Dear Listmembers,

Here's a further item discussing Larry Wolff's book, which has enough
Hungarian content (it seems to me) to make it worth to repost it here
(again, without the author's permission, so just read it, OK?)

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew


----------------------------Original message----------------------------
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
I completely agree with Professor Deak in his assessment of Larry
Wolff's very interesting book.  I think that this is a rare casenwritten
story seen from the East.  Professor Deak is right in pointing out
that East Europeans regarded themselves as "West" of their eastern
neighbors.  However it strikes me that they also, with the same
breath, accepted the western notion of the "West" and applied it
on their own "eastern" society.  In Eastern Europe the  West meant
precisely what it meant for the people in Wolff's book, ie. civilization,
advanced economies, and later, in the 19th century, democracy.  In this
sense, in the east the "West" became a catchword for Political Action,
for progressivism, for modernity so much so that it led to the
adoption of the term to designate a certain segment of East-European
society, the "west-oriented", "modern" intellectuals and urban
bourgeoisie versus the backward "eastern" agrarian part of society.
For example the journal "West", started in Hungary in 1908 by
Endre Ady and his progressivist circle had no trouble portraying
the Hungarian gentry as inherently "eastern" while describing the
specific traits of this gentry in a way that would be a perfect
characterization of the English gentry, too.  .

The Hungarian journal "Budapest Review of Books", or "BUKSZ" plans
to hold a symposium on Wolff's book in the form of papers and short
comments.  BUKSZ has an English version (Books) which would most
likely also carry the contributions.    uld there b
                                  Maria M. Kovacs

Date sent:  14-DEC-1994 00:13:35

Are Communists right or left wing?  As far as I understood, the right wing
is conservative, which indicates a resistance to change and a desire to
conserve society's goodness.  Left wing, or liberals, actually refer to
those seeking change and a break with the past.  When Communists first came
to power, they affected a break with the past, and were therefore far Left,
though now Communists would be seeking to renew what they viewed as a good
system, which is far right, or reactive.
        Perhaps part of the West's inability to understand politics in
former Communist states is an inability to break out of traditional
definitions of Communist as left wing and Nationalism as right.
        Using the terms left and right as I defined them above, wouldn't
the new governments that came to power since 1989 be considered Left wing,
since they are breaking with what was?  Most periods of Radical political
change are followed by a Reactive period, so shouldn't have Western
observers been able to predict the rise in their popularity?  Of course,
many Western observers (as usual I speak of the Americans I am one of) seem
to be unable to remove themselves from their particular perspective, and
continue to make strange blunders.
        One of these blunders, as I have commented on before, was and is
the identification of former Communist nations in Europe as a political and
cultural unity, without internal differentiation (oops spelling again),
much in the same way that racist ignormases disregard any differences
between Asians "since they look the same."
        In the article from the Wall Street Journal that was posted
earlier, rapid jumps from Russia to Serbia to Poland illustrates how
ingrained these misconceptions are in the American psyche.  Another
bothersome aspect was an important inconsistency.  At one moment, Communists
are linked to nationalistic movements, while at others Western political
support of nationalists against communists is called for.  I would view
extremists of either right or left, using any definition, to be
undesirable.
        In an interview in Forbes a couple of monthes back, Klaus (Czech
minister) was asked about the election of former communists in surrounding
nations.  He replied that it was a positive sign, since they were elected
rather than seizing power.  If communists are the greatest threat to
democracy in former communist countries, then their aggresive use of
democratic institutions and capitalist methods in order to better
themselves should be seen as positive.  If they are indeed convinced that
these institutions and methods are personally beneficial, then they will be
that much less likely to turn against it and become more conservative (or
radical, for those who don't accept my definition).  If they are the
greatest enemies of democracy in the region (though I don't accept that all
former communist nations form a "region"), then they conversion should be a
crowning achievment.
        How could the West encourage or discourage various political
factions in other nations?  What about sovreignty?  In a democracy, doesn't
the votes of citizens define political factions?
        Personally, I think foriegn policy must be devoloped on a case by
case basis, without vague sweeping statements and generalizations.

                        Thomas Breed
                        

                "Like Prometheus still chained to that rock
                        In the midst of a free world"

> Left wing, or liberals, actually refer to
> those seeking change and a break with the past.  When Communists first came
> to power, they affected a break with the past, and were therefore far Left,

So were the Nazis.  So they were then Leftists, too, right?
Aren't we interchanging here Left-Right pairs with Radical-Conservativ
ones?

Joe

no comment necessary

>
> >I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, I do not believe any of them.
> >All equally horrible, unanswerable to democratic bodies.
> >(Look up my post dear, I did not indicate preference.)
> 
> >>
>
> It seems to me that you believe only what is consistent with you pre-
> existing views.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> Norbert Horvat

I do not condone any Romanian racism/human rights violation.
The problem is, that they are able to quote similar hate
sentiments - if not actions hopefully - from the Hungarian side.
I don't want this list to become such a source please...


>
>
> Donea apparently still doesn't get it. A country which expects to join
> the community of nations can not be indifferent to its human rights
> record. In Romania, 12% of the population does not belong to the
> majority ethnic group (akin to the US where 13% are African-Americans).
> Romania's human right record, as documented by the State Department's
> annual report,  that of the Helsinki Watch or Amnesty International
> give enough grounds for skepticism as to whether it understands
> that it needs to reform its treatmet of its minorities. Certainly, the
> following does not give much encouragement in this regard:
>
>
> * The report by HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH/HELSINKI, issued November 1994 with
>   the title:
>
>         Lynch Law: Violations Against the Roma in Romania
>
> * US Department of State: ROMANIA HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES
>
> * Romulus Vulpescu's statement in the Romanian Parliament (Feb. '92)
>   advocating the creation of concentration camps for ethnic
>   Hungarians in Romania
>
> * The proposal of Vatra Romaneasca's for the deportation of
>   ethnic Hungarians from the territory of Romania
>
>
> Indeed, Eva Durant is right. Ethnic hatred is shameful.
>
>
> C.K. Zoltani

George Antony writes:
> I too think that being particular about the preservation of Hungary's good
> credit rating via meticulous debt servicing was one of the Antall/Boross
> governments' few correct policies.  "Growing out of debt" (as I think Andras
> Kornai put it) is the only hope there is, and for that a thorough
 modernization
> of the socio-economic institutions is necessary, as only this allows growth i
n
> close economic integration with the Western world where the solution is.
George Antony misattributes the phrase "Growing out of debt" -- this is the
first time I'm posting to this thread (well not quite, see the PS) so I
can't take credit for this idea.  On the other hand, his posting (not only
the paragraph quoted above but the whole thing) was so close to my
sentiments that perhaps I should have left the misattribution stand...

According to studies done back in '91, Hungary paid some $10 billion in
interest for $1 billion worth consumer goods bought on credit. While the
figure would be lower if the effects of inflation were factored in, the fact
remains that this was, in retrospect, a rather bad deal. But not as bad as
people unfamiliar with compound interest might think: on a typical US home
mortgage the borrower pays back 3 dollars to the lender on every dollar
borrowed (again, unadjusted for inflation). And mortgages are fully
collateralized: on an unsecured loan (say a credit card loan at 20% APR) if
you make even payments for thirty years you end up paying over 6 dollars for
every dollar borrowed -- if you don't attend to the principal just make
minimum payments to cover the interest, the 10 for 1 ratio is easy to
reach even at a much lower APR.

Needless to say, loans to national governments are seldom collateralized
(occasionally the possibility of using part of the national reserves as
collateral is brought up, but most governments tend to resist the idea for
the obvious reasons), and Hungary didn't have a significant credit history
back in the seventies. By now it has built a fair reputation, and the
benefits of reneging on the old loans must be weighted against the cost
of destroying or weakening this reputation. This is not at all intangible:
holders of large debt portfolios routinely assess the costs of losing one
or more grades with Moody's. Not surprisingly, the structure is set up so
that the costs of defaulting are always higher than the benefits that
would stem from such an action: if this was the other way around defaults
would be normal and lenders would not lend.

The lending of money, I am afraid to say, is an excellent means of making
fat profits with relatively little work. It's no accident that capitalism
takes its name from capital: the system favors those who have it over those
who don't. There are several systems of thought and ethics that disapprove
of this from Islam to Marxism. When these systems are implemented in
practice, their effect on economic growth is quite discernible: compare
pre-revolution to present-day Iran or the erstwhile East and West Germanys.
The "third road" ideas of the Hungarian "ne1pi" politicians, having their
roots in prewar agrarian socialism and corporatism, are but one example of
this anti-capitalist ethics.

Andra1s Kornai

PS. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new?  it hath
been already of old time, which was before us. (Ecc. 1:10) The reason I was
reluctant to enter this thread was that the same issue has been debated over
and over again. I'm appending here parts of my December 6 1989 posting to
Faliujsa1g. I'm not sure Be1la Vizva1ri would still agree with the parts
marked "> ", but I had no reason to change my opinion in the five eventful
years that separated the original posting from this one.

>Peter Laszlo hosszu cikket kozol a Valosag idei 5. szamaban azzal a
>cimmel, hogy "Volt-e magyar tarsadalom a XIX. szazadban?" Amint az a cimbol
>is sejtheto, sem akkor, sem most nincs tarsadalmunk. Azert nem, mert
>a cikkbol megtudjuk, hogy
>
>(a)     tarsadalom = civil tarsadalom,
>(b)     civil tarsadalom = nyugati tarsadalom.
>
>Ha ehhez a ket egyenlethez meg hozzatesszuk, hogy mi keleten, de legalabbis
>nem nyugaton vagyunk, akkor kesz a kovetkeztetes.

Szeretne1m a saja1t ve1leme1nyemet ne1mileg sarki1tva, a finom a1rnyalatok
e1s a (ku2lo2nben oly fontos) re1szletek ne1lku2l kifejteni. Ha a nyugat e1s
a kelet szembea1lli1ta1sa1t mint Ira1n e1s Tura1n, a civiliza1cio1 e1s a
vadsa1g szembea1lli1ta1sa1t ne1zzu2k (most nem e1rdemes azon vitatkozni hogy
helyes e ezeket az e1rzelmileg egye1bke1nt is tu1lteli1tett naviga1cio1s
mu3szavakat erre haszna1lni), akkor e1n a nyugat pa1rtja1n a1llok. Te1zisem:

A harmadik u1t a harmadik vila1gba vezet

Ehhez me1g annyit tenne1k hozza1 hogy nekem nem kell a harmadik vila1g, sem
a latin-amerikai gaucho-poncho, sem a tura1ni magyar rezgo3nya1rfa. [...]

>aprobetus reszben "Arvizveszely olvadas utan" cimmel kozlik a The
>Independent cikket arrol, hogy a politikai ujrarendezodes utan fenn all
>annak a veszelye, hogy gazdasagi ertelemben Nyugat-Europa Kelet-Europat
>gyarmatositani fogja. A cikk utolso mondata: "Szomoru lenne, ha a
>hideghaboru utani tajkep egyetlen, oriasi, fejlett gazdasagbol allna,
>melynek periferiajan bantusztanok leteznek."

Ezt mindenkinek maga1nak kell eldo2ntenie, de e1n szeme1ly szerint jobban
o2ru2lne1k ha Magyarorsza1g belu2l lenne, az "egyetlen, o1ria1si, fejlett
gazdasa1gban" nem pedig kint a "bantuszta1nban". Ami1g az elso3 vila1g el
van to2ke1lve hogy "egyetlen, o1ria1si, fellett" gazdasa1gi egyse1gbe
szervezo3dik, miko2zben a harmadik vila1g a1llapota olyan (ku2lo2no2sen
afrika1ban) hogy a mi e1letu2nkben nemigen va1rhato1 hogy kiszabadulnak a
to2rzsi visza1lyok, a korrupcio1, e1s a tu1lne1pesede1s ha1lo1ja1bo1l,
addig a ma1sodik vila1gnak nincs ma1s leheto3se1ge mint hogy az egyikhez
vagy a ma1sikhoz csatlakozik. Fentebb to2mo2ren megfogalmazott te1zisemet
ne1mileg re1szletesebben kifejtve,

a) Felte1ve (de meg nem engedve) hogy le1tezik harmadik u1t, ez
defini1cio1 szerint olyan hogy nem azonos az elso3 u1ttal (ku2lo2nben
t.i. nem lenne "harmadik").

b) Ha Magyarorsza1g a harmadik utat ko2veti, ez a) miatt azt jelenti
hogy kimarad az euro1pai integra1cio1bo1l.

c) Nem le1tezik olyan gazdasa1gi, sem politikai, sem mora1lis ero3
az elso3 vila1gon ki1vu2l, amellyel szo2vetse1gre le1phetne1nk. [...]

Mindebbo3l kiza1ra1sos alapon az ko2vetkezik hogy ha nem akarunk bemenni
a bantuszta1nba akkor az elso3 utat kell ko2vetni2nk. [...]

>Ezen a ponton szeretnem veletek megosztani egy hipotezisemet, melyet
>legyetek szivesek Vizvari-hipoteziskent terjeszteni. Az az adossag-
>allomany, ami felhalmozodott az evek soran, nemcsak a mi esetunkben,
>hanem minden eladosodott orszag eseteben, nem mas, mint a gazdasagilag
>erosebb es igy gazdasagilag nyomast gyakorlo allamok reszerol a
>nem egyenerteku csere megfinanszirozasa, mert teljesen megsem lehet
>ezeket az orszagokat kirabolni, es mint ilyen elvileg is visszafizet-
>hetelen. Lehet, hogy ezt most szupernacionalista elmeletnek fogjatok
>gondolni, de Del-Amerikaban sen lennek nepszerutlen vele. A hipotezist
>nem tudom sem cafolni, sem bizonyitani, mert nem vagyok kozgazdasz, igy
>adataim sincsenek. Ha van kozgazdasz a vonalban, nagyon kerem szoljon
>hozza.

E1n sem vagyok ko2zgazda1sz (ba1r a csala1domban szinte mindenki az),
de aze1rt veszem (eddig is vettem) a ba1torsa1got hogy hozza1szo1ljak.
Annyi bizonyos hogy de1lamerika1ban nem ne1pszeru3tlen ez az elme1let:
ha1t persze hogy nem adom vissza a ko2lcso2nt, de rohadt uzsora1s!

> >
> >--The cost really would be quite high.  As I said, between $30,000 and
> $40,000 per child.  Remember, childrens' institutions must meet state
> standards and must be staffed for 24 hours.  There's another consideration.

For this money there could be decent education/job/home provided
for the parents.
Then they won't look for drugs/crime to escape from their horrible world.
(the only way, the great dream of getting out by washing dishes is FALSE)

Sci-Fi is becoming reality: a fortress for the beautiful people.
Will they be really happy surrounded by security videos and
armed guards? I suppose happier than those kept outside...


(my most prosperous friend is an security alarm installer in Hungary,
the second one is an insurance salesmen - redundant electronics
engineer)

I am open to suggestions - you send me a ticket+visa, and I promise
to have good look and not to stay... I am frightened of most waiters...
and quiet in restaurants... (de nem csamcsogok, becsszo.)
Until that time I have to live by the information I get.

>
> Eva, you don't know the United States from beans! I don't think you have ever
> seen it, or if you have, I am not sure how much you have comprended. The
> United States, like any other country, has its faults but this country has
> many, many virtues and most of its citizens love it dearly. Your head has
> been stuffed full with all sorts of biased anti-American slogans and I don't
> think that we will ever be able to convince you that most of that stuff is
> total garbage!
>
> Eva Balogh

JELIKO ) wrote:
: Imi Bokor writes:
: > : Hmmm. Could be grown also. Now let me see that involves work......
: > : Jeliko.

: > i can just see the residents of an apartment block in manhatten with
: > cows grazing on the roof-top and growing corn on their north-facing
: > window-sills.

: > of course the residents on andrassy ut would have pigs on their roofs
: > and garlic and paprika in their window-sills. still they wouldn't
: > have to add lead to the paprika.

: > d.a.
: Well, it looks like you need Geography 101 also, not only History 101. Do you
: know how far away is Kobanya from Manhattan or Andrassy ut? Besides which we
: were talking vegetables.

: Jeliko

enrol me in the nearest biology 101 class if corn, garlic and paprika are
not vegetable.

yes i do know how far kobanya is from andrassy ut. i could probably also
look up the precise distance from manhattan as well.

but i wonder whether vegetable matter grown in any of these locations
would be free of pollutants. since the matter under discussion was *healthy*
dietary habits, i cannot see any relevance to the topic of vegetables
grown in budapest, athens, barcelona, manhattan,......

perhaps it is not generally known that airborne particles tend to spread
beyond the immediate regon of where they are injected into the air.
thus it is common for a person at the one end of a room to eventually smell
a cigarette lit up at the opposite end. there was a reportr by one of
the british ministries prepared in the 1980's according to which british
industry contributed *more* to air pollution in poland than german (east
and west), norwegian, danish and polish contributions all together. thus,
even in the non-industrial regions of budapest, the environmental conditions
are not conducive to producing "clean" vegetables.

in any event, few would have enough garden beds to support the habit.

d.a.

 wrote:
: d.a. writes:

: > when referring to people, the noun is "ignoramus""ignoramus" and the
adjective
: > is "ignorant".

: I hesitate to dispute ignorance with an expert; but you are wrong on
: both counts, according to Webster's Third New International Dictionary.

see pages 1018-1019 of the 1980 edition of the shorter oxford dictionary.

observe that the divergence --- if any --- between the oxford and webster's
reflects differences between english and american.

: --Greg
: PS When writing in English, the leading word of a sentence is
: capitalized, as is the 1st person personal pronoun

correct. here american and english usage coincide. if you ever happen
on any contributions by me in any other list, you will no doubt note
that, within the limits imposed by my stenographic incompetence, i
abide by orthographic convention. however since i once inadvertently
caused a fair lady of exquisite sensibility mortal offence by
inadvertently using the wrong case, i resolved and promised to use
either only lower case or only upper case letters in text i compose
for contribution.

there is little i am proud of but that little consists of my integrity,
honesty and my keeping my word.

but, if it distresses you that i use only lower case characters --- a
choice i made on aesthetic grounds --- please let me know, and i'll
switch to upper case. if i don't hear from you, i'll continue as i have
done till now.

d.a.

paul ) wrote:
: If there is someone in the UK willing to help someone
: practice Magyar pronounciation, contact Tony Maltby
: at:
:         

: He has been studying from a book, but needs pronounciation
: help.

: Paul

the english word is "pronunciation" and the english syntax would be
"but needs help with pronunciation".

d.a.

>
> > Left wing, or liberals, actually refer to
> > those seeking change and a break with the past.  When Communists first came
> > to power, they affected a break with the past, and were therefore far Left,
>
> So were the Nazis.  So they were then Leftists, too, right?
> Aren't we interchanging here Left-Right pairs with Radical-Conservativ
> ones?
>
 Perhaps the question is: will the change is towards
q

On Tue, 13 Dec 1994 19:39:25 -0500 > said:
                                                       At the same time I
>remember only too vividly how a "very liberal" colleague of mine embarrassed
>me to tears every time there was some official luncheon or dinner because
>"the great liberal" treated the waiters serving us as dirt!

--I have often observed the same phenomenon among the American Left.  I
have often been troubled by the behavior of prominent Liberal-Left
figures who advocate extensive government regulation and programs while
sending their children to exclusive private schools and living in
guarded estates.  My own colleagues, most of whom speak a very liberal
line, wouldn't be caught dead going to lunch with any of the secretaries,
except for the ritual luncheon during Secretaries Week.  The American
Left is, I think, composed mostly of middle and upper class intellectuals
who haven't a clue to how the working class and the poor actually live.
Further, I don't think that they really care.  Their liberalism is of
a sterile, theoretical, intellectual sort.
>
Charles

I must agree with George Antony about the article concerning
"Eastern Europe" in general and Hungary in particular. It is very
*unfortunate* that misinformation becomes respectable just because
the article has been published in a respectable publication like
the Wall Street Journal. Most of the readers will not bother to
check how accurate the article is, especially because the Journal's
reputation.

             Amos

Sorry, sudden interruption earlier.
And now I can't be bothered. Only words.

>
> > Left wing, or liberals, actually refer to
> > those seeking change and a break with the past.  When Communists first came
> > to power, they affected a break with the past, and were therefore far Left,
>
> So were the Nazis.  So they were then Leftists, too, right?
> Aren't we interchanging here Left-Right pairs with Radical-Conservativ
> ones?
>
> Joe

Thanks a lot to Gotthard for listing the address.

   It just so happened that I needed some info. that the Embassy
could provide. So I have decided to try the listed e-mail. And
guess what, folks! The answer was sent by the Embassy in less
than half an hour. Now, this is what I call service.

                                                      Amos

On Wed, 14 Dec 1994 10:39:47 +0000 Eva Durant said:
>> >
>> >--The cost really would be quite high.  As I said, between $30,000 and
>> $40,000 per child.  Remember, childrens' institutions must meet state
>> standards and must be staffed for 24 hours.  There's another consideration.
>
>For this money there could be decent education/job/home provided
>for the parents.

--Well, sure, but the money would be better spent providing jobs by
subsidizing private or non-profit firms who had expertise in rebuilding
our infrastructure and doing conservation projects.  In this country,
our general value system wouldn't support the idea of simply paying
a family for existing.  Remember that economic opportunity is a more
important principal than it is in most of Europe.

>(the only way, the great dream of getting out by washing dishes is FALSE)
>
--Actually, the strange part is that, for a lot of people, starting
with a menial job actually does lead to something better.  It works
often enough to encourage others.  In fact, I, myself, as a youth worked
as a butcher's helper, dishwasher, and greasemonkey in various garages.

>Sci-Fi is becoming reality: a fortress for the beautiful people.
>Will they be really happy surrounded by security videos and
>armed guards? I suppose happier than those kept outside...
>
--There are such enclaves, but not that many.  But I agree that
inequality is the major problem of our time.  The real question is
what to do about it.  I noted that Mr. Rubin, our new secretary of
the treasury, says the same.  I am sure that neither Mr. Rubin or
I believe that socialism is the answer.  Any answer must fit, for
America, within a mixed economy with the principles of representative
government.

Charles

>
> The lending of money, I am afraid to say, is an excellent means of making
> fat profits with relatively little work. It's no accident that capitalism
> takes its name from capital: the system favors those who have it over those
> who don't. There are several systems of thought and ethics that disapprove
> of this from Islam to Marxism. When these systems are implemented in
> practice, their effect on economic growth is quite discernible: compare
> pre-revolution to present-day Iran or the erstwhile East and West Germanys.
> The "third road" ideas of the Hungarian "ne1pi" politicians, having their
> roots in prewar agrarian socialism and corporatism, are but one example of
> this anti-capitalist ethics.
>
1. Should there not be an attempt to find a better alternative to
   capitalism? What is the argument that there cannot be a better
   solution? There must be, because otherwise we are doomed, the
   human civilization on Earth is universally based on this system,
   and the human condition is getting worse every year.

2. Islam was tried time and again since the middle ages. Failed, as
   it was based on feudalism/slavery/capitalism.

3. I think you mean the implementation of socialism based on Marxist
   philosophy, this  h a s    n o t    h a p p e n n e d  yet,
   because Marx defined socialism to be based on the  M O S T democratic
   structures in history   -   NOT TRIED!!!!!!  Worth looking into!!!!
   Don't just shoot me down - tell me where my argument is wrong!!
   
   (Democracy is coming to the USA  /Leonard Cohen)

Now you know why I can't stand your favourite Tony Blair.
You somehow unwilling to change the establishment, when you
are part of it.... Somebody must have said this before me...


>
> On Tue, 13 Dec 1994 19:39:25 -0500 > said:
>                                                        At the same time I
> >remember only too vividly how a "very liberal" colleague of mine embarrassed
> >me to tears every time there was some official luncheon or dinner because
> >"the great liberal" treated the waiters serving us as dirt!
>
> --I have often observed the same phenomenon among the American Left.  I
> have often been troubled by the behavior of prominent Liberal-Left
> figures who advocate extensive government regulation and programs while
> sending their children to exclusive private schools and living in
> guarded estates.  My own colleagues, most of whom speak a very liberal
> line, wouldn't be caught dead going to lunch with any of the secretaries,
> except for the ritual luncheon during Secretaries Week.  The American
> Left is, I think, composed mostly of middle and upper class intellectuals
> who haven't a clue to how the working class and the poor actually live.
> Further, I don't think that they really care.  Their liberalism is of
> a sterile, theoretical, intellectual sort.
> >
> Charles

> >
> >For this money there could be decent education/job/home provided
> >for the parents.
>
> --Well, sure, but the money would be better spent providing jobs by
> subsidizing private or non-profit firms who had expertise in rebuilding
> our infrastructure and doing conservation projects.  In this country,
> our general value system wouldn't support the idea of simply paying
> a family for existing.  Remember that economic opportunity is a more
> important principal than it is in most of Europe.
>

If you look (8 lines up) I said education/jobs. Subsidized private firms
around me pocket the subsidies and disappear. Non-profit firms?
You mean cooperatives run by the workers? I buy that...

> >(the only way, the great dream of getting out by washing dishes is FALSE)
> >
> --Actually, the strange part is that, for a lot of people, starting
> with a menial job actually does lead to something better.  It works
> often enough to encourage others.  In fact, I, myself, as a youth worked
> as a butcher's helper, dishwasher, and greasemonkey in various garages.
>

You mean, you left and didn't stick to it??? Good honest work to
better yourself!! What an opportunity!!!


> >Sci-Fi is becoming reality: a fortress for the beautiful people.
> >Will they be really happy surrounded by security videos and
> >armed guards? I suppose happier than those kept outside...
> >
> --There are such enclaves, but not that many.  But I agree that
> inequality is the major problem of our time.  The real question is
> what to do about it.  I noted that Mr. Rubin, our new secretary of
> the treasury, says the same.  I am sure that neither Mr. Rubin or
> I believe that socialism is the answer.  Any answer must fit, for
> America, within a mixed economy with the principles of representative
> government.
>

What if that mixed economy is not capable to deliver anymore? Or
if it contains unsupportably high proportion of socially useless
products (e.g. arms, cars)?

Most "to:po:rtyu~" vagy "teperto~" ?

        U'gy vettem e'szre hogy aki "nagyobbat akar fingni" az teperto~nek hivj
a
 !


        Udv.

        Juha'sz Ka'roly

Where on the internet, if at all, can I find price lists for cars in co
u
 ntries
abroad? I have found that the home page for the University of Pe'cs contains
 files
on prices of new and used cars in Hungary, but what about the rest of Europe (o
r
 even
the world)?

        I would be grateful for your help.

        Yours,

        Karcsi

Date sent:  14-DEC-1994 09:26:38
>>
>>
>> > Left wing, or liberals, actually refer to
>> > those seeking change and a break with the past.  When Communists first cam
e
>> > to power, they affected a break with the past, and were therefore far Left
,
>>
>> So were the Nazis.  So they were then Leftists, too, right?
>> Aren't we interchanging here Left-Right pairs with Radical-Conservativ
>> ones?
>>
> Perhaps the question is: will the change is towards
>q

I'd define them as far-left radicals.  Observe the use of public works to
employ people.  Facism is another good example:  some of the labor reforms
seem almost Socialist.  Most people have observed that traditional far
right and far left seem to be almost identical.  I never claimed the
political spectrum forms a line; I imagine it as a circle.

I wouldn't define them (Nazis or Facists) as socialist, however.  While both
might be left wing, I think "q" above has a major point.  Also, in my
dictionary (Webser's New World) left and liberal are equated.

I know I misspelled some words and did not in all cases use the best
grammar.  Sorry. :(

                        Thomas Breed
                        

                "Like Prometheus still chained to that rock
                        In the midst of a free world"

On Wed, 14 Dec 1994 13:52:32 +0000 Eva Durant said:
>> >
>If you look (8 lines up) I said education/jobs. Subsidized private firms
>around me pocket the subsidies and disappear.

--You are talking about a particularly British anomaly.  One of the
Tories' less intelligent moves.  These are short-term subsidies, not
long-term contracts subject to public audit.

 Non-profit firms?
>You mean cooperatives run by the workers? I buy that...
>
--Even Lenin gave up on that in the 1920s.  The workers couldn't agree
on how to run the factories and didn't have the expertise.  My father,
God rest his soul, worked on the assembly line in a tractor factory.  He
knew his job, but he'd have been hard put to have had to make any
management decisions.  All he wanted was decent pay, good working
conditions, and a workable pension system.  He got that, and was
satisfied.  He and his mates had no wish to put in the long hours
that management demands.

                                      In fact, I, myself, as a youth worked
>> as a butcher's helper, dishwasher, and greasemonkey in various garages.
>
>You mean, you left and didn't stick to it??? Good honest work to
>better yourself!! What an opportunity!!!

--Did you deliberately miss the point?  The way one betters himself
or herself is by working up to a better job.  No one would ever intend
to remain a butcher's helper until retirement.
>
>What if that mixed economy is not capable to deliver anymore? Or
>if it contains unsupportably high proportion of socially useless
>products (e.g. arms, cars)?

It's useless to argue with you, but it's still fun.  I note that
unemployment is down in Britain and the U.S.  Most people are not
making arms.  You paint an interesting picture of the U.S.  Rich
people living in armed camps, poor people dying in the streets, and
arms factories humming away, grinding out weapons automatically.
Maybe we on this list could pass the hat and gather enough money
for you to spend a couple of weeks here.  On the other hand, then
you wouldn't be as much fun to communicate with.

I still liked your description of Christmas in Hungary.  It was on
a par with Eva Balogh's for charm and winsomness.

Charles

George Antony writes:

> "Growing out of debt" (as I think Andras
> Kornai put it)

Now that AK has disowned that phrase, let me nominate Ronald
Reagan as the originator.  Or at least, some expounder of
Reaganomics...

--Greg

Continuing where I left off.

ii)

        Why is the Hungarian economy in such dire straits, eventhough the origi
n
 ator
of ever other world renowned idea/invention is Hungarian?


        I have recently heard that the country's (Hungary) financial standing i
s
crippled by the fact that the government has to repay about $4 billion (?) of
 debt
every year (which is probably just a fraction of the interest on the total
 national
debt). But I think this is still no excuse for the government being so
 impoverished,
but better knowledge of the facts would probably change this.

        Every summer (thankfully) I am able to go to Hungary for my holiday, an
d
  every
year I see more and more NEW Western cars on the roads, and even more
 "kaste'lyokat"
which 'simple' hungarian families are building for themselves (probably while o
n
sick leave). Also I have notice how many people in Hungary are able to access
 the internet via privately owned PC`s and modems; I would hate to be on the
 receiving end of
one of their phone bills! So where is the money coming from?

        I am sure I am correct in saying that a government amasses money by tax
i
 ng
 (all) the population of that country. So if the tha population acquires more
 money, the
government takes in more revenue and is then richer. So where is all this lovel
y
'guba'? The population seems to have a hell-of-a-lot of it, but the government
 is stillpenniless. How can a government be poorer than the people it serves?
 What I conclude isthat there must be a lot of illegal business transactions
 going on that are, obviously,recorded or taxed; or that those in power
 positions are just plainly fraudulent (or is this regarded as normal practice
 in capitalism?!)

iii)

        What has become of "...the greatest football team the world has ever se
e
 n, and
probably will ever see." as a promenant english footballer once said? I am sure
 the
talent is still out there, but the 'akarat' and the money is not!


iv)

        EXPO `96. Off? On?

        What`s going on? Last I heard, the government had announced that it was
 off
 andthat something else was to replace it, and that there may be a referendum.
 But,
frankly, whose bright idea was it to hold it in such a financially broken
 country?



v)

        What is the lastest news on the events surrounding the Nagymaros hydroe
l
 ectric
dam? I would have thought that Green Peace would be on the backs of both
 governments
involved (Slovakian and Hungarian) for the devastation of so much of the
 environment
on both sides of the border. But I suppose even Green Peace has some monetary
 interests, the greatest of these being that Hungary hasn`t any!




        Well, that`sall I can think of at the moment. I hope I can expect to he
a
 r the
pleasent sound of cogs whirring soon.


        Karcsi )

Thomas Breed writes:

> I never claimed the
> political spectrum forms a line; I imagine it as a circle.

Let me trot out the old, tired bromide that it is a line,
just that instead of Left and Right, the labels ought to be
"collectivist" and "individualist".

--Greg

Of course the english and the french are anti german and pro serbian.
Old sentiments die hard.

Sandor Lengyel

Dear colleagues on the list:  what is the best way to send
            money to relatives in Hungary?  In the old days the state
            got its share if you sent a money order or equivalent.  You al
           so took(and still take) a chance sending cash.  Then there was
           a service in New York (via the Carpathia Travel Agency) where y
           ou sent dollars that were converted into forints that could be
           picked up at Hungarian post office or bank.   Is there anything
            else?    Ken Nyirady    

*** ANNOTATED BY JANET ON 12:16PM 12/14/1994 ***
>returned, I see so many foundation-issues at work that to compare the two
>countries and the way of life in each is to compare, well, unicom with
>Miller lite...ugye?  Anyway, speaking of beer, are there any people who
>want to speak Hungarian in Madison, Wisconsin?

(Sorry to post this response to everyone, but there was no e-mail address
attached to my system's version of this message!)

While I am not in Madison any longer, I did go to school there.  I also
spent 2 years in Hungary (1990-92).  So, are you anyone I know?

Janet Brown )

Sandor Lengyel writes:

> Of course the english and the french are anti german and pro serbian.
> Old sentiments die hard.

Not to mention the old Britain-France-Russia vs. Germany alliance...


--Greg

*** ANNOTATED BY JANET ON 12:55PM 12/14/1994 ***

(some text deleted)
>The American Left is, I think, composed mostly of middle and upper class
>intellectuals who haven't a clue to how the working class and the poor
>actually live.  Further, I don't think that they really care.  Their
>liberalism is of a sterile, theoretical, intellectual sort.

I have been reading this list for some time and have reserved my comments
thus far to myself.  However, I must speak up on this issue.  For the
record, I am a part of the American Left and work (both voluntarily and
through my profession) to advance to the philosophies I espouse.  At this
point I would consider myself middle class, although my family was and
still is on the bottom end of lower middle class (if they're lucky).  I do
care and actively exhibit and act on true compassion and understanding.  I
know that I alone will not change the world, but by rising above my own
needs and helping others, I can start to make small changes.  My theory is
not sterile; it is not purely intellectual.  It is very real and based on
my own experiences and thought.

As best I can remember, you maintain strong Christian beliefs, Charles.  Is
there not a reference in the Bible to removing the stick in one's own eye
before criticizing the speck of dust in another's eye?  I would suggest
that you apply your criticism of the American Left to yourself.  Your
rhetoric is theoretical as much as that which you disdain.  What do you
know personally about how the poor and working class work and live?

Janet )

PS.  Sorry this wasn't directly related to Hungary, but most of this
discussion has veered to this angle.  I couldn't let Charles' remarks go
unchallenged.

Dear Members:

   This is for those who are still interested in sending money
to Hungary. I have just talked witha representative of the Hungarian
National Bank in NYC, and this is what I was told:

        If the amount is less than $ 700.- and not intented for a
*Dollar* account, the easiest, fastest, and the cheapest way to
send it is with an international postal money order. This way the
recipient can pick up the money anywhere there is a Post Office.

   Just in case I won't have a chance to communicate with you before
the holidays, I wish you all a healthy, prosperous, and very happy
holiday season.

                 Amos

As I'm travelling in a couple of weeks to Hungary, I'll be interested in
receiving info. on this country and get in touch with people who have
been there or studied about it.

On Wed, 14 Dec 1994, KENNETH NYIRADY wrote:

>            Dear colleagues on the list:  what is the best way to send
>             money to relatives in Hungary?  In the old days the state
>             got its share if you sent a money order or equivalent.  You al
>            so took(and still take) a chance sending cash.  Then there was
>            a service in New York (via the Carpathia Travel Agency) where y
>            ou sent dollars that were converted into forints that could be
>            picked up at Hungarian post office or bank.   Is there anything
>             else?    Ken Nyirady    

Any way you would send it to Vienna, or Los Angeles.  A bank transfer
takes about 2 days (that's my experience , but the other way, from there
to the States).  You can do Money Gram, which will be probably same day,
or at the latest, next day.  This may be more expensive than bank
transfer.  THen of course there is the option of sending cash, which is
not the safest...

I cannot not recommend sending checks, though.  While, Hungarian banks do
honor American personal and corporate checks, up until a few months
ago this option wasthe slowest, but also the cheapest.  Now that
Hyungarian banks no longer have to make all their transaction through the
National Bank of Hungary this procedure may also be quick.

If you happen to be in Hungary at a time when you want to transfer the
funds, in my opinion the fastest way to transfer money is through an ATM
machine :))  I have used my American ATM card (Cirrus) in ATMs in Hungary
and got cash.  Plus, you get the wholesale rate of exchange and no
comission.  Not a bad deal at all.

Zoli )

Karcsi wants to know "Why was Hungary singled out after both World Wars in
having huge chunks of land taken away from her?" This question is quite a
handful to answer. Let's start with the sheer fact that Magyars (that is,
Hungarian-speaking citizens of Hungary) were barely in majority in Greater
Hungary's population. Although the larger municipalities were mostly
inhabited by Magyars everywhere in the country, the villages in the outlying
areas were mostly inhabited by non-Magyars. And since after the entry of the
United States on the side of the Entente powers the war was transformed into
a war of liberation of "oppressed nationalities" Hungary was an obvious
target for dismemberment. The peace, again on the basis of the Wilsonian
principles, was supposed to be a just one, based on "determination of
nations," and Austria-Hungary was more and more pictured as the "jail of
peoples," a gross exaggeration but nevertheless an effective slogan. Robert
Lansing, the American secretary of state at the time, considered Wilson's
"determination of nations" principle a very dangerous slogan because of the
complex web of nationalities, living in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. That
is, it was not so simple to divide one nation from the other; see, for
example, Transylvania, or, even better, the Banat-Bacska region (Vojvodina
today). The other reason for Hungary's bad billing was the activities of
Masaryk and Benes, two Czech politicians, who had decided to leave
Austria-Hungary at the beginning of the war, and spent the war years abroad,
working on the English and French (and later American) politicians and public
opinions. They had good connections and they were extremely successful in
describing Hungary, not entirely without reason, as an antidemocratic country
which trampled on the rights of its nationalities. Masaryk managed to
convince the Slovak immigrants of the United States to endorse Slovakia's
joining the Czechs and create an entirely new country: Czechoslovakia. Mind
you, these Slovak organizations in the States had no right whatsoever to make
such an agreement and soon enough there were problems between Czechs and
Slovaks concerning the union. Masaryk and Benes promised a democratic
Czechoslovakia as opposed to a reactionary Hungary. The Czechoslovakia they
envisioned unfortunately was again a multi-national state especially because
the Czech leaders combined arguments on nationality, with historical rights
(in case of the Sudetenland) and military considerations (a Danube border
with Hungary). As for the borders with Romania they were originally
negotiated between the Entene powers and Romania in 1916 in order to induce
Bucharest to joint the Entente as opposed to the Central Powers. France,
Russia and England were truly generous: they promised heaven and earth to get
Romania into the war, especially at the expense of Hungary (the Romanians
also would have liked to get some Romanian-inhabited areas of Russia but
considering that Russia was part of the Entente, that seemed like a pipedream
in 1916--but of course, not in 1918-1919). As it turned out Romania's
military worth was not much. Shortly after declaring war on the Central
Powers, Romania had to sign a separate peace with the Central Powers which,
on paper at least, made the 1916 Treaty of Bucharest null and void. (However,
Romania re-declared war on the Central Powers a few days before the end of
the hostilities, thus becoming a belligerent again.) In comparison to what
the Romanians wanted, and were promised, in 1916, that is, a border at the
line of the Tisza River, the Entente was actually a great deal less generous
and the Romanian government was extremely upset over the final results. The
French were not so much anti-Hungarian as they were pro-Romanians, pro-Serbs
and pro-Czechs. The French negotiators at the peace conference always took
the side of the non-Hungarians. Moreover, because Hungary ended up a loser,
all decisions went against her. All mixed territories ended up on the other
side of the borders. And even this way, not only the Romanians were not happy
but the Serbs were upset as well. They wanted a great deal of more territory
in the county of Baranya, including the city of Pecs. I might also add that
the so-called territorical commissions, working on the borders of
Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Yugoslavia worked separately. Therefore, as
Harold Nicolson mentions it in his book *Peacekeeping,* until the results of
the three commissions were added up the final, devastating reduction of
Hungary was not obvious. In Hungary hardly any nationalities remained (with
the exceptions of the Germans living all over Transdanubia) while 3.5 million
Hungarians ended up on the wrong side of the borders, while Hungary's
population was somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 million at the time.

The above is a very brief and most likely not full description of what
happened, especially, since I am just banging all this in in a great hurry to
meet the deadline for tomorrow's digest of HUNGARY.

Perhaps Hugh and others can add to the above. Eva Balogh

Charles ) wrote:
: On Tue, 13 Dec 1994 16:37:00 +0000 Eva Durant said:
: >Here comes the politically not so correct for this list,
: >but very authentic account of Hungarian festivities
: >(secular version only).

: --I liked it!  Very charming, Sister Eva.  Seriously.  I enjoyed
: reading it.  Very nice.  Thank you very much.
> =========================================================================

I don't get it.  What does Eva mean by "politically not so correct" and
what do you mean by your (apparently sarcastic) reply?

                                        The Un-enlightened One,
                                        Charles Gal
                                        at University of Alberta
                                        Canada

On Wed, 14 Dec 1994 12:54:12 EST Janet Brown said:
>
>As best I can remember, you maintain strong Christian beliefs, Charles.  Is
>there not a reference in the Bible to removing the stick in one's own eye
>before criticizing the speck of dust in another's eye?  I would suggest
>that you apply your criticism of the American Left to yourself.  Your
>rhetoric is theoretical as much as that which you disdain.  What do you
>know personally about how the poor and working class work and live?
>
--I grew up pretty poor, actually.  In 1940, my father quit his job and
went to work at Caterpillar Tractor Co. in Peoria.  I am working class,
plain and simple.  When I said I wanted to go to college, my father gave
me a handshake and said, "Good luck.  I hope you make it.  I wish I could
help, but you know how it is."  I did know and have never resented the
work I did.  I am a former University professor who has taught with
educated middle-class radicals for years.  They do not like dirty
people.  One of my favorite liberals offers me Kleenex whenever she
sees me sweat.  Get off my back, please, I do come from poor dirt-
farmer stock.  Challenge all you want, but I am as hard to convince
as our beloved Eva Durant.

Cheers

Charles

On Wed, 14 Dec 1994 21:08:05 GMT Charles Gal said:
>
>: --I liked it!  Very charming, Sister Eva.  Seriously.  I enjoyed
>: reading it.  Very nice.  Thank you very much.
>=========================================================================

>
>I don't get it.  What does Eva mean by "politically not so correct" and
>what do you mean by your (apparently sarcastic) reply?
>
--You'll have to ask Eva what she means.  But I was not being sarcastic.
I really enjoyed her description and found it charming.  I said "Seriously"
lest she think I was being sarcastic.  I called her "Sister" but that is
related to earlier postings.  I like Eva Durant, but think that she is
politically and economically mistaken.  But she is a decent human being,
and I really liked her description.  O.K.?

Charles

IMRE BOKOR ) wrote:
> -------------------------------------------
: paul ) wrote:
: : If there is someone in the UK willing to help someone
: : practice Magyar pronounciation, contact Tony Maltby...
: : He has been studying from a book, but needs pronounciation
: : help.
> -------------------------------------------
: the english word is "pronunciation" and the english syntax would be
: "but needs help with pronunciation".

: d.a.
> ========================================================================

Now that is very funny.  Hey Charles (the other one), this is humour.
My congratulations to d.a.; I read this and burst out laughing here at
one of the comp. labs on campus.

Could we turn off the non-Hungarian topics again?

Sorry, I started it with commenting on the US election results at the
time this list seemed to be dead.  But now, the amount of messages is up
again to a level that is hard to manage.  So that's why I ask to curtail
those non-Hungary-specific posts until the next hybernation period.

Thanks,
Joe

I think my favorite place is Picasso Point near the Opera Metro.  Its a lot
of fun.  The Jazz Cafe on Balint utca at the end of the No. 2 tram is also good
.  For a good happy hour, there is Toth Kocsma, on Falk Miksa utca, around the
corner from the jazz cafe.  The freegatt pub is an english pub loaded with,
expats.  Youll find it to be refreshing once in a while.  Look around, signs ar
e posted aroung the city on kiosks, listing events at dance clubs, and concerts

Thanks for George Antony taking the time to write that long rebuttal to
the WSJ article.  I, too, thought the piece to be a bit sloppy, but not more
than articles written by liberals.  However, I expect more from
conservatives.  I do, however, agree with the main trust of the piece.

The fellow, who originally uploaded that article to one of the HIX
lists, sent a followup on it, further details from the article really,
which deals more specifically with Hungary and in a way George -- I am
sure -- will like a lot better.

Anne Applebaum, BTW, is an deputy editor for The Spectator and these
additional details appeared in her extended article, published in the
Foreign Affairs.  So here it goes:

Applebaum, Anne,  "The Fall and Rise of the Communists: Guess Who's
  Running Central Europe?"  Foreign Affairs, Nov/Dec 1994, Vol 73 No.6 p9.

"In other cases, there did seem at first to have been more substance to
outside fears of a nationalist resurgence.  Take, for example, the
conservative Democratic Forum, which ruled Hungary until the former
Communist Party came to power in elections last spring.  It espouses a
philosophy of "Hungarianness," based on its belief in prewar Christian
and family values, similar to the "family values" movement in America or
Western Europe. This platform was regarded, perhaps rightly, with some
suspicion by Hungary's liberal former-dissident intellectuals, who feared
that its form of nationalism would grow narrower and more dangerous.  The
Democratic Forum also has at least one prominent member, Istvan Csurka,
who espouses openly anti-semitic views.  Csurka has claimed that
Hungarian state television is controlled by communist Jws and has warned
his countrymen against an "international Jewish conspiracy" bent on
destroying them.
    More important than Csurka's rhetoric, however, is the fact that it
elicits so little popular support.  Csurka has no following to speak of.
Indeed former Prime Minister Jozsef Antall's failure to denounce Csurka,
a member of his party, is widely believed to have contributed to the
Democratic Forum's electoral defeat.  Despite the attention paid to
Csurka, his existence is not a sign of growing nationalist or
anti-semitic threat in Hungary.  On the contrary, his failure to exert
influence of any importance is a sign that Hungarians are wary of and
resisttant to such language, at least when it is employed for political
purposes...."

I wonder why these details were not included in the WSJ version?  It
looks to me as if Applebaum was trying to fit the two publications with
the two versions.

Joe Pannon