Again, no one is actually "standing" with Ukraine, except a few foreign fighters. — boethius

Except giving military and financial aid to Ukraine. Which actually rarely happens.

We see statements like this, but never see any evidence. — boethius

How isn't the ANNEXATION of Ukrainian territory clear evidence of this?

Or the Russification that Russia is doing in the occupied territories?

Or simply just what Vladimir Putin says?

How simply that isn't obvious evidence???

people respond better to subsidies than taxes, no surprise there but there's still a majority for making sacrifices also in the form of taxes. — Benkei

There's a huge difference on what kind of subsidy one wants for a negative outcome than with the tax one would pay for there be no negative outcome.

Far better is to give incentives for the industry and for the needed infrastructure to be created for electric cars (starting with having that electricity demand met without new or existing coal plants).

Furthermore, just notice that actually older cars don't run on present day fuel sold in gas stations. So the timeline basically for cars to transform happens in many decades.

Far too many times policies are done that sound good, people think our needed, but simply don't have any trace of reality in them. As if they really would want to face an economic recession, blackouts and lower standard of living than before. Just as one historical example: after the Three Mile Island incident, Sweden decided after a referendum in 1980 to go away from nuclear energy. The Parliament decided that nuclear energy production would be phased out by 2010, hence in thirty years. In 2010, Sweden was producing far more nuclear energy, both in power and percentage wise, than in 1980.

Nearly one third of electricity in Sweden is produced by nuclear energy in Sweden today, 42 years after that decision.

So one can basically fuck off with 90% of the bullshit energy policy initiatives which sound good to people, won't happen and will be forgotten when the next administration comes in. And that's why basically many countries don't have a real energy policy. It's all just nice words far from the actual reality.

(Sweden before Greta. Nuclear was bad even then.)

So people are prepared to do this, provided rich people are under the same ban. — Benkei

Wouldn't the question about be poor people, not the rich people that can afford brand new electric cars?

Russian fighter Igor Mangushev tells what he thinks about the goals of the war, with a skull of an Ukrainian soldier as a prop:

Why not? Do people just flee to the Eurasian steppes and live with camels to escape the draft?
Bu
Or do they dress like Cossacks and get so drunk their hearts stop beating?

I'm very familiar with Russian life, as you can tell. — Tate

:smile:

Well, people just evading authorities and moving into the forest is said to be one reason why Russia didn't have similar feudalism as in Western Europe.

But I guess the reason is that a) you can bribe the officers that are responsible of your draft, b) you can bribe a doctor (like Trump did to avoid military service in Vietnam) that you are unable to serve or c) you just don't show up and the government doesn't have the resources to hunt for every draft dodger there is. Or then work on an important sector (like information technology) where your employer can get you exempted.

Russia on Tuesday temporarily exempted young IT workers from military service after an exodus of programmers following Moscow's military operation in Ukraine.

That not all of able males do serve has been a problem in Russia for a long time:

(from 2015)

in Russia, military service is mandatory for men aged 18 to 27. But according to a recent European Parliamentary Research Service report, each year, half of all would-be conscripts—75,000 out of an annual intake of around 150,000 young men—are thought to be dodging the draft.

Now it is said that the drop out rate is only 30%, so basically the situation has improved from 2015 I guess.

Not sure. The logics here are an attempt to make these issues clear. — Banno

By logic, do you mean first order logic?

To me it seems like one takes the natural numbers and then assumes you can deduce from the natural numbers things like infinity or irrational/transcendental numbers. Doesn't go like that.

But perhaps first a question that someone hopefully could answer:

Tarski's indefinability theorem and the Incompleteness theorems of Gödel are in some literature called as incompleteness results. Are they equivalent or just how they link to each other? For me it seems like talking about the same issue just from a bit different viewpoint. Am I wrong?

One thought, hopefully adequately understandable:

What if our premisses are wrong when we try to make a theory of truth as we try to do it?

That we just assume it's a straight forward logic "if...then" as we ordinarily do. But self-reference, or generalizing to all possibilities and we end up in problems where we need a metalanguage or some hierarchical system to avoid a paradox.

And the wrong premiss is that when we add self-reference, or the infinite, our finite logic simply cut it? And this is what the paradoxes tell us.

The disastrous Winter War that preceded this didn't discourage the Soviets - and the gamble payed off. They installed puppet governments, which promptly held "elections," followed by a vote to become new Soviet Socialist Republics (with 90+% voting in favor).

So yeah, they've learned all the wrong lessons from history, if they learned at all. — SophistiCat

There is a very interesting longue durée in the way Russia works it's imperialistic goals. The methods and tactics are basically same. From Putin's speeches the historical viewpoint is evident, something that rarely Western politicians use, but is very common for example in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, Putin is trying to enlargen the armed forces:

Aug 25 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree on Thursday to increase the size of Russia's armed forces from 1.9 million to 2.04 million as the war in Ukraine enters its seventh month.

Moscow has not revealed any losses in the conflict since its first weeks, but Western officials and the Kyiv government say they number in the thousands.

The increase includes a 137,000 boost in the number of combat personnel to 1.15 million. It comes into effect on Jan 1, according to the decree published on the government's legislative portal.

Even in the spring draft the objectives weren't met. So easier said than done.

My woman friends claim it wouldn't even be an issue if it was a male politician. — boethius

In Kekkonen's and Koivisto's time yes, but in the 1990's the tabloid press started to be "normal" even in Finland by European standards. For the last thirty years they would go for the jugular when these kind of pictures / videos come out. And now, in our time, the "old media" just has to respond what already has happened as is already discussed in the social media.

Without the social media I think that there would be just these rumours going on that Sanna likes to party without anything been written about it in the media.

There's a bunch of examples of male politicians getting blackout drunk on official visits and so on, but my counter-point is they weren't Prime Minister, but things like cultural minister (representing Finnish drinking culture). — boethius

Many Finnish men have a "personal problem" with alcohol.

The best example of this was Ahti Karjalainen, who made a stellar career starting from being the secretary of President Kekkonen and the Soviets (KGB) wanted him to follow Kekkonen. But alcohol got him. Those times once when on a state official visit in Finland the motorcade suddenly stopped and the reporters jumped out to find out what's happening, nobody took a picture of the intoxicated Finnish foreign minister throwing up next to the car carrying him. So he was put away into the Central bank of Finland. And as an alcoholic, even got fired from there.

However, a male getting drunk and frisky at a party I don't think would be automatically interpreted as cheating. Easily have a "boys will be boys" narrative around it, but I do agree the leaving your wife alone with the child to go party would be viewed as classic douche archetype ... but that's not necessarily so damaging politically. — boethius

I'm not sure just how well that "boys will be boys" thing will go in the post me-too environment. You have to be a Donald Trump: have firm backing from your supporters that think everything you do is great as you irritate the elites and everything bad thrown at you is just fake news.

Sanna's supporters aren't so many as she isn't an anti-establishment populist.

Over half of Ukraine's children are now refugees or fleeing (some more or less kidnapped), with no light at the end of the Ukrainian tunnel.

As seen before, a generation could be lost, while Putin's machinations bomb away, allegedly to deNazify and/or out of fear of NATO.

The right thing to do in the immediate term would be for Putin to turn the volume down, simple as that.

So far, UNICEF et al arranged for schooling/education for some 600,000 children having fled Ukraine. — jorndoe

I remember when they studied the effects of WW2 on children in Finland, they found that the most traumatic experiences were with those children that were evacuated to Sweden and were separated from their families and parents. No civilians were left to the hands of Russians as the civilian population was evacuated from front. At least now it has been mothers with their children that have been evacuated from Ukraine.

(Not like this...)


(Better like this for the child.)


And with this rate, likely about 100 000 or over will be killed in the first year of the war.

About time you showed up :wink: . Her image has been severely undermined and so, I think she's effectively finished. And she probably knows that. Hence the tears. It's not a moral issue, and nothing she did is inconsistent with being a top class PM. It's just the image. The "Prime Minister" is that thing in our head we consider Prime-Ministerish and for most people that has certain boundaries. We don't want the human getting in the way. We'd rather brush that under the carpet. Her sin was letting her human out there in full HD vid, so we can't. Ergo, she's toast imo, though she'll probably limp on for a while. — Baden

I think you are correct.

Anyway, elections are held in 2nd of April next year and likely this administration will limp forward until there. I don't think that she will resign before (I may be wrong, of course). The social democrats got a breath of fresh air with the now 36-year old Sanna (as the average age of the party members is over 70), Yet high inflation, the likely economic downturn and the oncoming energy crisis will likely mean that the conservatives/True Finns may possibly win. (Actually the conservatives lost only because a popular member of parliament created a offshoot party once he didn't get a top ministerial post when the party was in power. Basically something similar to when Ross Perot undermined Bush the elder and Clinton got into power.)

But I have to say that she had been a smart politician, before choosing the wrong "in"-crowd of assholes among whom to party with. She was firm on issues like NATO membership and COVID-restrictions once the strong majority of the people felt the same way. She changed her views quick enough to take on the role of being in command. Above all, all those crappy "lose-or-lose more" issues that any administration has to face and cannot win, suddenly an another minister would to take the hotseat and she wouldn't be anywhere around to take responsibility. That tactic actually worked well: if the shit stuff is commented by others and you comment on the "good" stuff, things that people agree with, people will have a positive image of you. Until you give it all away some party celebs that live off from instragram fame.

The only issue I really have, and yes, I am indeed old fashioned because of this, is that at least I haven't noticed the PM partying with his husband. Her husband is n ever mentioned in the parties. The males in the partying buddies are just other "friends" of Sanna. But hey, she celebrated their anniversary with her husband so I guess it's OK. An open style marriage I guess. Or then it's a show marriage because some more old fashioned/conservative people here might think a PM should be married and not have out of wedlock children. If your a single mom, then proudly be a single mom.

I just think that if it was an 36-year old male prime minister partying with women celebs and nowhere would be his wife that he has been married two years ago and with whom you have 4 year old daughter with, people wouldn't be so accepting. Usually marriages in which the spouses don't party together won't last.

But anyway, so why did she fuck up so big?

I think that for this once a supermarket cashier (which fits perfectly the social democratic image of rising from an ordinary background), the superstardom she got as this young sexy prime minister simply went to her head. Usually a Finnish prime minister, even if female, doesn't get the limelight as Marin has had now. And things like joining NATO naturally put our country into media focus. Above all, last year when the first partying videos emerged from the prime minister's official residence, her polls did actually go up. Because then it really was just about singing and dancing. And it was a meeting with artists. And naturally pop artists sing and dance. So if the polls went then up, why not simply continue to party!

HAHAHAAAA!

Four pages already of our PM. :razz:

But actually it's pretty crazy that a highly succesful woman, who also happens to dance well, is forced for political reasons to take a drugtest. — Benkei

Well, Sanna basicallty jumped to this immediately. I think only some opposition politician tweeted that she should take one. And that's it. The media wasn't asking for it. And she took a pee test, which umm...shows if you have had drugs during the couple of days.

Well, as nearly unavoidable (as a Finn) I've seen the videos...and the discussion here. The things that made this fuzz about drugs was because:

a) someone in video referred themselves who party as "jauhojengi", flour-gang which is urban slang for people who use cocaine etc instead of alcohol

b) in a video there seems an absence of alcohol bottles and in one shot in the kitchen shows a white stripe on the table (which of course could be everything).

c) the videos were shot before they actually went out in two clubs and partied until five.

d) this isn't the ONLY time these partying videos have gotten out. I think last year was already was video of Sanna partying with artists (many the same group).

I think the general consensus is that the whole debacle just questions her judgement about the friends she has. And of course, if it would be a male PM, however good looking, he would be out. I think just a photo of a male intimately dancing with a female singer when his wife and daughter are at home would be enough. Nobody would believe the "we're just friends" answer.

(Some of Sanna's friends using the prime ministers residence information room to get cool photos. She first tried to say the pictures were taken at the toilet. Notice the same "Finland" sign and Sanna himself has acknowledged that they are genuine, which she regrets.)



Well, she wanted to "shake the institution of the prime minister". That she definately has done. :snicker:

But now we are here in the phase where she apologizes with nearly breaking up in tears ...and telling that Ukrainians have it worse. Which is true. And it's the Ukrainian day of independence, I think.

We don't really know what the motives are, there is widespread disagreement, and several narratives have come and gone about it in the Western press.

I'm completely open to speculation of essentially any plausible motive. — boethius

I think you and me will have to wait about 30 years before we have a reasonable view of what likely happened. It's true that only 50-100 years history usually has come to an overall conclusion and the historians are arguing about the minor details, but likely in 30 years we can see how it was.

It is clearly a main driver of the hostilities and tensions. — boethius

So your " completely open to speculation of essentially any plausible motive", yet you have decided that NATO expansion "is clearly a main driver of the hostilities and tensions". Well perhaps "a main driver" is better than "the main driver".

Well, if it was just NATO membership, Russia wouldn't be annexing parts of Ukraine. It is as simple as that you cannot deny that. You simply cannot. Regime change yes, annexation no.

The only prima facie interpretation of the context available is that Russia is reacting to clearly hostile moves. — boethius

By annexing territories of other sovereign countries. Right. :roll:

We've had this discussion in this thread of what Crimea meant for Russia, how Crimea is now seen as integral part of Russia and how it is now seen by Putin an illegal act and so on.

And how about Moldova? Has it tried to join NATO? No. Yet there the same strategy was implemented: Russian/Soviet troops presented as "peacekeepers", a separatist force backed by Russia. Just like in Georgia, actually.

And how about Armenia? Has Armenia tried to be a NATO member? In fact it's a member of the CSTO. Yet when Azerbaijan attacked (with the help of Turkey and oil money), Russia didn't help it's ally, because the government had tried to make perhaps better relations to the West. It played the role of a mediator.

If your are blind to the fact that Russia wants to dominate all of it's former states and does want parts of Ukraine, if it can, then there's not much to change your view.

But this is a minor issue as the war is going on.

In my view the February 24th attack was simply a gamble where the risks didn't seem so huge as prior gambles had worked.

We forget just what have been the real military victories of Russia and Soviet Union after World War 2. The really successful large military operation was in 1968 the Occupation of Czechoslovakia. Such large attack that the Czech army didn't raise it's finger and not even the Czech people dared to fight with against the tanks as had the Hungarians in 1956. There wasn't any war, just a surrender, basically protests.

(And then, the tanks were in Prague)


Similarly the occupation of Crimea, when this war actually started, was actually huge military victory. Using overwhelming force and achieving strategic surprise, all the objectives, both military and political, were met. The surprise is best shown in the World media was confused about the who were "Crimean volunteers" or the "little green men".

Yet the similar things as then were present earlier when Soviet Union invaded Finland: A puppet government "so-called Kuusinen government" that portrayed to be Finland asking the help from the Soviet Union, the idea that the Finnish workers would rejoice being liberated and earlier Civil War "reds" joining the ranks of Kuusinen's government. And the Soviet troops were said it would be an easy march and that Finnish workers would welcome them. Now we just have the "People's Republics", which have been far more successful.

Yet same thing happened as now: it hasn't been a victory march into Ukraine as it wasn't into my country.

Yet, before the assault as war is only an option, why wouldn't people under Putin tell him what he wants to hear? That it will be a short quick war and Ukraine will fold when the going gets tough.And hasn't Putin modernized the Russian military and hasn't it shown it can fight well in Syria? Who's going to say to a President that has fought very successful wars that this one will be different?

All just "propaganda" a literal biographer of Putin pointing out we don't know Putin's objectives? — boethius

Again the "Putin attacked Ukraine because of NATO-membership" argument?

I think everyone agrees that one single reason doesn't explain a decision to go to war and obviously Russia wouldn't like Ukraine to be a member of NATO. However this idea that this was the most important reason (or only reason) depends on the idea that Ukrainian membership was possible/realistic/imminent.

Let's notice just what actually was said before the war:

(Do note the date: before February 24th.)

(TASS, February 16th 2022) BERLIN, February 16. /TASS/. Ukraine’s NATO membership is not on the alliance’s agenda at the moment, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz told German reporters after talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"There is a fact, and the fact is: all parties know that Ukraine’s NATO membership is not on the agenda," the German leader said at a news conference, broadcast by WELT.

He went on to say that in this situation "everyone should step back a bit," and spoke against "a military standoff about an issue which is not even on the agenda."

Scholz made similar statements during a joint news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier in the day.

What "not being in the alliances agenda" meant for Germany has been now cleared a bit:

(NEXTA) German @Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz said that before the war in Ukraine began, he had promised Putin that Ukraine would not become a NATO member in the coming decades, Die Welt reports.

If Germany was against the NATO membership of Ukraine (basically openly), I guess there would be other NATO members too, which have disputes with Ukraine and willing to be in good terms with Russia and hence wouldn't want to expand the organization. But of course this hasn't silenced the people who argue that this war happened because of NATO.

Again, wild speculations by Western media. — boethius

I'm not so sure about that. We do know something about how Russia works. Don't think it's all speculation. Starting with the US knowing that Russia would invade, there are things that are known. What Putin thinks inside his head we naturally have no idea.

Obviously they would make it an "official war" if they wanted to, and they've talked about doing so. — boethius

But they have not. And that's the important issue here.

Again, we don't really have any statistically relevant data on Russian troops morale ... and low-morale in armies is pretty common and often goes up and down, total collapse being a pretty big outlier.

Moreover, is Ukrainian morale any better? — boethius

With the information we have, we can at least quite confidently say that Russian morale isn't high and Ukrainian moral isn't on the verge of collapse.

Even if it is anecdotal and perhaps some reporting is biased, there's enough to understand that there are moral (and other) problems in the Russian side. That doesn't mean that all Russian units have low moral. And when it comes to Ukrainians, Russia would be eager to show of large groups of surrendering Ukrainians. We did see videos of these when Mariupol fell.


And naturally we can say that Ukrainian morale is better. They have been attacked, it's pretty simply for them. It's the Russians that can have the debate about if this war was a good idea. Many young people have voted on the issue by leaving Russia. Something that is an indicator that not everyone agrees with Putin.

Yes, this came first apparent when Putin's own intelligence service raided the FSB headquarters responsible for Ukraine after the war had started. Likely they had told simply what Putin wanted to hear (a trap in that intelligence services can fall into).

I think we'll know the details later even better, but likely the intelligence service painted a rosy picture of this invasion just going so well as the occupation (and annexation) of Crimea. We have to remember that the most successful military operations that the Soviet Union and Russia have pulled off were so successful that they aren't called wars: The occupation of Czechoslovakia 1968 and the occupation of Crimea 2014. Hence the Russia have this urge for these armour attacks going straight to the Capital and simply eliminate the enemy leadership.

Americans call the tactic a "Thunder Run", which the US did successfully during the invasion of Iraq. When the US noticed that the Iraqis weren't putting much a fight, they just rolled the tanks right inside Baghdad into the city center. With a defender that would be willing and capable to fight, this would be a horrible strategy. And so it was in the battle of Kyiv (and earlier in the First Chechen war).

Interesting to look at the American experience in Baghdad to what now happened in Ukraine:


And how the same tactic didn't work near Kyiv. Here a large armoured column is attacked, it stops (basically bunching up dangerously together) and then it retreats:

You're forgetting you're talking to a woman. — baker

I had no idea that I was talking to a women.

The average peasant in the Dark Ages ate healthier food than most people do today. - Certainly no pesticides and no GMOs. In the old times, food was much healthier, much more satiating because it had real taste. — baker

I've seen studies that the diet worsened from the Early Middle Ages to the age of industrialization, but it might be too drastic to think our food now is less healthier. The 19th Century brought huge improvement to agriculture and also an emphasis on food safety requirements. Now we have the ability to eat extremely healthy food, but what actually the food we eat is another thing. The really irritating issue is that the healthy diet is far more costly than the cheapest food, which makes for a bad diet.

And with medievel diet we have to remember it wasn't fresh, the food that could be preserved. The idea was to eat only the food from the last season, not this one as you didn't know just how the it would be this year. So a lot of salt.

Sure. But what are the metaphysical assumptions behind them? — baker

I think it's far more about social assumptions than metaphysical ones.

You look to be smart when you're critical about your life and the society around you. To accept it and be happy about it seems to many like you haven't thought about the current issues. Or you simply don't care and just go "with the flock".

This is indeed the modern meaning of "science", i.e. 17th century and onwards. But the word was used before in a broader sense. E.g. Aristotle used it as any topic that pertains to truth. — A Christian Philosophy

I think this might be worth mentioning in your video, that you are using the broader meaning. It helps to avoid unnecessary criticism.

It’s just the death throes of another establishment political dynasty. The Cheneys, the Clintons, the Bushs—all are heading towards the trash-bin of history. — NOS4A2

Well, don't forget the Trumps then:

Maybe if you'd read the thread properly, you'd see the philosophical element here. The intersection between biology/psychology/society and the primacy of identity over behaviour, preference etc. But if you're not interested, that's OK too. — Baden

I had that response from reading the OP, which was quite on with the lines how typically these debates go.

And sorry if a see this issue more from the sociological / political element than philosophical, but that just happens when one brings societal questions and the society (including social behavior) into question.

The replacement rate is low here as well. — Xtrix

US demographics is far better, thanks to immigration.

Yes. Profit and non-profit. Completely beside the point, but there's an answer. — Xtrix

And you think in those profit and non-profit organizations the managers didn't listen one iota at their workforce about anything? Nope, zero. They had their information from God (or something) and preached it to the organization without wanting to hear any feedback?

It depends on the specific context. In some ways, we are very similar to animals, yes, but it's a minor side issue here anyway. — Baden

Might be.

But usually these issues are more about virtue signalling than about the actual issues. So few are actually trans, for example. Some people want to be insightful and progressive, wishing to be in the minority fighting for the rights that later are accepted universally, but today are a hot potato. And other people want to be the conservatives, upholding "common reason" and decency against nonsense. And both of these types dominate the public discussion. However they may declare themselves to be open minded and wanting a discussion, they are just waiting to put you into the other camp, those who are wrong, and attack you.

Yeah, perhaps I have had enough of these stupid culture wars.

Fair enough, I haven't read all of your posts.

But I still think there's a lot of hubris in our thinking that we are sooo different from animals. Yes, having an advance language system has it's perks, but still.

Animals are irrelevant because they are always stuck at Level 1, being neither people nor social in the sense we are. — Baden

Why bash animals? I've always thought that we are just smart animals, but otherwise there's not much different other than our extreme hubris about ourselves.

Something makes you a fan. Your love of the team, your undying commitment to your land, the excitement of singing stupid songs, getting drunk with hooligans, whatever, but if it's just an undefined identity, then it's meaningless — Hanover

I've always what especially with being a sport teams fans has anything to do with "undying commitment to your land". The collective experience of singing stupid songs and getting drunk and breaking stuff I can imagine.

Thanks for making a video.

Just a question: is metaphysics really "the science of reality"? I think it would be study of what is outside our objective experience, thinking about the fundamental nature of reality. Not something that we can experiment with. Hence the word meta in front of physics.

Many people think of science as something where you can apply the scientific method, basically something that is experimental.

Hence the difference what you mean by emprical and rational sciences ought to be discussed as many understand the scientific method to be empirical.

Scientific method = a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Anyway, hope this comment improves your thoughts.

Commanders are in a pickle: officially they are not at war, and so peacetime laws apply. Which means that they can't force anyone to fight. Any contract serviceman can quit at any time and for any reason. At most, they can be prosecuted for insubordination, which is not a very serious charge. — SophistiCat

When you start a large conventional war and don't call it even war, you have this. Putin had the balls to put the Russian Armed Forces to make an all out attack on Ukraine, but he hadn't the balls to put the Russian society into war mode. You reap what you sow.

Meanwhile, NATO is flexing it's muscles.

The 22nd Marine Expeditionary unit with it's Marine force and Airwing (on USS Kearsarge) practiced with the Finnish Navy and it's coastal forces and the exercise just ended this week. What is notable, that either the 22nd MEU or the Finnish Navy didn't know about this exercise in May of this year. So now NATO is basically having ad hoc exercises, not those agreed basically years earlier. The Finnish commander of the Coastal Brigade commented that the ad hoc exercise was the best military exercise in his 33 year military career. Tells something about it.

(What is interesting that American marines and their Finnish counterparts are training in mixed units:)


Just few weeks before in Estonia, on the other side of Gulf of Finland, Exercise Hedgehog was conducted and was the largest military exercises in Estonia since 1991 with 15 000 personnel (in a country with 7500 active personnel). An interesting video about it:



And likely you could go down until the Black Sea with similar NATO exercises taking place.

Yet the actual war seems to have to an artillery duel equivalent of WW2 / WW1 era, that both sides simply cannot continue. This war has dragged on for quite a while:

Nonsense. Where do you get these ideas??? — baker

Of course it's nonsense, but haven't you noticed these sentiments?

By comparing it to a bad meal, not to no meal. — baker

We've been created to go well without food for one day, actually. It's water that we need basically daily.

That's appreciation for people who have no value system. — baker

Well, sort of. Assume if you had eaten for your entire life exceptionally great meals, basically always something of the level that one gets in Michelin star restaurants, with added detail to the healthiness of your diet. You wouldn't know how bad food actually people e

For an anecdote, I remember once on a Finnish Navy island garrison the commanding officer decided to remember the Winter War by having the conscripts exactly the same kind of food with the historical amount during winter that soldiers were given during WW2...at the same naval fortress. The records were they, so the kitchen had no trouble in recreating the WW2-era cuisine. Hence they got a small portion of porridge (without honey or sugar) and that's it. As the garrison was on a fortress island, the conscript didn't have the chance to order pizza or anything in the evening. The conscripts (who had been born in the 1980's) hadn't experienced cold and hunger. Many said that they respected differently the war veterans after that experience.

It's telling that actually now days being overweight is many times a sign of poverty.

I'm absolutely sure that we wouldn't image just what people ate thousands of years ago.

In many ways compared to the US. I’m well aware they’re the current bogeyman. There’s plenty I don’t like about China. But you mentioned “horrible results” regarding private property. And China just isn’t that horrible. In fact economically it’s a powerhouse, and millions have been raised out of poverty. — Xtrix

It is true that they have raised millions from poverty and don't face starvation as they did in truth with the failed Maoist experiments. But what is has been is a gigantic building spree and the use of cheap labor only goes so far. And their self-made hurdle they made for themselves with the one-child policy is now going to bite them hard. So I'm not sure just how great powerhouse China actually is. Let's look after a couple of years.

Having lived in several cities and towns in the US - That’s because you don’t know how a corporation functions. — Xtrix

I've worked in corporations, but have you?

China isn't so horrible. — Xtrix

Really? Compared to what? North Korea? :roll:

Even if they (the CCP) say there still Marxist-Leninists, they do have private property (especially after Mao). With so many billionaires and real estate bubble bursting, I don't think the country qualifies for a true communist state. Basically it's a fascist state: a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation and government control of strategic industries. It's only been given this Socialist veneer in rhetoric.

Where's "here"? I'm talking mostly about the US, not Scandinavia. — Xtrix

I refer here to the Nordic countries. Do note that this is an international forum

The corporation operates in a community, and to the extent that they employ people in that community, have buildings in that community, effect traffic in that community, and have environmental effects in that community, I think the community has more than a clue indeed, and should have some input. There should be community outreach and meetings with the local governments. Some of this takes place, but mostly it doesn't. — Xtrix

Yet wouldn't that "community outreach" look to you as window dressing? And if they have meetings with local governments, what's on the issue? Increasing job positions in the community? I guess every local government would usually like that. And what about the people?

In reality, the "community", the people likely won't give a shit about a corporation if they don't work there. Likely the only reason they would want to complain about something. Now if that complaint is justified, wouldn't it be ought to be covered by laws and regulations?

Neither the workers, nor the community, nor the customers, have any say whatsoever in the major decisions of the company I have already outlined. Zero. — Xtrix

Zero? That is simply not true. Your picture is far too black and white exaggerations. And I notice you have the urge to talk about "the workers", perhaps referring to them as this mythical downtrodden class. Even to talk about employees, you would have to admit that there's many types of employees, mid-level staff and managers below the executive class. These are people that executive have to listen. And basically, if you run down your company for short term profits, guess what, sooner or later the company is a former company.

Ah, I see your mistake where you confuse legal accountability with moral accountability. — Benkei

I don't confuse the two. I think that usually those think that capitalism is immoral and a world without private property would be moral. Yet all we have is laws. Furthermore, that "moral" world without private property has been tried again and again, with absolutely horrible results.

The laws and regulations have changed a great deal over time. In some eras you have better laws, more tightly regulated business; in others, looser or non-existent regulations— or outright regulatory capture. All of that is worth discussing. — Xtrix

That is a good topic to discuss, I agree.

Still just a handful of people — owners, managers, etc., maybe 20-50 people, making all the important decisions. That is what I’m arguing against. — Xtrix

And now the idea of a stakeholder is widely accepted. And you have here, just to give an example, Nordic corporatism

So what democracy do you have in mind?

The public has no input on the decisions of the corporation. — Xtrix

And just what ought to be the input of people who don't have a clue what the corporation does?

Workers have no input either. — Xtrix

:roll:

Have you had a job? I would disagree here.

They are not accountable to their workers, or the community, or the government. — Xtrix

Well, I guess if they don't pay the workers, the workers will not work. If they don't follow the laws the government has given, they will be in trouble quickly anywhere.

For you this "oligarchy" seems to be part of some kind of "Illuminati".

The Fortune 500 companies I’m talking about are run undemocratically. They’re run by the board of directors and the CEO. The board is chosen by major shareholders (the “owners”). These people — a small group of 20-50 — make all the major decisions. That’s the structure of most corporations, and it is NOT democracy — your talk of “accountability” notwithstanding. — Xtrix

As many of the owners today are institutional investors and mutual funds, the role of the employed managerial class is the most important. The owners of a corporation, which is represented by the board, which that the CEO's and other employed managers report to, are themselves similar managers. Hence you have a true managerial class, where the few rare Bill Gates / Elon Musk types are more of an oddity. This is the world we live in: few large oligopolies in every market segment and then thousands of small companies.

The definition of accountability is "an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions".

Whatever you say, the responsibility of one's actions are defined in law. You can have an effect on many thing, but it's another thing to be responsible for them. Corporations can increase the wealth of the society and also when the stop their activities, those effects can be detrimental to the region where they in the past have been a large employer.

But just where do you draw the line for accountability? The law defines it. If the management does poor business decisions and the corporation goes bankrupt, that in itself isn't a crime. If the technology changes and the corporation is unable to cope with the change, is that a crime? It's poor management, lousy work. But not something that breaks the law.

You simply have to define more accurately just where do you see the problem of accountability.

Even the FSB personnel don't seem happy to go to Ukraine:

Employees of the Federal Security Service of Russia massively refuse to go to war in Ukraine. They do not agree even for a salary increase of 6-8 times and additional benefits.

The Telegram channel “We Can Explain” authors shared the relevant information, citing a source in the FSB.

The Russian Federation is trying to form new special service units in the temporarily occupied territories of the Kherson, Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia regions. Military counterintelligence officers are needed and at all levels: from assistants to the commandant on duty to operatives and middle managers.

Very few people want to go to Ukraine, so the FSB is trying to put pressure on employees under whom the “chair wobbles.” If a person is on the verge of being fired or “warned about incomplete service compliance,” then he is offered to go to war. Calling and former secret service employees who lost their jobs on discrediting grounds.

However, the efforts lead to almost nothing. The source said that people are refusing, even though they are offered a lot of money: “Of the 200 people who were called, only three said they would think. And this despite the promises of huge payments and benefits.”

FSB officers are promised to be paid from 450,000 to 600,000 rubles per month if they agree to a “business trip.” This is 6-8 times more than the salary under the contract.

Similar news and that some Russian troops don't want to serve in Ukraine (see here) or some officers have been even officers have been prosecuted for sending conscripts to the Ukraine war (see Russia Prosecutes 12 Officers Over Conscript Deployments to Ukraine) just point to one obvious issue: low morale among the Russians fighting troops in this war.

Thanks, this is interesting.

What’s missing, of course, is that we don’t yet know exactly which animals were involved in the transfer of SARS-CoV-2 to humans. Live wildlife were removed from the Huanan market before the investigative team entered, increasing public safety but hampering origin hunting.

The opportunity to find the direct animal host has probably passed. As the virus likely rapidly spread through its animal reservoir, it’s overly optimistic to think it would still be circulating in these animals today.

...and furthermore:

The lab leak theory rests on an unfortunate coincidence: that SARS-CoV-2 emerged in a city with a laboratory that works on bat coronaviruses.

Some of these bat coronaviruses are closely related to SARS-CoV-2. But not close enough to be direct ancestors.

Sadly, the focus on the Wuhan Institute of Virology has distracted us from a far more important connection: that, like SARS-CoV-1 (which emerged in late 2002) before it, there’s a direct link between a coronavirus outbreak and a live animal market.

Conveniently (and some would say too conveniently). the research community can sigh of relief. Hopefully they found which animal it was.

No it doesn’t. Unless you’re talking about some co-ops - but that’s not what I’m talking about. — Xtrix

A co-opt or a stock company are far closer to each other than you think.

Corporations have zero accountability to the public. — Xtrix

They have to abide to the existing laws. You cannot deny that.

I’m not talking about government ownership either, although it’s preferable to private tyranny - at least the public has some input. — Xtrix

Look, there is either private ownership or public ownership. A cooperative, an association and even a non-profit organization are private. If you aren't a member of them, you have no democratic say their actions.

The workers could own the enterprise and run it democratically, if they so desire. — Xtrix

Yeah, that's called being an entrepreneur.

As this is a philosophy forum, the underlying theory should be considered. Just what are you talking about here with "democracy". And there otherwise is this seemingly huge divided between owners/entrepreneurs and workers.

Let's understand what a company / a business is. It actually is just a longer contract of a service. This is crucial to understand:

Let's say you go a get a haircut from a barber. Now, what is your responsibility to the barber? Many would say nothing: you just pay for the service of the barber and everything rest the barber takes care himself or herself. But hold on, what if you would be the barber's only customer? The income of the barber would depend only on you coming to get a haircut. Would it be the same? Actually no. If the barber only cuts your hair, somehow doesn't have the option to take any other customers, then the barber is like a worker to you, even if you don't have the contract of service like when a company hires an employee. You might try to act like it's just a normal service when actually you have a private barber. The barber can only opt to cut your hair or find a totally new job.

Hence every business enterprise can basically outsource everything: a business doesn't need employees as it can use hired workers, entrepreneurs or other companies and just buy their services. Yet you can see the obvious downside here: after every contract, the service provider can just walk away and opt to give its services to another customer. And this is why the need for longer contracts, where the service provider is an employee.

When you understand the above, then think just what is the question that you have mind when you argue that there isn't "democracy" in a business enterprise.

Gorbachev Feels His Life's Work Being Destroyed by Putin, Close Friend Says (Jul 23, 2022)

At 91 and at poor health, he's probably not going to get killed for his words. Then again...you never know. — jorndoe

Bit ironic when your life's work was actually the dissolution of the Soviet Empire. Think about it, the Soviet Empire was basically the continuation of the Russian Empire, and they got Russia to be against it's own empire.

Yet, Putin could end the war whenever. Blames the entire "west" while bombing Ukrainians. Is his propaganda/diversion working? — jorndoe

To those that think everything bad that happens is because of the actions of the US, yes. They take it all in without any problem.

2 Days and 26 posts... that was quick.

I don't know where to start. This quite frankly sounds insane. — Benkei

If you own something, you are responsible for it. What's insane about that?