>
> Eva Durant writes:
>
> > Vague relevance, to do with workers/wages, Miklos Haraszti's book
> > Workers in a Workers's State (70s, underground, published in England
> > sorry, no idea by whom) - the fascinating aspect was the overbearing
> > similarities of the piece-work system in England then and in Hungary.
> > Eva Durant
>
> With one big exception. At least in the UK it generated a profit.
>
> Regards,Jeliko.

The profit had no meaning to the worker. (or to the worker's wife)
(there were no showers and canteen in England, and do not mention
workplace nurseries - I know, you wanted to.)
Eva Durant

Hungary 1956 by Bill Lomax (1976) is a third point of view. Eva Durant

I had a request to find English speaking environment for a
Hungarian girl to work as a home help, she has the medium level
state-exam (from English language) she hopes to get the high-level one
and to go to ELTE (law).
She lives in the summer with her granma (Berti neni)
                        Pilipar Ferencne
                        Somogydorocske
                        Keleti u. 53
                        7284 HUNGARY

Offical address: Somogyi Adrienn
                 7632 Pecs
                 Nagy Imre ut 134.
                 HUNGARY

Please remove me from HIX.
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Jeannette Goehring              *
International Area Studies      *   La Vie en Rose!
Drexel University               *
Philadelphia, PA                *

Hi all,

a somewhat bizarre question here, nevertheless here it is:
Does anybody know a university in Hungary, USA, England or elsewhere
which offers classes in Celtic language, culture and literature?
Who teaches? What classes are offered?  What are the main areas of research?

Ko1szo1no1m szepen,

Maria

As far as I am concerned this is the end of my dialogue with Zoli on Horn's
role and my reaction to it. Here I only want to set the meaning of "scorn"
straight. Scorn is defined as "an expression of contempt or derision," "an
object of extreme disdain, contempt, or derision: something contemptible." I
simply have a low opinion of Hungarian journalistic practices but I wouldn't
call it "extreme disdain, contempt, or derision." Eva Balogh

In reply to Jeannette Goehring's request to be removed from the HIX
distribution list:  All subscriptions and unsubscriptions to the HIX
list are handled through HIX itself, neither  nor I personally
have anything to do with that.  HIX's service is a digest and relay service,
running independently of our subscriptions lists.  Please contact the
supervisor's address given at the bottom of the digest postings (memory
says it is "" but don't trust me, look it up!) for
queries regarding the HIX service.

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

I do not know about universities teaching celtic although I can find out
if you do not an answer soon from someone. But I am interested in Celtic
and I just found an Internet source for Celtic philosophy, etc.  It is
Harvard University Library and the address is telnet:/hollis.harvard.edu
then it has (128.103.60.31) which may be part of the address. The keyword
is Celtic Philology (I misspelled this word in previous sentence but can
back up to correct, I said Philosophy)  The it says User info:
Expect:"Mitek Server...", Send:Enter or Return, Expect prompt, Send:hollis
I hope this will help you find something.  Sue

Marc Nasdor writes:
> Jeliko--

> I've just now returned from Hungary and have an anecdote to relate
regarding
> this thread:

> A couple from Sopron, friend of my wife's family, took us on an
incredible tour
> of the O"rseg region near the Slovenian border. Marvelous scenery aside,

First of all, I wouldn't advise discussing politics if you are in the
Orseg. It is one of the most underrated beauties of the country.

during
> the ride I was subjected to a harangue by the couple (they are, as it
turns out
> part of Csurka's masses (1.5% was it?): only Csurka speaks the truth, the
> Socialists won because they manipulated the media, what about the
"doctored"
> footage of Go"ncz and the skinheads, Soros tries to make Hungarians look
like
> gypsy-hating racists, the MDF was cheated of victory, etc. I asked them
if they
> believed in democrany & a free press. They replied that they didn't
understand
> the question. Ah, well.   Regards.     --Marc Nasdor

However, IMHO the behavior of the media conributes to disbelieving even
when they may be telling the truth. I have stopped reading Hungarian
publications on a methodical basis of all sides years ago.  For a while
Ludas Matyi gave the best crosssection of what was going on, however, I
felt that instead of mirroring the sentiment they became partial also,
which may have led to their demise.(s)

Regards,Jeliko.

Zoli Fekete writes:   (parts deleted)


> ;-<). I certainly would not exclude people from political life forever
> solely because of their wrong choice of party decades ago.
                                          ^^^^^^^^
> -- Zoli
>  * Past: Old, unhappy, far-off things,
>  *       And battles long ago.          William Wordsworth

I am sorry I did not realize that the "Munkasorseg" and "pufajkas" were a
party. Presumably, they were much further left than the MSzMP? IMHO,
partcularly the latter were armed thugs in the service of a foreign
occupying power.

Regards,Jeliko.

We have an Institute of Irish Studies here in Liverpool which teaches
language and literature as well as history etc.
They can be contacted at the same address as mine below (minus the
Centre for CEES of course).
The Director is Prof. P. Buckland: Tel: +44 51 794 3830
Their fax number is +44 51 794 3836
--
Nigel Swain: 
Tel: +44 (0)51 794 2422; Fax: +44 (0)51 794 2423
Centre for Central and Eastern European Studies, University of Liverpool
11 Abercromby Square, P.O. Box 147, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK

> Felado : 
> Temakor: Re: *** HUNGARY *** #8 ( 6 sor )
> Idopont: Mon Jul 11 08:23:11 EDT 1994 HUNGARY #12
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Please remove me from HIX.
> *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
> Jeannette Goehring              *
> International Area Studies      *   La Vie en Rose!
> Drexel University               *
> Philadelphia, PA                *

Dear Jeannette:

You subscribed to the digest through HIX on 7/6/1994 at 08:26:05 by sending a
mail to . To unsubscribe, you should have sent a mail
to , as it is noted at the beginning of every digest:

> Subscribe________: >
> Unsubscribe______: >

Now I remove your address by hand.

Jozsef. /HIX/

I just read in today's New York Times an article about former East German
diplomats who had not been hired by the Boston government after
reunification. I don't know anything about the current situation in other
former socialist countries concerning people who had served as diplomatic
representatives in the past. Can anyone enlighten us on this point? Eva
Balogh

Eva-

I had no idea that the "Boston" government was considering the hiring of
former Stasi officials. This is an outrage. :-)

-Marc N.

Jeliko-

So what else is new? One can acknowledge fundamental media bias and do what
one can to determine truth for oneself *without* falling into the hallucinatory
ravings of a Csurka. I was simply surprised at the virulence of the "sour
grapes" stance of our Soproni friends.

-Marc

Andras Kornai writes:

> Jeliko1 writes:
> >The only difference then is that socialists want to take away the
production
> >means also and liberals want to take away only the product, i.e. taxation.
> No. The socialists don't want to do that, you are mistaking them for the
> communists. In Hungary, the difference is betweem MSZP and Munka1spa1rt,
> the former being a majority party and the latter being a fringe party with
> something like 3-4% of the vote. This is actually one of the key issues
> dividing them, so attributing the views of one to the other is not exactly
> helpful. Just to emphasize the obvious: neither of these parties are
liberal.
I am using the terminology of "nationalization" as a determinant for
socialism. Generally, the degree differs between the various shades of it. At
the same time, I am not aware that any government owned organization was ever
as efficient as those privately owned. It is vainness, that makes people
(bureaucrats and their supporters) think so.

> >A liberal (not neccesserily a socialist, although more often than not)
does
> >not have the money for his percieved "do gooding" and therefore has to
take
> >this money from those who know how to make it.
> Frankly I don't see how your tax dollars or better or worse than mine. I am
> making a certain amount (not stellar, but my effective tax rate is around
> 40%) and I assume you don't make a great deal more (or who knows, maybe
> you do). But you assume the rhetorical position of "those who know how to
> make it" which sounds like us wage slaves should learn something from you.
> So tell us. I'm tired of Tom Wu's infomercials:-)

I am discussing in general, that the taxpayer, regardless of amount paid,
knows better how to make and more properly how to spend, than the bureaucrats
who already live off the taxpayers and whose idea for a better life is higher
taxes. Or the folks who come up with new ideas of how to spend, but all their
life they lived off the taxpayers.

> >Then by creating an additional layer or two of bureaucracy (one
> >collecting and one disseminating the funds, plus the advisory boards,
study
> >groups, think tanks. etc. all of them otherwise totally unnecessary)
> >disseminates a portion of the collected wealth solely to those who are for
> >whatever reason are not generating those funds.
> I tend to agree that the bureaucratic apparatus of the modern state is
> overgrown. But I disagree that the money goes to those not generating
> it: first of all a great deal flows back to the middle class e.g. in
> terms of cushy jobs in the government apparatus, second of all the part
> going to services (roads libraries etc) is used more by the middle class
> than by the lower classes, third and most important if you think those
> who don't generate taxes don't generate wealth you are totally mistaken.

It just makes it worse, that now in addition to the needy, the taxpayers have
to maintain the typically better than average lifestyle of the bureaucratic
middle class also. The payroll of the Ohio Veterans Adm was higher than the
total amount of funds dispersed. The Canadian Fisheries dept budget is bigger
than the value of the catch. After the bonds were paid off for the Ohio
Turnpike, the tolls are maintained mainly to pay the turnpike adm expenses.
One can buy upper middle class homes on very low govt, guaranteed mortgage ,
run them for 15 years (while hiring minimum wage personnel) and owning the
real estate afterwards. Naturally it is a better investment to buy the more
expensive homes, while claiming that the patients are better integrated into
society if they live in upper middleclass neighborhoods. RTC, Superfund, etc,
etc.

> >The actual input decision as to how the funds are being spent has only a
> >minimal connection with what was originally promised and the cost of this
> >redistribution is always kept quiet.
> If you have a better method of controlling the spending than by electing
> politicians who promise to spend it the way *you* like you should let us
> know. And if you know a better system for unearthing the hidden costs
> of redistribution than having freedom of information, you should also
> let us know. Seems to me the US budget is pretty transparent, except
> the details of military spending...

I am for as much local comtrol over the spending as possible. Otherwise use
taxes for most services by the users whenever possible.

> >the fourth generation welfare recepients are maintained in their
lifestyle.
> I guess this is at the heart of the matter: if you'd rather have them
> die of hunger, you should vote that way. I'd rather they get welfare.
> The "lifestyle" they are maintained in is not exactly the lifestyle of
> the rich and famous -- if you begrudge them _that_, Mr. KnowHowToMakeMoney,
> you really have a problem.

Unfortunately, many people do not want to and many do not know how to work.
Many of them are well acclimatized to the amount of money they get from the
public, without any effort on their own part to improve their own standard of
living. Many of them are more content then those who work for a living.

> >The retirement benefits of those living on taxpayer funds greatly excceds
> >that the taxpayers can themselves afford and the new class is created
owing
> >its allegience to the tax and spend "liberal" establishment.
> Yup. And it's a significant fraction of the population too: in Holland
> I've seen it estimated over 50%, in Scandinavia even higher. Strangely
> enough, those people are people too. At least they are permitted to vote.

Ok, for an equation to be valid it has to be valid at the integrated limits
also. Finally, we will have one fellow working and everybody else living off
this fellow. Why is it that it is accepted that those who lived on taxpayer
funds should have a more comfortable retirement than those who paid the
taxes?

> >IMHO, any welfare program and most others, can be and should be properly
> >maintained on a local level. If it was so, then the actual need for
> >assistance can be judged by those who know whether it is needed or not.
> I tend to agree. However, East Palo Alto cannot pay for its own support,
> so Palo Alto must provide some. California could probably handle its own
> needs, but I doubt that Alaska could.

I disagree. People in East Palo Alto would have more knowledge on who
deserves assistance, than folks in D.C. or Sacramento. Just take the example
of the recent Marin county expenditures for housing for the chemically
sensitive people versus the actual needy. It could be achieved only with
federal funds, if it was their local taxes, the story would have been
different.
Alaska is not a good example for you, they were refunding state taxes instead
of paying them from the oil departure tax revenues.

> >But when "grant writing" becomes a formal profession, to squeeze even more
> >funds for some (always at the expense of others) then the results of
> >liberalism are well demonstrated.
> And when dogcatching becomes a formal profession, we see yet another
> form of the division of labor. Funds are always provided at the
> expense of others.

So you consider it fair that the groups who have better grant writers get the
money, rather than those who need it more?

> >Why do you think you can spend my money better than I do?
> "Better", no I don't think I can spend it better. Certainly for many, if
not
> most, people there is no "better" way of spending their money than spending
> it on #1, or perhaps on immediate family. I myself pay around 40% taxes and
> I don't find it outrageous. The US tax system is not particularly
> progressive so if you are paying at a noticably higher rate, say 50%, you
> are left with so much more disposable income than I am that you can
> certainly afford it.
I was using the "you" as for liberals in general. I have never lived better
than when I am paying the most taxes either, but that is only percentage
arithmetics. It is how it is being used that I have trouble with. I have not
seen improvement in the life of the needy since the 50s when there was much
less dole. The Great Society resulted mainly in increase in entitlement
spending and not in lessening of poverty.

> >What right do you have to tell me how I should spend my money?
> As much as you have to tell me how mine should be spent. One man, one vote.

No problem with that, as long as we agree that the voters will decide.
However, I have read a fair amount of deragotary comments when the voters
selected people that were not the darlings of the liberals. The voters do
have rights here also, not only in Hungary or in countries where the
leftsists come to power.

> >Why do you think that I would have less compassion to help my fellow man
than
> >you think you do?
> Something about your approach to pregnant teenagers and the lifestyle of
the
> fourth-generation welfare class...

Do you know people personally in those categories? I do. Some deserve help,
many do not. It can not be decided in an office in D.C.

> >But I have to pay to maintain the EEOC bureaucracy.
> Sure. And OSHA too. Maybe your workers have perfect safety, but employers
> trying to go around safety regulations are not unheard of.

So check the safety record of the industry that falls under OSHA regulation
since and before the establishment of the agency. Not much to brag about.
Some states have very good worker safety programs which are interactive with
the employers, those states have better safety records. It always fascinates
me that the liberal establishment, that claims that punishment for personal
crime is not a deterrent, lobbies for the establishment of federal agencies
that try to accomplish agendas by punishment.

> Maybe you provide
> equal opportunity but not all employers do. These agencies exist as a
> response to some real problems, just as the Fire Department of your town.

Well do they? The worst safety record is in farming and in the home, neither
places are under OSHA. And why do we need a separate NIOSH and MSHA? Just to
have more administrators.

> [complaints of how regulations and taxes kill business deleted] This is
> probably true in Hungary, but definitely untrue in the US, where individual
> vs. business taxation used to provide 25% vs. 75% of tax revenue before
> WWII, but now businesses provide only 30% and individual income tax
provides
> 70%. Never has the US seen so radically business-friendly tax code as we
> have now.

There is no free lunch. The taxes my company pays are in the price of the
products we sell. IMHO taxes should be consumption based where everybody
clearly knows what and how much the government actually costs, rather than
hidden.

> >I do not need your or anybody else's ideas on how to run a business or my
> >life.
> Oh, but we do need yours. Tell us how to make more money.

By printing it or shearing it from the sheep. Currently, both restricted to
the government. IMHO the four letter word WORK is the best approach I can
offer.

> >When you have achieved the same thing, I will be willing to listen to your
> >ideas about how you propose to spend your money, but please do not try to
> >legislate your ideas on me.
> Seems to me you are twenty years older than I am, and comparing two so
> different stages in life, especially when it comes to earning power, is not
> particularly helpful. Send me e-mail how much you were making at age 37,
> I'll send you e-mail how much I'm making now, and we can take it from
there.
> And yes, I try to legislate my ideas on you, and I don't expect you to
> refrain from voting for the kind of legislation you want in place.

While again I was baseing it in the general "you as liberals" and not on a
personal basis, I'll let you know privately also. You are in the ball park
for the age.

> >I am proud of my actions without being a "liberal".
> And why not? Liberalism is a political philosophy that I happen to be
> attracted to, but no great source of pride. I wasn't even persecuted
> for my liberal views, unlike some of the people in SZDSZ, and it would
> never occur to me to bask in their glory.

At times. I am jealous of the folks who were born in the late fifties in
Hungary. You have never known personally nazis, stalinists, the war or the
revolution. It is a favored time to live without those experiences.

> >In Oct 22 1956, I was willing to change the words of "Farkas Mihaly es
> >bandaja" to "Rakosi Matyas es bandaja" (Muegyetem kozgyulese). I have
fought
> >in 56 at the Radio not just with words but with gun in hand, because it
was
> >for a cause I believed in. I am equally proud of preventing any lynching
at
> >the Radio and personally turning the surrendered AVH over to arriving
> >Hungarian Army units because that was what I belived in.
> Good for you. In fact, probably good for Hungary as a whole, so I owe you
> there. Doesn't mean I have to agree with everything you say.

Not required. The reaon I listed the above was to demonstrate that I am not a
bloodthirsty right or left wing persuasion.

> >That does not mean that I agree that there should be forgivness to those
who
> >committed atrocities on either side, but justice does not come at the end
of
> >a rope without trial or a trial as conducted by the ex-regime.
> To some extent I am advocating forgiveness, but I don't consider this a
> central issue. Certainly it is up to those who suffered to be (or not to
> be) forgiving.

Agree and we should not try to convince each other otherwise.

> >I do not know what credentials you claim for liberality in your life, but
I
> >am pretty satisfied that what I did and what I am doing was and is OK.
> Voted for liberal candidates when I could. Nothing heroic.

While that is not heroic, it is your right and privilage, I just wish more
people would vote for their beleifs, whatever they are.

> >And I certainly do not feel obligated to agree that your ideas for the
world
> >are any better than mine.
> Well, that is best decided on the merit of the ideas in question, not on
the
> merit of those who propound them, wouldn't you agree? I never said you
> should feel obliged to accept my ideas -- you are not even obliged to
> consider them. The PgDn key is always there.

Please do not take me for a frozen mind. I do learn something from somebody
everyday. The problem I had, was with the manner of expounding ideas as if
they should be selfevident to all.


> >> > I never met a liberal, who called himself that, and was one.
> >> How did the liberals you met call themselves? Or could it be you never
met
> >> a genuine liberal, only people who called themselves liberal?
> >Maybe we need a "liberal" scale that would determine if we are dealing
with
> >genuine or otherwise liberals.
> I think you didn't answer the question. Have you met actual liberals, or is
> there anybody in the public sphere you would consider a genuine liberal?
For
> example, I never met an actual nazi, or at least I don't think I did. But I
> have some criteria (such as idolization of Adolf Hitler) that I would say
> could distinguish real nazis from non-nazis, and I can point to public
> figures like David Duke who I think are neonazis. Have you got some
criteria
> in mind? Would you say FDR was a liberal? (I would) Would you say Imre Nagy
> was one? (I wouldn't) Is Bill Clinton a liberal? (I think he is) Is Gyula
> Horn? (No way). It seems to me that the l-word is not a dirty word for you,
> that you find it conceivable that at least some liberals some of the time
> are respectable, perhaps even admirable figures. I never claimed all great
> (positive, admirable, what have you) figures in history were liberals. Nor
> do I claim exclusivity for my brand of liberalism, so perhaps there is some
> commond ground here.

> Andra1s Kornai

No personal heroes listed. I think FDR was much less than a liberal. He tried
to stack the Supreme Court and was willing to go around the Constitution if
it served his political needs. It was his administration that turned refugees
from Europe away and Yalta certainly did not consider human rights. He was a
slick politician like most of the others. I think Hungary was always in short
supply of liberals. Based on the limited amount I have read about him, Bibo
maybe close to one. Nagy Imre was not. Please let's leave Bill out of this.
My favorite president in this century was Teddy. He was liberal internally,
broke up the trusts, created the park system etc., while carrying the big
stick. If the Marines were not withdrawn from Haiti by the you know who, when
they were, we may not have to be sending them in now. Perhaps I am too
critical because so few people are liberal. I used to consider Moynihan one,
and probably he is still close to it. As far W Wilson is concerned, IMHO he
was a fool. Not much to go on, is there. It is so much easier to talk about
it in the abstract.

Regards,Jeliko.

In article >,  (Peter
Varga) writes:

>Gotthard, I have read you note in the bit.listserv.hungary group,
>which proves the group still functions as usual.
>I thing the ***HUNGARY*** postings in soc.culture.magyar is just a cross-
>posting, an extra service.  Happy reading!
>Peter Varga


Thanks,
I am glad to see ,that the ***HUNGARY*** posting is just an extra service.
The postings incidently have disappered from the  bit.listserv.hungary group
at my site, when those crosspostings started to show up on soc.culture.magyar .
I just drew the wrong conclusion, sorry about that. I have to find what
wrong is with the service at this site, since only the articles I post and
your replies to them show up .
Take care,
Gotthard

Marc to Jeliko:

> So what else is new? One can acknowledge fundamental media bias and do what
> one can to determine truth for oneself *without* falling into the
 hallucinatory
> ravings of a Csurka. I was simply surprised at the virulence of the "sour
> grapes" stance of our Soproni friends.

I think you missed the point, Marc.
That press kept beating the drum about its independence being under
attack every time the government wanted to straighten out its
left-leaning antennae.  As it turns out the majority of press was
neither independent, nor objective.

As to Csurka ...  I am just curious how good your Hungarian is.  Is it
good enough to characterize his writings as you did based on your own
reading, or is it based on second hand info?

Also, all things being relative, do you have any idea what those Sopron
friends might be saying about _YOUR_ stance?  And probably with more
credibility considering that they are more intimately knowledgeable
with the internal situation of Hungary than you are.
I also suspect that those people probably were actually reading from
Csurka rather than reading _ABOUT_ Csurka, as no doubt the majority of
people are.

Joe

Jeliko-

It's good to see you're a man of some principles. A few "corrections" though:
(1) Americans are some of the lowest taxed humans on earth. I do not think that
    the welfare life is much of an existence at all, but I would venture to
    guess that many participate in the large underground economy, and so
    probably live better than I. BTW, I'm 37 and am putting my 40-something
    wife through graduate school and 3.5-year-old son through preschool. We
    have no health insurance, and what's available for freelancers is substan-
    dard at the price we can afford. I could use a little gov't help!
(2) Attention all '56-ers! Now hear this! While they may well have done you a
    disservice by voting in the MSzP, I can assure you that most Hungarians in
    1994 Hungary couldn't give a shit. They're too busy standing around the
    Vo"ro"smarty te'r being seen yakking on their cellular phones.  -Marc