Looking for relatives by the name of Gregus

Andras Kornai summarizes the stylistic roots of Hungarian political
journalism quite nicely, but I am not sure he answers the question posed by
Hugh Agnew.  Andras talks about traditions of "cool" and "hot" styles of
political writing in Hungary -- my terminology, not his -- and he is right
about Ady's influence on the latter.  But Hugh's question had to do with
the roots of the particular brand of writing produced by Dr Pellionisz, and
I don't see how Ady or Csurka would be especially relevant here.

To look for the pedigree of the Doctor's style and tone, one does not have
to go very far back in history.  Stylistically speaking, the rhetoric of
Dr Pellionisz is a lineal descendant of Stalinist propaganda.  For example,
consider a randomly selected passage from the transcript of the Great Purge
Trial of 1938.  This is from the official Soviet translation.  The words are
spoken by the (nameless) Secretary of the Court:

  As has now been brought to light, neither in the case of the Trotskyites
  nor in the case of the rights were these monstrous crimes fortuitous.  The
  murder of Soviet public men completed the circle of heinous state crimes
  by which this band of contemptible apostates of our country, provocateurs
  of the tsarist secret police and hirelings of foreign intelligence services,
  who were selling our land and liberty to foreign capitalists, strove to
  carry out a fascist plan for the overthrow of the Soviet system and the
  restoration of capitalism.  Having wormed their way into responsible
  posts in the Soviet state, these provocateurs, however, never ceased to
  fear the exposure of the crimes they had committed against the working
  class.  Constantly in fear of exposure, these participants in the
  conspiracy saw their only hope of safety in the overthrow of the Soviet
  power, in the destruction of the Soviet system and in the restoration of
  the power of the landlords and capitalists, in whose interests they had
  sold themselves to the tsarist secret police.

And so on.  The clunky syntax, the graceless prose, the manic fury, the
colossal bad faith, and the venom oozing from every pore are the same.
By simple substitution of a few words here and there, this passage can be
easily transmogrified into a reasonable facsimile of the Doctor's writing.
(This exercise is left to the reader.)  I don't think the specimen of
Csurka's writing quoted by Andris is amenable to the same kind of
transformation.  Even in his present sorry state, Csurka's writing has
not yet sunk to this.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

Some American readers of this list may not know that the name
"Kossuth" means lots of DIFFERENT things for Hungarians. The
Revolutioner in 1948, the Radio Station #1, the Hungarian
State Prize, an (old?) brand of Cigarette, a hastily put together
temporary Bridge over the Danube, and the "main square" in most
every city & village in Hungary are all named "Kossuth".

Likewise, Hungarians (as some volunteer helped to illustrate yester-
day) are unaware that Alexander von Humboldt's name, in a similar
fashion, is attached to a great variety of VERY DIFFERENT things.
Other than the "Foundation" that is named after him, "Humboldt"
means also a "Current in the Pacific", and even a "County" a bit
North from San Francisco (and lots and lots of other things, too).

It is a "nuance" (pointed out by some volunteer yesterday) that
the "Alexander von Humboldt Foundation" of Germany runs a FELLOWSHIP
program to which young scientists MUST APPLY TO (open to Hungarians
as well). I recalled the age limit in 1989 as 35 years. It could
very well have been extended since that time to 40 years, as the
volunteer cares to update us. I did not pay particular attention
since I was 46 in 1989 already, besides was not interested at all
in the FELLOWSHIP.

As for the OTHER PROGRAM (the PRIZE), I said yesterday, but will
repeat as many times as necessary:

(a) the PRIZE is a completely DIFFERENT program of the SAME FOUNDATION.
(it is understandable but annoying if an American would confuse an old
Danube Bridge and a brand of a Cigarette, just because both are "Kossuth")
(b) Humboldt Prize can only be given to Americans (Sole Hungarian
citizens need not apply, this is the reason why most Hungarians know
precious little about the Prize).
(c) In fact, NO ONE CAN APPLY to be selected for the Prize (by a complex
procedure). Only a German Professor (resident in Germany, and as I recall
must be a C4) can NOMINATE his/her American colleague to be named
"Distinguished American Scientist". ("Don't call them, they'll call you").
(d) There is NO age limit for the Prize, as it is awarded to established
scientists. My 46 years was way below average.
(e) Most typically (as in my case) both the German Professor who
initiates the award-procedure and the Humboldt Prize Recipient
had over hundred publications (each), thus the 6 months visit
served purposes in American-German-(Hungarian) relations way
beyond generating a few more papers. Even in terms of scientific
papers, most of us learn with time that a class of them does not really
fall into public domain.

I'd like to point out for the learned reader that the rather peculiar
"style" of some debatters (focusing on ad hominems, ridicule & sleeze
rather than debating the REAL ISSUES [in our case, who would even remember,
Dr. Endrey's IMF lawsuits!]) does not mean a low standing of the
ADDRESSEE. Low class is typical for those who resort to ad hominem "style"
of debate, as a difference (if not "equalized" in mud-wrestling) would
be too embarrassing. Mr. Fencsik brought up my Humboldt Prize - just to
be fair why don't we ask HIM to show his credentials?

I would add, that privatisation wherever it happens
means "slimming down" those "dinosaurus" national
monopolies (local uk phrases) meaning usually the
redundancy  of a lot of people, chopping up to
bits the company and flagging it cheap to the
directorships of ex-politicians with fingerlicking
sharedeals, while the price of the product (emidst
propaganda to make you believe otherwise) goes up,
health and safety is disregarded... (details/examples
available on request.)
I would view those statistics Eva B. quoted on
people working in private industry having a better
standard of living - measured by data of househol appliences,
with some doubt.  As specially, as teachers, nurses and
railwayworkers, etc are still not privatised, and in the few
cases they are, I did not detect higher salaries, only
worse working conditions and even more chance of a lost job.







>
>         (To Eva Balogh: no, it wouldn't be stupid)
>
>         Dear Eva,
> Quote from your latest posting, addressed to Zoltan Szentesi:
> >>People are often afraid of being fired due to privatization or a new
> >>order from the government which may ruin the firm they work for.
>
> >Why would privatization ruin the firm? Wouldn't it be stupid of the new owne
r
> >to spend quite a bit of money on purchasing the company and then sit down an
d
> >ruin it?
>
>         Watch out, Eva, because remarks like that may put a question mark
> to the validity of other statements of yours related to economy.
> It is an everyday business practice to buy up (in Hungary right now
> read: "privatize") a firm and then ruin it in order to eliminate (at least
> part of the) competitors.  If you have enough capital, this may make perfect
> business sense and it is such a common practice here in the US, where we both
> live, that it is really hard *not* to recognize it.
>         How big of a danger it is in present day Hungary, I don't know, but
> if someone came along and tried to convince me too loudly that "it cannot
> happen there, trust me", it would automatically raise my attention and
> suspicion.  In principle it can happen.  Also, since you *must* have
> sufficient capital (or at least good access to credits), which is usually
> much more characteristic to the typical Western investor, the "buy him up
> and ruin him" scenario is much more of a danger for the firms that are
> privatized by a foreigner.  (Clearly, this "ruining" doesn't have to be
> overt, nor has it to happen overnight; you may want to be more cautious and
> extend the process over a few years, for several reasons, among others in
> order to avoid bad PR.)
>         Of course there are Western companies, which really want to do
> business, and since there is already sufficient concentration of capital in
> some hands in Hungary as well, such a "malevolent privatization" can happen
> completely inside the country, too.  But overall speaking it is much more of 
a
> danger when the buyer is not Hungarian.  There is nothing wrong with giving
> a very hard look to those deals.  There is nothing "nationalistic" about it,
> particularly not in any pejorative sense.  Just the opposite: if someone fail
s
> to check them closely from this point of view as well, in my mind he or she
> acts against *vital interests* of the country.  And this is not just an
> empty slogan.
>         Maybe our friends living in Hungary have something to add to this
> topic.
>
>         Tamas Toth

Dear Colleagues,

This morning (Oct.2) the NY Times published a 300 word editorial on the
dictatorial practices of Iliescu (and Slovak, Albanian, and Czech abuses of
the free press). Some of their sentences are almost identical to our news
releases. The editorial concludes with: "Mr. Iliescu and his
colleagues...deserve no such benefits when they treat their citizens and the
press as dictators do."
        This is a major victory for the cause of human and cultural rights in
Central Europe and since you helped in achieving it, I wanted you to know
about it.

Best regards: Bela Liptak

Tamas
        In my experience with American business, mergers have frequently
resulted in the ruin of the acquired company. However, this has not been
the result of a sinister plan. It has resulted from greed (take the
revenue from the business but don't put any capital into it) or
incompetence (not understanding the business and mismanaging it).
These risks certainly apply to privatization of Hungarian businesses
as well.
        I believe the real hope is that Hungarian entrepreneurs will be
able to build new businesses.

Tony
>
>         (To Eva Balogh: no, it wouldn't be stupid)
>
>         Dear Eva,
> Quote from your latest posting, addressed to Zoltan Szentesi:
> >>People are often afraid of being fired due to privatization or a new
> >>order from the government which may ruin the firm they work for.
>
> >Why would privatization ruin the firm? Wouldn't it be stupid of the new owne
r
> >to spend quite a bit of money on purchasing the company and then sit down an
d
> >ruin it?
>
>         Watch out, Eva, because remarks like that may put a question mark
> to the validity of other statements of yours related to economy.
> It is an everyday business practice to buy up (in Hungary right now
> read: "privatize") a firm and then ruin it in order to eliminate (at least
> part of the) competitors.  If you have enough capital, this may make perfect
> business sense and it is such a common practice here in the US, where we both
> live, that it is really hard *not* to recognize it.
>         How big of a danger it is in present day Hungary, I don't know, but
> if someone came along and tried to convince me too loudly that "it cannot
> happen there, trust me", it would automatically raise my attention and
> suspicion.  In principle it can happen.  Also, since you *must* have
> sufficient capital (or at least good access to credits), which is usually
> much more characteristic to the typical Western investor, the "buy him up
> and ruin him" scenario is much more of a danger for the firms that are
> privatized by a foreigner.  (Clearly, this "ruining" doesn't have to be
> overt, nor has it to happen overnight; you may want to be more cautious and
> extend the process over a few years, for several reasons, among others in
> order to avoid bad PR.)
>         Of course there are Western companies, which really want to do
> business, and since there is already sufficient concentration of capital in
> some hands in Hungary as well, such a "malevolent privatization" can happen
> completely inside the country, too.  But overall speaking it is much more of 
a
> danger when the buyer is not Hungarian.  There is nothing wrong with giving
> a very hard look to those deals.  There is nothing "nationalistic" about it,
> particularly not in any pejorative sense.  Just the opposite: if someone fail
s
> to check them closely from this point of view as well, in my mind he or she
> acts against *vital interests* of the country.  And this is not just an
> empty slogan.
>         Maybe our friends living in Hungary have something to add to this
> topic.
>
>         Tamas Toth
>

It appears that when Mr. Iliescu was in the US, he separated the hungarians for
m
 the szekelys. Is this also done, when the census is taken?
(I don't know.)

Sandor

Alexander writes:

>>The present neo-communist government of Romania can fairly be
>>accused of many things.  But, genocide is not one of them.

Point is well taken. We have to watch our language better.
Originally (Two weeks back) the talk was about Cultural Genocide.
Though the expression is strong, I feel, it was proper. In the
heat of the discussion, and probably because it is shorter to write,
it became genocide. I am sure, that the writer meant cultural
genocide.

Sandor

>
> It appears that when Mr. Iliescu was in the US, he separated the hungarians
 form
>  the szekelys. Is this also done, when the census is taken?
> (I don't know.)
>
> Sandor
>
Sandor

The last report I saw from a Romanian source did seperate the two out,
but then I have a Romanian atlas that may not do the same. Preliminary
answer, yes, the do seperate the two but I will check my Romanian atlases
tonight and see if ethnic maps are available and show a differentiation.

Darren Purcell
Department of Geography
Florida State University

M. Christian asks:

>>In human terms, I wonder, how does the quality of your despair fare when
>>compared to those of other minorities, in Indonesia, Irak, Serbia, or
>>last but not least, to the squalarous discrimination faced by native
>>americans in many a reservation ?

How can you ask, without knowing us.

I always take the side of the minorities in any struggle. My heart
hurts for the american indians, and I always take their side.
 And I do take the side od the Basque
and other minorities. I know from reading the hungarian forum, that
most hungarians are for the bosnians. There are no excuse for any of the
above, just as no excuse for trampling on the right of the hungarian
minority.

>>There is a fine line between 'human rights' and a minority demanding more
>>than it is due.

And you know where the line should be drawn. :-)


Sandor

Tamas Kocsis writes to Frank Kemeny:
>>You may find these indicators on the last page of The Economist.
Sorry I store the newest copies at home so you'll have to content
with data from a copy from May:

consumer prices:
                +29.2 %
interest rates (short term % p. a.)                     35.75

the ansver to the last two questions are: yes, yes.

Tamas<<



Tamas,

Thanks for the info. Never figured inflation would be that high in
Hungary.

A friend of mine will spend months, possibly over a year, in
Eastern/Central
Europe. She intends to keep the money she'll need for the trip in a bank
account, preferably in Hungary.  If I understand this right, foreigners
and
citizens are allowed to have accounts in dollars there. However, I am
still
not sure what the interest rates are on dollar-deposits would be.
I really hate to burden you or anyone else with these questions. What I
need,
I guess, is an information source (probably a web site?or
E-journal?banks?)
in Hungary or elsewhere in Europe that will keep up with changes. Anyone
happen to know any of those? Perhaps the E-mail for the Hungarian Chamber
of
Commerce?

Thanks bunches,

Frank

Ridicule of the linguistic style of Japanese car-manuals of the
sixties seems justified. Good score on style.

Based on substance, one may conclude differently. Liberal journalists here
must have spent too much energy on ridiculing a formidable opponent,
while not enough on driving the point home how miserably USA car manufacturing
fell behind the technological brilliance of those Japanese idiots. Now the
Japs have a good time ridiculing some smooth talking US salesmen, for whom
"style is everthing", but who are mentally too opaque to figure out why
nobody is bying their behemoth guzzlers with the steering wheel on the
wrong side.

Two of my three cars are Japanese. They work like a charm. I never need
their manuals. The opposite is true for my Lincoln. Thus, I often enjoy the
pleasure of admiring the marvalleous style of the Ford manual, written in
perfect English, when trying to figure out why the damn car does not work.

They Used To Call Them Communists.

    An article under the above title appeared few weeks ago in the
popular (American) Sunday Newspaper Magazine that is attached to
regular Sunday newspapers.  The article reviewed recent changes in
Eastern Europe whereby voters bring the discredited Communists back to
power.  In searching for the questions what really happened, why people
turn to those who were rejected not long ago, and what is the reason
for the reemergence of the former Communists, the article makes some
surprising conclusions.
    It identifies causes like general frustration, disenchantment with
life, and the gradual disappearance of the welfare-state correctly.
However, it then makes the following statement:  While few Eastern
Europeans yearn for a restoration of Communist dictatorships,
ironically, voters trust former Communists as sure-handed economic
managers more than the liberal democrats who helped them to win
freedom.
    Had this reflected a view of an American journalist, I would have
dismissed it easily by crediting such statement to naiveti.  My problem
is that I hear similar voices from Hungary as well.  They all tell that
the old Communists represent the strong hand, knowledge, and experience
in economics and generally in governance.
    That is where I stop and start to roll my eyes.  Where these people
have been in the past fifty years?  Communists as  sure-handed economic
managers ?  Communists as skilled and experienced leaders?  This is
more than an oxymoron, this is insane.
    Sure they know how to crack the whip, but that is the extent of
their knowledge and experience.  They have not achieved the leading
positions by excelling in academics or by hard work.  As I recall, they
got their positions because they were good members of the party.  They
suck up to the big Communists who wanted to have a firm support in the
leadership of industry and agriculture.  They assumed positions in a
centralized economy where everything was at their disposal, yet they
still performed very purely.  They are the ones who are responsible for
bankrupting the country on the first place.

    Who generates these ideas that the old Communists are the experts,
or that they are the skilled leaders and strong handed economic
managers?  And who believes in them?  Is there any considerable support
of this idea in Hungary?

Best regards,

Gabor Morocz
Rancho Cordova, California

distributors in the US has asked me to post.  Before anyone gets his/her
flame gun out, I've cleared it with Hugh as a public service message.

        Paul

******************************************************************************

Budapest Week, an award winning English language weekly published in Budapest,
Hungary, is now available by direct mail in the U.S. and Canada.  Call
1-800-878-5113 for subscription information or to request a free sample copy.

                Magyar Media Group, Inc.
                330 South St, P.O. Box 1975
                Morristown, N.J. 07962-1975

        J. Douglas Smith, Managing Director
        (201)540-9020

        Frank T. Jelinek, Managing Director
        (203)762-2644

Thank you Paul for the post.

However, in the interest of fair critique of any such post, as a former
subscriber, I would not consider the paper worth the money. The service
was excellent but please note that the paper is (IMHO)  very American
centered and I just don't find their style of reporting and editorial
writing very helpful to Hungarian society.

The editorials reminded me of some consultants, the kind that live in
Buda who never leave Budapest unless it was in the first class car of the
InterCity expresses.

But, please pick up a sample copy, the graphics are well done and layout
is nice.

Darren Purcell

Peter I. Hidas ) wrote:
: >It would be shameful for anybody, but particularly deplorable for someone
: >claiming to be a historian to intentionally misrepresent facts.
: >
: >I challenge Eva Balogh to prove her repeated statement that "call to arms"
: >has been issued for 23rd of October, 1995.
:
: Ms. Balogh is a known and recognized professional historian.

dr e. balogh left me with the impression that she had given up
professional activity as a historian to work in publishing.
have i been misinformed or has the good dr balogh resumed her
profession?

d.a.

Eva S. Balogh ) wrote:
:
: >Nowadays the government wants to decrease ist spending, so it wants
: >to close hospitals, primary schools, and wants studentn to pay at
: >universities almost as much as one of the parents earn monthly.
:
: The proposed tuition is actually very low: 2,000 Ft./month. So, the above is
: an exaggeration. $1.00 = 135 Ft.
:

of course how "low" 2,000ft per month is depends *not* upon the
exchange rate, but upon the disposable income of those who live
in hungary. as a matter of interest, what is the median monthly
income? what is the mean monthly income? (to make things easier,
take the question to refer to th household income rather than
individual income)

: Why would privatization ruin the firm? Wouldn't it be stupid of the new owner
: to spend quite a bit of money on purchasing the company and then sit down and
: ruin it? i

that depends. it could be advantageous to buy a competitor on the cheap
and to close it down.

d.a.

Dear Gabor,

        congratulations: a perfect score (your article "Csurka").  Also,
IMHO, a gloriously irrelevant one.  Last time I checked life was slightly
beyond logic, and society even more so.
        So let me talk about a few things I think have more to do with
real life.  My infinitesimal brain suggests that there are three *basic* ways
to deal with (get rid of) rumors:
        a/ to dismiss them as irrelevant (proof or counterproof, even if
possible, aren't worth the effort).  In my mind Joe's alleged padded bra
is a prime example of that
        b/ to prove that they are false
        c/ to try to suppress their spread without proving that they are false

        The rumor Joe mentioned would be hard to dismiss as irrelevant
(i.e. it doesn't matter whether the allegation is true or not):
after all we are talking about the highest ranking public official.  In
particular *you* would have hard times to argue credibly for such dismissal
after making your strong statements on someone with much less political
weight.  So a/ is out.

        I hope so is c/.  No matter how piously one puts it, it involves
censorship, either directly or indirectly (by gaining exclusive control
of communication channels, media, etc., i.e. legally or illegally preventing,
or just strongly suppressing differing/unpleasant views from being
publicized).  This process *may* start out with the best of intents, Heaven
forbid it may even be justified ("now in this case we REALLY have to draw a
line!"), but invariably ends up in a subset of the public telling to the rest
what they are supposed to hear and think, and what not.  Does "1984" ring a
bell?  I assume this is not your preferred scenario; sure as hell it
isn't mine.

        So b/ prevails.  That's the neat way to do it, the clean one.  Except
that something hit the fan here, and although brown, it wasn't chocolate.
In practice the strongest proof of the falsehood of such a rumor is the
*lack of evidence* IF at the same time it can be shown beyond reasonable
doubt that had the "crime" been committed, such evidence *would exist* and
*would be accessible to people on all sides of the issue*.  --  Now of
course this possibility is gone with the (proven) looting of and the
(possible) tampering with the archives.

        The result is very interesting, and it shows what ironic twists life
can produce.  I'm absolutely sure that when admitting his signing Mr. Whats-
hisname acted in panic and all he wanted is damage control: there is something
mitigating about admitting your sin before being fully exposed and charged.
So far, so bad for him.  Still at the long run his admission and the subsequent
pounding he sustained turns to be a PR disaster for his *opponents*.

        How come?  Well, many of his opponents were *probably* instrumental in
letting the archives deplete.  Many of his opponents were *surely* preaching
that past things don't matter, anyway, we should forget and start with a
"tabula rasa".  They have their God-given right to express this opinion
of theirs.  However, many of the very same people couldn't resist the tempta-
tion to get the maximum mileage out of Mr. Whatshisname's signing  --  which
is again their God-given right, but unfortunately it is incompatible with the
previous two.  The result: I heard quite a few people (and don't fool your-
self, they weren't Mr. Whatshisname's fans either) noting with sarcasm how
remarkably inefficient were the communists in Hungary.  Evidently they had all
but one informer for all those 35 years, and possibly even this one didn't
deliver.

        This is what I call a PR disaster, because this type of ridicule
kills on the long run.  Also, it fosters rumors of all kind that are impossible
to refute.  Except if one resorts to solution c/ above.  But they wouldn't
do this because it would run against their most sacred, publicly professed
principles.

        Or would they?

        Tamas Toth