Goncharenko centre 2026-1-30: Analysis and reasoning, morals, socialism vs capitalism

Post event notes: See farther down on this page, partially mixed earlier.

Translation: auto translation of this page into Ukrainian

Hello and welcome to the 2nd meeting of 2026

See the announcement page for the meetings of 2026-1-29 and 2026-1-30. A lof of what I wanted to discuss was not dealt with, from other topics such as Lviv and why to live in or near Kremenchuk. The rest we can deal with in the 3rd meeting.

Lviv, part 2: I mentioned that my view on Lviv changed, from 3 things:
1. spending more time in Lviv related to getting a residence permit,
2. riding there with my bicycle, seeing how many cycle paths there are, and
3. reading a sign in one of the 2 parks with steep hills, that those hills are good exercise!
The 3rd point instantly made my dislike for the hilly parks go away. I just looked at them differently! (an attendee mentioned this instant change happened with her dislike of mathematics. At some point in time she wanted to be able to better understand and analyse things and for that one can use mathematics as a tool, and so her view of mathematics changed)

One of the attendees was interested in what people are like, different than in other cities? That is something interesting for me too though mostly I am interested in the difference in behaviour of people in different countries, such as differences between people in Poland and Ukraine. One woman with whom I talked on the bus to Przemysl in 2024 stated that she felt that people in Ukraine are happier. I When I came to Kiev, after a few days, I realised: She is right! The difference between Wroclaw and Kiev is clear (and it is not that Kiev is the capital, a bigger city where people are more exuberant, where there are more parties etc. I saw the same difference comparing Wroclaw and Lviv and other cities in Ukraine, but I realised she was right when I was in Kiev which was the city to where I travelled first from Przemysl, and where I stayed a while not long after talking to her).

About Lviv vs. the Kremenchuk region, this is hard for me to tell, I would need to interact much more with people to judge this. I have mostly good experiences but a lot is distorted in that for example talking to me, a person from the Netherlands, can be something 'entertaining', something different in their lives, and therefore they behave differently. I gave a few examples of meeting people who never replied to emails or telegram messages later, despite an interesting conversation on the train, and 2 others in a combined bicycle/flower shop in Lviv. The woman on the train: I mentioned that first she didn't respond to my greeting, she was lying in the coupe, so I figured she was tired. Later she heard me talk to customs people and she obviously realised that I was not from Ukraine. We got talking. She mentioned that she lived in Poland, I don't recall exactly where, and I asked her the difference between people in Poland and Ukraine. She mentioned an incident at the border on an earlier trip with a Polish border guard who did not want that someone who couldn't walk properly, was helped by someone else, she should walk herself. She said everyone was astonished by this behaviour. But is that typical? There are a-holes in all countries. She mentioned that she worked remotely in Poland, but wanted to go back to Kiev. What she didn't like in Poland: She missed having the opportunity to do horse back riding, which seemed a rather specific and uncommon complaint, and she had some issues with rent with sharing an apartment in the city where she lived (I think it was not far from Warsaw), from some person suddenly leaving and the rest needing to then pay more. When we got to Przemysl I sent a message via Telegram thanking her for an interesting conversation. A month or so later I sent a message that if she had returned to Kiev, then she could visit me and my friend and try some Dutch food that we were going to make. She never even read any of the messages so I deleted the Telegram chat. People have their own lives, they don't need more friends etc. so they may be interesting to talk to and may seem nice enough, but a lot of what people do is not what they are like on a deeper level, and they are likely not interested in more than that conversation. I understand it, but it is a bit disappointing.

At some point the topic of craziness in countries came up, related to communism via the topic of socialism vs. capitalism. The book "Animal farm", by George Orwell, describes various issues in soviet communism, a totalitarian regime, some of which strangely has surfaced again, now in western countries but especially what he wrote in '1984' has arrived there, with oppressive rule and disinformation, in particular in Germany, and English speaking countries the UK, Australia, and the USA (despite freedom of speech in the USA, which the UK and Australia don't have). [ Addition: Canada has the same issues, and in New Zealand there are issues too but lesser it seems. I met a friend of my friend in Wroclaw in 2022, who lived in Australia, but left in 2022 and didn't want to return there. He felt about Australia, similar to what I had read in various places and watched in some videos on youtube, especially regarding how they dealt with the chinese flu, that Australia is a police state... ]

One attendee who grew up with communism mentioned the well known and important phrase showing hypocracy in communism, namely "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"...

The other relevant book by Orwell, '1984' (or rather: 'nineteen eighty four') also describes what goes on in some of western societies, but it is more about disinformation, manipulation, oppression, and idealism (idealists are almost always oppressive, anti social, as I found analysing e.g. groups doing meditation, politicians etc.). These books are read in English classes in NL in secondary school, at least for those who attend the highest level of schools in NL, which is called VWO, with pupils around 14-15, but I consider them not useful to read at that age. They obviously had no effect as you can see from the behaviour of not just politicians, in in particular the countries mentioned above, otherwise the craziness in those countries would not exist. I do not like '1984' either for dealing at a too young age in school, because of being too negative. I think 18 or older is the minimum age. Similarly we had to read a book in/for German classes about WW2 which was very negative, I hated it. This is not suitable for age 15...

I mentioned some of the craziness in Germany and in the UK with police arresting people for stating opinions on social media that don't align with what their polit buros, excuse me, 'governments', think is acceptable. This is in particular about limiting immigration, but also other topics. In Germany there is an insane law that you are not allowed to even 'insult' politicians, such as calling a politician for the green party a fat woman. Fines can be thousands of euros and your phone, PC etc. will be taken... I said that I am smarter about it: I use what people say/write against them. I have always done this, e.g. with politicians and others related to anti social behaviour coming from airport Schiphol and related government organisations. I gave as an example of what the psychopath in charge of Schiphol, a nutter called Cerfontaine, said in an interview, which I used against him on my website. Before that I was given the phone number of a woman who was a contact for issues with aircraft noise, who lived in the same city as I. I called her, to try to find out more of what the hell was going on suddenly with all the noise. She was really critical, called Cerfontaine a liar and gave an example of his lies. After the phone conversation she called me back and said that I should not tell anyone that she called Cerfontaine a liar, she was afraid of a law suit. What a wimp! I on the other hand took actual action, I published everything about the anti-social behaviour of people in and to do with Schiphol, such as about the 'handhavingsdienst' (enforcement agency) that checks whether the noise stays within the allowed limits, and I called Cerfontaine a liar and a psychopath (which he is)... [ I told one of the attendees after the 1st meeting of 2026 about the email I sent to a political party called CDA in NL, I called them out on their behaviour and stated that former prime minister Balkende is a nasty piece of work and they are a christian camouflaged democratic anti social party. Christian values? They know nothing about that... Addition: I have also done this with the university of Utrecht where this nutter Cerfontaine has friends who gave him an honorary position teaching students about responsible entrepreneurship. Imagine that, a lying psychopath teaching about being responsible... From this you see I am afraid of no one and I will do whatever I think needs to be done... ]
About that politician in Germany, I would call her a fat woman with the justification that she is part of the green party, being fat = eating too much = causing unnecessary pollution = against that for which the green party stands, so I can, or rather I should be allowed to, criticise her for that using that term... Further, I mentioned that I have everything backed up and if they take my phone, good luck unlocking it, I will not give my passwords and I can restore everything on a new phone easily.

Below are some links to videos + my comments, showing this insanity and the anti social stance and behaviour of German officials, laughing about taking the lives away of the people whose devices they confiscate. Some of those people are psychopaths, and all of them are insane.

Analysis, discussions with other people, morals: I will insert my notes about the videos that I suggested on the preparation page, farther down this page.

One of the videos is about socialism vs. capitalism. One attendee mentioned communism and I said that that really didn't exist except in perhaps in some farm communities, communism was really socialism (the attendee who lived in Ukraine at the time of communism, agreed). I said that the video didn't get to the essence. I asked: Why doesn't socialism work? Why does capitalism work better? The attendee who lived in Ukraine during communism knew: Capitalism fits with human nature. It is strange but I never see this mentioned anywhere and this is also what my explanation is. Explanations that I have seen are always about factors that are really irrelevant. Capitalism works because it uses the selfish nature of people. In socialism the selfishness needs to be addressed in another way but that was not properly done. [ see my analysis of the video farther down this page. ]

It is important to realise about life: "Birds of a feather flock together" = type seeks type. This works in similarities of all types: culture, customs, interests, language, appearance. This is a built-in from evolution to keep groups (working) together, to recognise people as being part of the group, and to recognise and then distrust outsiders, who are different from the group and who could attack, invade, destroy etc.

"Рыбак рыбака видит издалека" = A fisherman sees (well, to be interpreted as: recognises) another fisherman from afar.

Analysis of 2 videos that I asked attendees to watch

Most of my analysis below, I told in the meeting. I added a little in explanations on how I deduced and meant things which a few attendees wanted/needed.

Analysis, video 1, on morals

5:40 == invalid analogy:
With a watch lying in public you would expect decent people to ask whose watch it is, as someone may have forgotten it. Or he may take it to the police, or if it is in a store then to the desk with an employee so they can give it to the person who lost it, if he/she returns to ask for it. Not walk off with it as if it were his own...

Someone commented that this is expecting ideal behaviour: No, I don't expect anything. The point is that we are talking about morals and how people should behave... (morals are prescribed ideals, there are of course always people who break morals and who break laws)

There is an important distinction to make:
1. something you do such as knowingly drive through a red traffic light, the consequences, such as hitting another car, are then your fault.
2. Something you do inadvertently such as forget your phone somewhere. You would want people to not walk off with it. Morals are such that that should not happen.

Example: Insurance deals with the difference logically: If you have house insurance against fires then:
1. If there is a fire in your house and it comes from your actions but it is something that could happen to anyone, then you are considered not to blame and they will pay for repair.
2. If you did something really stupid or on purpose something dangerous that caused that fire, then you are considered to be at fault and the insurance will not pay for the damage to be repaired...

A relationship is not about exclusivity... It is about a deeper connection and exclusivity follows from that. It should also not be about earning something. There should be reciprocity but only as a sign that the other person acknowledges and values your efforts.

About this section, one attendee commented that the video maker's view comes from him being religious, I said: Yes but it doesn't matter, you will come to what makes sense which is the same with or without taking into account rules/customs about intimacy in a religion.

Why should intimacy be valuable? It is about a relation between 2 people, who make a choice to be together. As I said in the meeting:
1) "love" is a choice,
2) "in love" is a long term feeling from hormones (from evolution, it lasts a certain period to cause men and women to stay together to have children),
3) "attraction" is an instant feeling.

Love is not about value...

[ As I stated: you make a choice to be with someone, you should not expect anything in return except that the other person must in some way show that he/she appreciates you/what you do, in order to give you feedback, and at the start of the relationship it is needed so that you know you are giving to a person who deserves it. That you should only do effort for people who deserve it, is what the saying in the bible don't throw pearls to the swine is about, which I mention in my 'List of life' (see also meeting 1 of 2025). ]

You do effort with someone, for someone because you made a choice. You don't show nudity normally because of customs [ and because of the level of development of society ]. You don't have sex with everyone because that is something for with someone you value. It is not the intimacy that is valuable, it is the person with whom you have intimacy that is valuable.

[ I stated: Consider sci-fi stories/films where sex is considered nothing but entertainment, e.g. Logan's run (1976, based on a book from 1967, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan's_Run_(film)). The problem is that there is no meaning in their lives, it is not about sex nor about showing nudity in itself. In essence the people there have no value except that they can be used for enjoyment by others. ]

In principle you should be able to walk around naked without anything happening. People who state that a woman caused that she was raped by her revealing clothes are victim-blaming. In the society that we have in the west, it is considered that we have risen above animalistic behaviour. This means any justification of impulses ("I could not restrain myself, she was provocatively dressed"), should not be accepted.

About women dressing showing too much: One of the attendees said he liked it, but I would say it is not really 'liking', but more an attraction, something built-in. And related to that I gave an example of what I experienced of something built-in:

I gave example of seeing a woman with large buxom, during the break of extra classes of philosophy (when studying physics) in the evening and it switched off my brain, what remained was a feeling of needing to get to her... It was a strange experience also because I do not find that interesting on pictures. The 3D view (from having 2 eyes) obviously works differently than seeing pictures and connects to lower levels in men's brains related to procreation, and can switch off higher brain functions... Still that was a short period and something very specific that triggers such an action, and I didn't have an impulse of doing something to her. You are still yourself, just your focus and what you 'should' do is suddenly changed.

I mentioned also this: If everyone dresses as in Africa used to be done in tribes (perhaps still in some places), women topless (I was reminded of this from a scene from the film "Africa adido" that I watched some weeks earlier), then nudity is less interesting. After covering up, nudity becomes more attractive...

Analysis, video 2, Brian Holdsworth: The single reason why socialism doesn't work

What he states is wrong: the essence is that people need incentives to do things and to do their best. The incentive can be about the future: do your best to get a better paying job later. [ That doesn't work for me, money is not an incentive, many other things also are of no interest to me. I don't want what William Irvine wrote in "A guide to the good life", where he states that most people want "an interesting mix of affluence, social status, and pleasure." ]

That is not the point, it is about feeling that it is your responsibility, and under your control. Under socialism the hallway could have been immaculate if the residents of one apartment were responsible for it, and they are given compensation for it in some way, or that they are given powers to deal with those who make a mess. If everyone is responsible then there is no urgency to clean up ("others will do it, I don't have time now", etc.). Otherwise you may also feel that your efforts to clean it are worthless, especially if there is no compensation or powers to deal with polluters.

He quotes Aristotle but he could have analysed the situation and got to the following which I deduced with just a few seconds' thought: This is not true, because that is also about your actions, your time, your effort, not just giving money or goods. [ Addition: Why should it be necessary for people to be able to get in a position where they can show that they are charitable? ]

Final comment by WHS: The only 'single reason' why socialism doesn't work is that capitalism fits (better) with human nature than socialism. In particular, you need to use that people are generally selfish... In capitalism that fits perfectly with easy to define rewards for effort, namely with money.

For this meeting I took some self baked cookies, water for tea in thermos bottles, and some pocket lights due to power cuts.