young adults who went through education and later higher education of water filtration science. That is far better than waiting for outsiders to come with water aid or water filtration aid. Then they have full control over fixing this problem and doing so in a way that benefits them entirely and independently, as in line with Kocc Barma Fall's will for the people not to become servents. Just as how I used the proverb you called racist.

How? Explain the mechanism. We have the 'boot' of trade tariffs, pecuniary aid terms, environmental pressures, military power imbalances, arms sales to oppressive governments, political power being abused for financial gain, TNCs exploiting cheap labour... then you give the children of the country a good Western education and then...? What? How does knowing about Plato sort all those problems out? Talk me through the process. — Isaac

Once again, see there how you reshape what I write to fit your worldview or your view of others' arguments to fit how you form your counterarguments. You seem unable to discuss anything without loading everything with that kind of a gun.

The specifics of this is how the people gain knowledge to critically review state propaganda. That was the foundation of my argument that has, through your wild outbursts grown into a more general topic. So going back to that foundation, critical thinking enables ways to spot unproven truths, state lies, and propaganda more easily and easily review them critically. If you understand how to break down and deconstruct "truths" around you, you could start seeing through state propaganda and work against it. If a nation like Russia, whose government and Putin rely heavily on state propaganda for the people to be kept in place, had problems keeping the propaganda narrative intact because too many citizens see through it and show criticism against it, then a huge part of the authoritarian machinery stops working. Some experts even say that the state propaganda in Russia is the main source of power for Putin and if it fails then Putin's regime will fail with it.

My point is that the power of the government is just as good as its ability to keep the public in its place. If education enforces the same state propaganda and villages and rural areas don't even have schools, then how would people even begin to know how to deconstruct what is told to them. And if they can barely read, how could they ever gain any knowledge to help them grasp the reality they're in?

You seem to argue that my argument of educational aid is "the only solution". It's not. But it's a powerful part of giving the people the power to fight back against the government. What else can they fight with? By not agreeing with the government, it's not as easy as it seems for the government to keep itself in power. If the machinery of a nation, the lifeblood that is the people, stops supporting the government's power, then soon or later that government will collapse. None of this is "easy" it can even be bloody and it all depends on what the people want. If they feel fine with the stability of the authoritarian government, they might just hold their heads down and hope to live a decent life, or they really want a change and act towards it.

But to say that education does not have a major part in empowering the people against their government or against corruption and propaganda is just not a valid conclusion without better justification as to why it isn't.

Exactly. Why didn't they already have access to methods of unbiased thinking from their own rich cultural heritage? What was wrong with them, that they didn't come up with these 'methods' already? They certainly didn't need any specialist technology. They had more time than we had. So explain to me, in non-racist terms, why these cultures (which have had longer to think about it than we have) don't already have these 'methods of unbiased thinking'? — Isaac

Maybe hundreds of years of imperial interference robbed them of the chance to through the course of time study these things compared to the comfort in western philosophical institutions who could spend lifetimes of time on a topic to develop and fine-tune it? Maybe geopolitical instabilities even without imperialistic interference pressed down free thinkers and unabled them to develop and fine-tune their philosophies? Just look at how the Islamic golden age lost practice after it ended and most of that knowledge went to other places in the world, but most regions over the course of hundreds of years fell back into strict religious practices. Why didn't they keep their practices of education that are so important even mentioned in the Quran as an important part of life?

So there are a lot of reasons why cultural heritage could suppress such knowledge, even if such knowledge was even a world standard many centuries ago. What the west has had is one of the longest periods of refining past knowledge, sciences, and philosophy. And even so, many of the discoveries in critical thinking is as accidental as discoveries in science. The right person at the right time reviews a specific text and forms a new idea of progressive thought. Western philosophy might just have been lucky over the thousands of years it has existed. But the most important part is that critical thinking is essentially analytical in nature and western philosophies have been for the most part analytical. If you are to review a stated truth, the analytical approach to reviewing that truth is far more effective for deconstructing it than anything else. It's the foundation for how science works.

As I've said, if there are critical thinking concepts that have been developed and work in different ways than in western philosophy, good. We could learn from that as well, just as we learned knowledge from the Islamic golden age, just as anyone learns by the experience and knowledge of others. The problem here is that you gather together everything with a "western" stamp on it and position it as an imperialistic invasion of other cultures. Not everything is like that. We could even argue that the Islamic golden age is a huge historical foundation of western philosophy and that we just picked up the torch and if that knowledge returns to Islamic nations, how can anyone determine that to be any kind of "western" invasion rather than basically Islamic tradition of education mentioned in the Quran itself?

You've divided the world so black and white in this matter that you think that western philosophy and "other philosophy" are at some odds with each other, just because we have another concept called "western imperialism" that shares the name "western" in it. That's just a childish false dichotomy.

If it is universal, then why is it not already part of their culture? Why is it not already passed down from parent to child, or cultural leader to children? — Isaac

Why didn't people think about "0" before it was discovered as part of math? You wouldn't argue that "0" isn't a universal concept of math, do you? So why didn't people think of "0" before people used "0" in calculations?

How can you be a professor of Psychology and be this naive about the concept of learning, discovering, and the progress of thought through generations or education?

Just read up on the history of western philosophy of logical reasoning and you will find discoveries after discoveries of how nothing was clear cut and easily "invented" in one single place as some sort of universal truth that was just obvious. A universal concept means that it is universal in its logic. Deduction and induction are universal concepts as they are logical in nature. True premises lead to a true conclusion or true premises lead to a probable conclusion. This is as logical as math, just as discovering the concept of "0". Finding an alternative to this is like finding an alternative to "0", good luck. Maybe western philosophy was just the place these concepts were discovered, maybe others discovered it too, just like many ancient cultures discovered the concept of "0" independent of others doing the same.

But when I speak of these concepts as part of education, I'm clearly speaking of them as an education for people who didn't have those concepts known to them. And with authoritarian states that suppress knowledge, it might be known to the elite, but not the common man, which becomes a source of power for the elite. So giving this knowledge to the common man will help them level the playing field against the elite and help them stand up against that elite.

How? You've suggested education. I disagree, so suddenly I'm saying we should do nothing? How on earth have you arrived at the conclusion that anything that isn't education is 'nothing'? — Isaac

Because you disagree without elaboration and present no other alternative of practical solutions or parts of solutions? I can only conclude your point to be whatever you write it to be. If you constantly do not elaborate on anything and never present alternative solutions, then the conclusion is that you don't agree but have nothing else as an alternative solution.

You disagree that education can help the people of a nation to be able to rise up against the elite and government. And that knowledge passed down from parent to child is enough to gain enough wisdom for anything. For a university professor, that is a hell of a fucked up viewpoint in my opinion.

You haven't. You've just vaguely waived about the words 'education' and 'westernised'. I could counter by vaguely waiving about the terms 'socialism' and 'worker's revolution'. — Isaac

I think I've presented enough examples if you cared to read other than just view everything through western imperialistic lenses.

And yes, you could elaborate on your Marxist ideas for Russia, please do, what is the Marxist solution to Russia that can help them reshape their nation to something less corrupt and more open to freedom and rights of the people. I would like you to make a case for how that would happen.

I suggested independent education for the Russian people who got the short stick of the educational inequality lottery. I don't think that needs to be elaborated much more than aid that development. Maybe even have online schools that create valid grades. Support everyone with internet free of state control to take part in such education, and computers for those who can't afford them.

I mean, none of this is that big of a deal, but it would level the playing field of the Russian population, able to access unfiltered information and be able to get an education regardless of situation, class or economy. You could bring in Starlink dishes to remote areas for example.

It doesn't take much to see how education for the ones not lucky enough to score the inequality lottery could improve the general knowledge of the entire population. And as I've argued, a better education leads to a better ability to question the status quo when the status quo is bad for the people. Because it's easier to arrive at solutions to that status quo, not just wait for the corrupt government to fix itself.

So... how would you practically see the Marxist reform? Or do you mean we should do nothing and just let them exist under Putin's boot until they automatically become a Marxist nation? that's kind of the same as not doing anything.

Right.

My suggestion is exactly the same without the so-called 'free' market, and with worker-owned means of production. — Isaac

How will that be done practically? I mean, Russia already has a foundation for the free market, so you need to remove that part. You also need to establish guidelines as to how different levels of competence within those worked-owned companies are being handled, so that some don't work their assess off while others don't but get the same.

I mean, the Marxist concept was about how capitalism's collapse gives birth to a Marxist society. i.e a communist society. All examples of communism we have so far were... just as you suggest here... a deliberate force of change, to speed up that collapse of capitalism and install communism directly. That didn't work out so well now did it?

So you are suggesting the same kind of Lenin approach to all of this. I would just like to know how that would really play out in reality, in your opinion? Especially when Russia already has a free market in place that needs to be shut down first.

It's fascinating that you are so opposed to my idea of installing better and more equal education free of state propaganda as part of improving people's ability to choose what they want to do in life and how they want to reshape their nation... while you yourself suggest installing communism, ignoring what is already in place that would more organically change society in a way people can be comfortable with, just because you don't like capitalism and the free market.

You essentially do the same sin you accuse others of, you don't care what they already have and just want to install what you believe is right.

What's on offer right now is none of the things we actually agree on and just the one we disagree on. What's being offered to Ukraine is western financial support in return for a reduction in social welfare, an increase in elite ownership over the means of production, and an opening up of markets. — Isaac

So they're not free to choose for themselves then? Maybe they choose that path because they want it? Why is it wrong to choose that path, but it's right to choose the path you suggest? Have you any evidence of such an ultimatum from the west or are you just using that as a way to suggest that your path is the right one? How about some consistency in thought here, or is it you who are racist against Ukrainians? Thinking they are unable to choose because they don't choose what you want them to choose and inventing an ultimatum that has no proof behind it you can justify why their choice is bad and your suggestion for communism is better?

What you are suggesting as a solution requires far more force than what I suggest, a force that might even go against the will of the people. How ironic this all became.

the kind of things the Nazis were doing. — Olivier5

Exactly. It is hideously ironic that Russia, which claims to be "de-nazifying" Ukraine is emulating the actual Nazis.

This was not always the case. — Olivier5

True enough, the Dutch were quite imperialistic with colonies in the Americas, Asia and Africa. Royal Dutch Shell didn't get rich harvesting clams, after all.

still think it's about class struggle — Benkei

Probably a sweeping generalization, but "The class war is the only war."

So nothing to do with the comment you cited then. — Isaac

You are thick.

It had to do with this comment of yours, where you made it look like Zelensky and the West are war criminals, and you conveniently left the Russians off the hook:

It's not their lives. Zelensky (and his government) decide how to proceed. Western governments decide in what way to assist. Ukrainian children die. They didn't get a say in the matter. — Isaac

Yep, someone needs to denazify Russia...

This was not always the case. The Netherlands had an oversea empire in South Africa and Indonesia. They invented the apartheid system to rule it, primarily to avoid inter-racial sex and marriage. Their very long war against the independent-minded Acehnese became a war of extermination. Dutch troops wiped out entire villages and murdered civilians by the thousands. That's how they 'won'. — Olivier5

All true unfortunately. Even worse, apologising for our "police actions" at the end of the 40s is still not done because the feelings of veterans are more important than admitting to war crimes.

I don't need to worry about balance. So most of the stuff you're saying is just misunderstood by me. I don't have the same concerns you do, so I don't get the intent. — frank

Our, certainly my, concerns are the hundreds of military bases and toppling government and interfering in democratic political processes even in Europe as well as overt military threats and actions as well.

Which, the US, having the most military and covert power, does the most of, in addition to the integration of this power system with multinational corporations that implement these policies in a sort of quasi-legalistic way as well.

Are these actions justified by democracy? No. Democracy can still result in unjustifiable actions.

We can also question not only how democratic the United States actually is, but also question, given it determines policy and governments in many places around the world who don't get to vote ... if the US system is really democratic at all considering the case can be made that the United States imposing its will on poor countries is de facto governing without the consent of the governed.

Be that as it may, the question is one of scale. The actions of the US have far greater impact on the state of the world than Uzbekistan, so the utility of criticising US policy is simply more relevant and hopefully more fruitful.

If you say "but you don't criticise the others!" ... we do. I called China a totalitarian hellscape many times on this forum, and if you retort "ok, but not as much!" then the answer is in terms of scale and effectiveness.

USA, for now, has more influence on the state of the world than Uzbekistan and even China, so is more relevant in terms of political criticism.

Additionally, not only is criticism of USA more effective precisely because it's not yet completely totalitarian (I would argue pretty close though), so we can engage with American's such as yourself, but our own governments have far more influence over American policy than Uzbek or Chinese policy. A lot of actions the US want to be seen as "the US and its allies" and "the Free World" and so Europe has considerable leverage in such "Deciding for the Free World" conversations. Sometimes US goes it alone, but it prefers not to.

For example, certainly there is lot's and lot's to condemn and criticise about North Korea, I don't think anyone here would disagree, the problem is that the criticism doesn't go very far as we can't do much about it. If someone had a plan to make life better and more democratic in North Korean from the outside ... great, let's do it; the problem is the paucity of such plans and so there's little to scrutinise and discuss and little to do, and North Korean influence on the world isn't so great, so "the problem" can just be ignored insofar as no one seems to have a solution anyway.

However, contrast this to American policy and it's a different situation; the scale of the American War Machine and covert machine is global and massive, in addition both legitimate and illegitimate political and economic power; these policies can be influenced in several effective ways, so it's worth debating.

And we have discussed "what we can do about democracy in Russia" such as provoke a violent revolution.

However, if one disagrees with that plan and doesn't see or hear any other plan to affect Russian policy on the short term (the here and now when people are dying), then, again, seems the best we can do is try to understand the Russian perspective and make the case of Europe and the US using their leverage and "statecraft" to reach a diplomatic resolution and the end to the current bloodshed.

If the bloodshed stopped, then there would be plenty of time to debate the morality from first principles and what longer term policies may prevent and minimise wars in the future, including policies with respect to Russia. War crimes should be investigated, for various reasons, including that it hopefully dissuades more war crimes in the future.

I suspect one of them is doing it for the money.
— Olivier5

I meant people like that in general. — frank

Sure, and among people like that, some of them do it for the money, but of course your question of why do they defend Russia arises only for those who do it for free.

My take is that's a naïve form of anti-americanism. They really really think Biden is worse or scarier that Putin. That kind of ideas is more likely to exist in parochial folks who never travelled much beyond their little country, because it takes only a few days in a dictatorship to understand what's happening. The difference with your average semi-healthy democratic country is hard to miss.

There's no such thing as a nation of angels.

If the bloodshed stopped, then there would be plenty of time to debate the morality from first principles and what longer term policies may prevent and minimise wars in the future, including policies with respect to Russia. War crimes should be investigated, for various reasons, including that it hopefully dissuades more war crimes in the future. — boethius

No reason to expect the bloodshed to stop, nor to wait for the bloodshed to stop first before we can debate morality.

My take is that's a naïve form of anti-americanism. They really really think Biden is worse or scarier that Putin. That kind of ideas is more likely to exist in parochial folks who never travelled much beyond their little country, because it takes only a few days in a dictatorship to understand what's happening. The difference with your average semi-healthy democratic country is hard to miss. — Olivier5

So you're different because you've traveled more?

No reason to expect the bloodshed to stop, nor to wait for the bloodshed to stop first before we can debate morality. — Olivier5

I said from first principles. If the bloodshed ended we could circle back to a lot of foundational moral issues that have been touched on in this thread, but it's difficult to really get into because of the war and events moving forward.

Wanting to end the war, is a moral position, be it militarily or diplomatically or via revolution in Russia, but we are taking that moral position for granted, not debating first principles about it.

From that shared moral position, people here are advocating different things—be them further moral differences or then just analytical questions of effective action; i.e. how best to achieve the shared goal.

For example, some have clearly stated the position that repeating Western media narrative helps Ukrainians, helps them fight and get support and so helping to end the war that way, and Russian points, be them true or false, should be ignored as even recognising "the seed" that happens to be true as true serves the Russian propaganda.

Others, have argued for a diplomatic resolution which requires a diplomatic framework.

Not different, just less anti-american.

https://www.rt.com/russia/553293-bucha-war-crimes-truth/

The linkage between the dead and the Russian military was established immediately, without any fact-based data to back it up, and subsequently echoed in all forms of media – mainstream and social alike. Anyone who dared question the established “Russia did it” narrative was shouted down and belittled as a “Russian shill,” or worse. — RT