||The Tar Pits (mind)
|| 10 sor
||Re: The current political situation in Hungary (mind)
|| 14 sor
||Re: About socialism, the last time (mind)
|| 98 sor
||Hungarian alphabet (mind)
|| 9 sor
||Re: About socialism, the last time (mind)
|| 10 sor
||Does somebody know ??? (mind)
|| 6 sor
||Urgent: Iliescu meeting (mind)
|| 77 sor
||Urgent -2 (mind)
|| 7 sor
||"We know better" attitude (mind)
|| 31 sor
||Future belongs with the clean independents (mind)
|| 109 sor
||If it's not the indebtness, then what? (mind)
|| 13 sor
||Paul's appeal to the President (mind)
|| 14 sor
||Re: Clinton-Iliescu Meeting (mind)
|| 5 sor
||Himnusz, Szozat (mind)
|| 5 sor
||Re: Eva the Which (mind)
|| 74 sor
|| 13 sor
||Re: Csurka's call to arms, HUNGARY 439 (mind)
|| 71 sor
||Eva the Which (mind)
|| 23 sor
|+ - ||The Tar Pits (mind)
Dr Pellionisz, still tortured by terrible hallucinations about a
"swelling grassroot movement towards popular revolt", keeps moaning
and whining about "ad hominem attacks and big lies".
To paraphrase William F. Buckley Jr., anyone who lies about Dr Pellionisz
is doing him a kindness.
|+ - ||Re: The current political situation in Hungary (mind)
To cut a long story short: the MSzP was elected with
a relatively big majority, because it promised to
keep the social benefits and to go on with the
privatisation/"slimming down" programme. No govt is capable
to deliver such contradictory promises. Like the others, it
was telling what people wanted to hear.
What difference would be SzDSz or MDF?
If they don't promise better living conditions,
they won't get elected, when they are elected,
they'll forget fast what they promised, blaming the
economic environment - which is never all that different
at the time of the elections. Now, where have I
seen this to happen again and again and again...
|+ - ||Re: About socialism, the last time (mind)
I explain, why your answer is unsatisfactory, you
disregard my points and repeat yourself answering
points I did not make:
> Simply because socialism goes against the grain.
> People are not(!!) equal.
Marx did not claim such thing - prove me wrong if you care.
What he stated was, that the -basic- human needs are the same.
People - updated version - need food, cloths, accomodation,
education, information, stimulation and a society that
can provide this without war/enviromental mess/periodical
crises. Give me evidence, please, that capitalism is delivering
these satisfactorily in the world - which is based on "existing"
capitalism and if not yet, the future looks good:
THIS WAS MY QUESTION.
> That, of course, doesn't mean that they are not
> equal before the law. Of course, they are. That is one of the important
> ingredients of democracy.
I've got news for you; people are not even equal before the law.
Do I have to give you examples? You cannot be that naive, surely...
You seem to have more idealised picture about present capitalism,
than I have about any future socialism...
All the rest is irrelevant, as you arguing a case I did not make:
> But they are not equal in every other way. Some are
> brighter than others; some of more ambitious than others; some of
> harder-working than others; for some X is important while for some Y is
> important. Some are outgoing and talkative while some are shy and quiet. Some
> are generous, some are stingy, and one could go on and on. Socialism doesn't
> take all these differences into consideration.
.. but looking at your point anyway, it means, that if you
were born shy, with little interest in money, but are a good
say, nurse, that you should not have the right to live as well
as as an assertive, manupilative entrepeneur selling something
totally superfluous? That is how well individuals are measured
at the moment... not by merit, but how well they can use the
system to make money... You say everyone's individual potencials
are developed and used fully for the good of society? Am I blind
> And perhaps more important,
> people are rarely motivated by common goals but rather by individual desires
> and attainments.
Individual desires and attainment can be only fulfilled, when
the the society provides the environment for them. Not
in empty space.
> Also, people usually treat property which belongs "to all"
> shabily. In fact, they look upon common property as belonging to no one.
It depends, how much they feel/ they are made feel it is theirs.
I could elaborate... comparing council estates in the UK and
> People are greedy: if the workers could alone decide the fate of the profit
> their factory produced, most of them would like to see that money directly
> benefiting them. The would like to receive bonuses, or suggest the building a
> vacation retreat instead. Such a management of a factory/firm would not be
> considered judicious for economic growth.
So workers are too stupid to run their life... an other familiar
line.... The cooperatives that exist
world-wide proves otherwise, even in an unfriendly capitalist
environment. (Besides, if there were no well-off shareholders,
banks, tenfold managerial salaries, and state burocracy;
besides the necessary technological
investment, they could have bigger wages and vacation retreat.)
> Eva Durant keeps asking me specific refutations of every argument she brings
> up. I can't do that simply because I find the whole laundry list unrealistic.
> The whole thing is utopistic altogether.
And you keep answering the same questions I did not ask... please,
just once, answer a few of these unrealistic ones... I think
they are valid questions, and if you want me to believe in the
future of capitalism, should be answered. I want to believe...
life would be so much more comfortable without all these worries...
|+ - ||Hungarian alphabet (mind)
I have a Macintosh Performa 6214CD with "Clarisworks" wordprocessor.
I am looking for information on downloading the Hungarian alphabet from
|+ - ||Re: About socialism, the last time (mind)
Eva S. Balogh wrote:
: Eva Durant keeps asking me specific refutations of every argument she brings
Refer her to F.A. Hayek's works, especially _The Fatal Conceit_ and _The Road
|+ - ||Does somebody know ??? (mind)
1.: In Transylvania how the Hungarians are distributed?
In a homogeneous area in the North or mixed with Romanians ?
I can not find maps about this.
2.: In the Paris treaty after WWII there was a point which stated,
if Chech and Slovaks split an area (Csallokoz ?) must go
back to Hungary? Is it true?
|+ - ||Urgent: Iliescu meeting (mind)
Below is a copy of the letter I sent today to the President concerning his
meeting tomorrow with President Iliescu. I think it may be worth having
people resend it, with their own edits if desired, to the President.
Dear Mr. President,
The message below was distributed over the internet by Mr. Bela Liptak
). It discusses a typical incident of discrimination
by the Rumanian government against the Hungarians of Transylvania (called
Erdely in Hungarian - pronounced "air day"). Over the last several years
there have been many such incidents recored by such journalistic
institutions as VOA, RFL, UP and others (I have not saved these reports in
order to document the incidents, but can say from memory that they exist
and have been widely reported). One recent incident was the attempted
removal of a historic Hungarian statue from the town square in Cluj, Rumania.
The reason given was the need to conduct an archeological dig in the area,
but the action coincidently served the interests of the anti-Hungarian
force in the town. With much publicity the government agreed not to remove
the statue, but this only came after a massive effort by the local community.
To have to live day-by-day making such massive efforts in order to save ones
culture and way of life is an act of aggression and cannot be tolerated. The
government can be defeated time and again in such efforts, but they know that
one day they will succeed, and it only takes one success over several attempts
to destroy each and every statue, church, school, and neighborhood - they
can take several shots at each target, but they only have to succeed once.
What must be done is for the government of Rumania to make a practice of
preventing this, by actions as well as words and laws. Please make any
agreement with President Iliescu of Rumania conditional on,
1) a guarantee of autonomy for the Hungarin minority
2) rescinding of the new School Law which will destroy the
500 year old Hungarian school system in the region
3)return of all Hungarian church property to the Hungarians.
The President of Romania will meet with President Clinton on Tuesday, the
26th of September. He is coming to obtain a billion dollars in aid and the
technology to manufacture Cobra attack helicopters in Romania. He wants these
in return for the progress Romania has made on the road towards democracy:
guaranteeing ethnic tolerance, human rights and cultural diversity in his
multi-ethnic state. An example of the conditions prevailing in Romania is
SEPTEMBER 12, 1995: The Hungarian Opera in Cluj posts showbills in Hungarian,
Romanian and English, announcing a 10-day Bela Barok anniversary.
SEPTEMBER 20: Mayor Gh. Funar sends a crane and removes the Hungarian
language announcement-ribbon from the facade of the opera.
SEPTEMBER 21: The director of the Hungarian Opera, Gabor Simon, returns the
Hungarian language ribbon.
SEPTEMBER 22: The mayor once again removes, the director once again returns
the ribbon. As a response the mayor imposes a 2 million ley fine and requests
the dismissal of the director. Simultaneously with that, the telephone lines
to the opera are also cut.
SEPTEMBER 23 (TODAY): The director turns to higher authorities requesting the
enforcement of the laws, which guarantee the language rights of minorities
and in failing to receive assistance, contemplates the cancellation of the
10-day Bartok program.
It is important to know, that 1) the indigenous Hungarian population of
Romania exceeds the total population of Bosnia, 2) that Hungarian autonomy
which survived even under Communism, has not been restored in Romania, 3)
that a new law been passed this year, which, if enforced, will destroy the
500 years old Hungarian school system, 4) that the Hungarian churches are the
only churches in Romania, who's properties have not been returned.
Therefore, President Clinton should tell President Iliescu, that if Romania
wants to enter Europe or if she wants American help, she should guarantee
ethnic rights, cultural autonomy for all minorities (including the Jews and
the Romas) and should terminate the operation of the language police.
Bela Liptak (The writer is a former Yale professor and one of the director of
the Hungarian Anti-defamation League)
|+ - ||Urgent -2 (mind)
The previous message sent by me was NOT sent from the account from which I
have subscribed to the list. Therefore, you cannot use 'reply' to send a
reply back to the list, if desired. You must send it as a new message.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
|+ - ||"We know better" attitude (mind)
>During the 14 months study which I led, government officials and industry
>representatives distinguished themselves by ignorance of the prevailing
>conditions, indifference to the proposals being worked out and a deep
>cynicism about the ability of the lendor (and consultants) to contribute or,
>in fact, do anything useful except fork out money.
>. . . . .
>So when the day of reckoning comes and the records revealed, you should not
>be surprised to find Hungary (i.e. its legal representatives at the time) in
To tell you the truth I am not surprised. Unfortunately, this is an attitude
that is familiar to me not in an official capacity but simply as a
contributor to Hungarian-language lists on the Internet. They suffer from a
terribly misplaced superiority complex, and they show remarkable antagonism
toward the West and anyone who lives there, including their fellow
Hungarians. It doesn't matter what the subject matter is, whether it is
history, politics, or economics, they know everything better than we who have
been living in democratic countries for decades. Advice is not needed, and if
given, it is discarded as totally foolish, useless and based on ignorance of
local circumstances. Meanwhile I found that even well-educated people have
little knowledge of the workings of democracy and/or economic/financial
One doesn't want to be cruel but one often feels like saying: If you know
everything so well, how is it possible that the country is fumbling so badly
economically and, consequently, politically.
|+ - ||Future belongs with the clean independents (mind)
It is yet another myth about present-day Hungary that "everybody"
is (politically) compromised. The 800,000 former communist party
members (comprising naive [hithu] and sinister [profi] varieties)
would very much like you to believe this "Big Lie". One shouldn't
forget, however, that although this number is considerable, it still
represents a mere sliver (5%) of the total polulation of Hungarians.
Particularly true is that good honest people could safeguard their
cleanliness and independence as their most cherished virtue, IF THEY
REMOVED THEMSELVES from the scene of last 20 years of the decay and rot.
As I solemnly testified the other day, and confirm it in writing
here again, I have never in my life was a member of ANY political party
-- kept myself ABSOLUTELY clean from MSZMP (communists) and its famed
network of III/3 ("informers") and never ever joined ANY political
party even after 1989, in Hungary, in USA, or during my longer
sejours in Germany, England and France.
Read my lips: "No Party Membership: Nowhere, Never, Ever". (I wish
others can say this)
Of course, this cleanliness (as hygiene in general) carries a stiff
price. For 8 years after I broke away from Kadar's Communist Hungary
I could not step on the soil of my Homeland, and for about two decades
of my life I had to live in exile. This is a sacrifice only those can
fully appreciate who did it themselves, too, although it is beyond doubt
that living in (reasonably) well-functioning capitalism and democracy
is rather rich in its benefits as well.
It is a pity (but typical) that some are over-eager to quickly mis-
interpret if clean and independent individuals, whose integrity is
beyond the sleeze and ad hominem attacks so frequent on the Net, make
any reference to individuals and/or political parties. Of course I have
in the past (and will in the future) refer to politicians and parties
but I maintain that it is not only an alienable right that anybody
can exercise in a democratic environment, but also that it signals no
party membership, not even exclusive or characteristic support, my
references merely signal occasional OPINION (to which I am allowed to
have a right, I assume). For the record, I would like to make sure that
no one singles out any single party/politician that I "support or
supported", thus I hereby make my written "supporting opinions" about a
good number of Hungarian parties/politicians. Those that are all legal,
(e.g. financially supported by the State), and come quickly into my mind:
MSZMP (hadcore communists): "This party must be taken rather seriously
since -as evidenced e.g. by Eva Durant- even intellectuals of Kadar
communism are highly reluctant to give up their ingrained communist
principles. Mr. Thurmer is doing a great job for a significant segment of
Hungary's population to make sure that hardcore Kadar-communists are not
'gone with the wind'".
MSZP (reform communists): "This is a highly potent party since communist
slogans and propaganda can be extremely effectively exploited even by
minority who wish to ride into power on the backs of the brainwashed.
Mr. Horn has been spectacularly successful to provide the 'masses' without
which power, even in a mere semblance of democracy, can not be exercised "
SZDSZ (liberals): "To underestimate the political force of liberals is
one of the most severe mistake that one can make in Postcommunism.
Mr. Peto professed impressive savvy and political methods that he must
have inherited from his ancestors, as he made history again of liberals
looming orders of magnitude larger than their own size"
FIDESZ (aging young democrats): "Even those who cannot know too much about
democracy for their youth gain extremely impressive experience from their
mistaken alliances. Mr. Orban has not once distinguished himself as the
celebrated spokesman of the truism that it is the future of the Hungarian
youth that is squandered by irresponsible politics of criminals"
MDF (Hungarian democrats): "A party having won the first multiparty election
after communism has made history even if ended up its term by being rejected
for its failure. Mr. Szabo is to be congratulated that the party still did not
rip itself apart by trying to look honestly and seriously into the true
reasons of its squandering a historical opportunity!"
KDNP (Christian democrats): "As a Christian who not only preach democracy
but have lived and learned, for more than two decades, one of the best
regarded modern democracy [of the USA] I cannot be but a supporter of a
party with these principles in its name. Mr. Surjan is to be congratulated
for the fact that these noble words made it to the name of a political party"
FKGP (smallholders): "This party has made the most appeal to me of
late.(This won't say if I ever made appeal to any party). Slated to be the
most popular requires not just jovial populists but also individuals with
impeccable record. One cannot but feel great sympathy for Mr. Torgyan for
his wise endurance of being considered a clown - apparently he takes
clowning around seriously."
MIEP (radical reformists): "No party can be too radical when it comes to
the task of eradication of half a century of ingrained communisms, by legal
democratic means, such as free press. Mr. Csurka, Mr. Goncz, Mr. Havel and
Mr. Solzhienitsin undeniably established the historical fact that
accomplished writers are destined to play a prominent role in East European
I truly hope that after the above no one will make the grave mistake again
of neglecting some of my above "supporting statements" of particular parties
and individuals, while putting their unjust overemphasis on some of my
observations and at the same time denying publicity from my other remarks.
For instance, I consider particulary unfair that some contributors to this
list attempt to feature me as leftwing extremist and thus neglect at the
same time to frame me as rightwing extremist (Mr. Fen...), while others
(Ms. Bal...) would like to frame me as rightwing extremist and thus
shamefully undermines her friend's laborious attempts of placating me as
leftwing extremist. This, I am afraid, will reinfoce readers who know
that I am a Hungarian Centrist democrate-patriot, on top of being "clean
|+ - ||If it's not the indebtness, then what? (mind)
We are reading seemingly convincing arguments about how those billions
of foreign debt are not the REAL problem in holding down the Hungarian
economy. For the sake of argument, let's assume they are right.
My question then is: why, after such an initial advantage in 89-90, is
the Hungarian economy now trailing the Polish, Czech, Slovenian, and
even the Slovak economy? After all, they haven't privatized any more of
their industry (though I'm not sure about Slovenia), than Hungary.
They, too, probably still have a similar social safety net in place as
Hungary. Are their taxes lower perhaps, thus NOT driving so much of the
economy underground as in Hungary?
|+ - ||Paul's appeal to the President (mind)
I am stunned and saddened by its lack of grace and clarity.
If we do have a legitimate case, surely, one must be able to state it
concisely and without endless digressions which seem to please
the author alone.
To urge us all to support this cacophony is farcical.
Name: tiha von ghyczy
|+ - ||Re: Clinton-Iliescu Meeting (mind)
Actually when I wrote 2.5 million I new that I'm overshooting a bit. 2 million
sounds much more realistic to me. But I think the mess is so big over there
that obtaining the REAL number is impossible.
PS.: Somebody spelled me Gyury in a follow-up, that's incorrect.
|+ - ||Himnusz, Szozat (mind)
Dear "", you can find them at URL
There is a wealth of Hungarian literature there, in the original
|+ - ||Re: Eva the Which (mind)
Petrovics Ofner wrote:
: ...Marx and Engels were not aware that the nuclear family had
: to be torn down if a larger, societal and less selfless society was to
: form. ...
Hmm. What do you suppose they meant by the following? From their `Manifesto',
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous
proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based?
On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this
family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things
finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among
proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its
complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by
their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace
home education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the
social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or
indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not
intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to
alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from
the influence of the ruling class.
The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the
hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more
disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family
ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children
transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.
But you Communists would introduce community or women, screams the
bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears
that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and,
naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common
to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away
with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation
of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be
openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists
have no need to introduce free love; it has existed almost from time
Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their
proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take
the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives. (Ah, those were
Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus,
at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is
that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically
concealed, an openly legalized system of free love. For the rest, it is
self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must
bring with it the abolition of free love springing from that system,
i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
|+ - || (mind)
Most csak az irjon, aki tud magyarul. Kapcsolatokat keresek amerikaban, es
tulajdonkeppen mindenhol a vilagon, hogy valamilyen modot talaljak arra, hogy
magyarokkal kerulhessek kapcsolatba.
freshman vagyok a Taylor Uniersityben, IN es elszigetelve erzem magam a kul-
vilagtol, magyarorszagtol meg plane. Szoval, akinek van ideje es energiaja
valaszolni az irjon a NEWS-ba.
Ui: a nev orosz, de senkit ne ijesszen el.
|+ - ||Re: Csurka's call to arms, HUNGARY 439 (mind)
(Re: Csurka's call to arms, HUNGARY 439)
Csurka must be a real idiot if he announces an ARMED UPRISING one
month in advance with exact date and location. Or does he? In my mind
"(armed) uprising" is "felkeles", "fegyveres felkeles" in Hungarian, while
"lazadas" (the word used in Hirmondo) is "rebellion", more than just plain
civic disobedience, but less than (para)military action.
But that is not my real concern. My problem is this. Let us assume
you are right, your interpretation is the correct one, and let us do a
frightening Gedanken-experiment. Let us assume, that Csurka gets hold of a
few hundred tanks, sufficient amount of arms and followers to shoot himself
to power, bringing down the (bad and dysfunctional as it is, but still)
legitimate government. Let us assume he does it, say, with the help of Iran.
He passes his own laws so from now on everything he does is "lawful".
He kills or incarcerates his opponents, then once the entire country is
terrorized, starts to ease things up a little bit. He cannot do it without
at least slightly improving living standards, but hunted by ideology and
having no clue on economy he cannot do it without relying on foreign loans.
So he fetches some $100 billion, half of which he funnels into his own
military and to the brotherly Iran in different channels, a quarter of it
is used to build industrial dinosaurs and yes, a quarter of it is used to
improve upon the lives of the people. Twenty years later he is "Pista bacsi",
"one of us". Thirty years later, when things are hopeless, the economy is
run down, there is no more money to uphold the artificially inflated living
standards, he kindly steps down, retires in peace and with an outrageously
high (but of course legal) pension. Most of his lieutenants become CEOs,
advisers, etc. in newly emerging companies set up with money of shady
How do you like this scenario? And it is getting worse, because
after all this happened, there will be no legal ground to put him on trial,
there won't even be a ground for a symbolic, moral slap in the face of him
or any of his followers. Definitely not for the MSZP, SZDSZ, FIDESZ, a
fair portion of the MDF -- and most of their entourage. Not for those,
who repeated the words "witchhunt", "McCarthysm", and so on, day in, day out,
sabotaged even symbolic trials. (Please note that one of the very first
things after the changes in Hungary was to pass a law abolishing death
penalty, so no one's life was in danger.) Yes, I am aware of Mr. Goncz's
counter-proposal; would it have been genuine instead of smoke and mirrors,
at least now we would have some action. Even research of political and
economic responsibilities was discouraged or made outright impossible by
uncontrolled looting of "sensitive" archives. The bottomline is a pretty
frightening message: never mind how you got the power and how you used it,
if you can stick to it long enough, everything will be all right.
There are quite a few conservatives, who cannot stand any of Csurka's
style and rhetoric, but still are summarily labeled "right wing extremists"
(de facto character assasination currently in Hungary) if they don't dismiss
*everything* Csurka says, only 90% of it. Unfortunately, the above scenario
fits into the remaining 10%, in which he was right: he was the one who kept
repeating like a maniac that those responsible for what happened in the last
35 years should be held accountable, or at the very least named. Had
people listened to him, now there would be legal grounds and moral justi-
fication to put *him* on trial *anytime* later, even if his putch were
*now* succesful. "Thanks" to the above parties and "intellectuals" around
them, there is currently no such justification.
I am an ardent, "intransigent" opponent of death penalty, and of
course I hate even more mob lynching. If the above scenario ever comes
true, be sure I will be there trying to save as many lives as I can, irres-
pective of sides and beliefs. But please, all those (and now I am *not*
talking about you, Eva, because I don't know your earlier views on this)
who in their pitiful shortsightedness and/or greed for momentary political
gains sabotaged the question of accountability for whatever happened between
56 and 89, please leave me alone. For the next, say, 20 years I am fed up
with your "ideas" and judgement. After that, we can talk again.
|+ - ||Eva the Which (mind)
Dear Enemies, Eva--
When we are talking about socialism or capitalism, we are talking
about people. That is life span dvelopment, child development, and
family systems that comptise personality developement. Socialism has
been successful in only one country --Israel. In the Kibbutzim. This
is beacuse Marx and Engle were not aware that the nuclear family had
to be torn down if a larger, societal and less selfless society was to
form. Russia and all of the Russian Empire did not desecrate the
nuclear family --raqther, ambivalently extolled it. Thus selfness
and egoism became the norm within a false facade of selflessness that
proved tragic --in Hungary during the 80's a common saying was that
"you were cheating your family if you did not steal from the factory."
By contrast, Kibbutzim, with their well functioning inant care,
that formed a "family" of peers, facilitated a group identification
toward the Kibbutzim and its thriving (rather than toward the Self or
egoism). This had drawbacks, true. But it proved to be a first step
in communalism, if not, communism.
--- MOMS 3.0