on Tue Jan 21 07:34:21 EST 1997 in HUNGARY
#891:

>Hungarian content:  Does anyone think that our great Hungarian nationalist
>and stud muffin, Istvan Lippai, would be a good time in bed?  How about the
>kitchen table?  Food for thought, eh?

Joe, could you please keep your twisted fantasies out of here?  Thanks.

Ferenc

Ferenc,

   Is it really that difficult to understand our request not to
cross-post? Or anything goes when  you want to prove something?
And you are talking about "tisztesseges".  Very interesting, to
say the least.
               Amos
> ----------------------------------------
On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Ferenc Novak wrote:

>  on Tue Jan 21 10:12:29 EST 1997 in SZABAD #2241:
>
> >...Mig sajat "szelsoseges, becsuletben vagy emberi meltosagban
> >serto" leveleik--hogy Hollosi Jozsit idezzem--oregbitik Magyarorszag
> >hirnevet (;)).
> >
> >        Amikor egy amerikai ismerosomnek elmeseltem, hogy a Forum egyik
> >becses tagja "eliminalni" ohajtja az enfajtamat, tagranyitott szemmel nezett
> >ram es megkerdezte: "And in what way is he planning to kill them?" Talan
> >tole kellene megkerdezni. Ga'zzal, injekcioval, akasztofaval, vagy pedig
> >egyszeruen csak puskatussal?
> >
> >        Balogh Eva
>
> Ugy latszik, Balogh Eva ugyancsak igyekszik azzal az "oregbitessel".  A
> legerdekesebb az, hogy meltatlankodik ha egyesek felhanytorgatjak, hogy
> angolnyelvu kozegben pocskondiazza a FORUMOT (most mar SZABADOT).  A
> meltanyos (es tisztesseges) eljaras az lett volna, ha az illetorol mint
> egyenrol, nem pedig mint a FORUM tagjarol nyilatkozott volna.  Kulonben sem
> tul intelligens dolog kivulallok elott elitelni egy olyan kozosseget,
> amelynek maga is tagja.
>
> Ferenc
>

In article >, "Marco Cera"
> writes:

>mi primer apellido es "Cera", creo que de origen hzngaro. Agradecerma
>cualquier informacisn sobre il (si es un apellido muy extendido, de que
>zona de hungrma es, etcitera).
>Agradecerma cualquier mensaje a mi correo. Muchas Gracias.
>
>

This may be entirely unnecessary, but for those who might not speak
Spanish, Marco says his last name is "Cera" and he thinks it's originally
Hungarian. He'd like to know whether it's a common surname in Hungary,
which parts of Hungary it might be common to, etc. If anyone has any
information they'd like to send Marco, but don't speak Spanish or French,
pass it on to me and I'll translate.
Sam Stowe

P.S. -- I also speak most varities of redneck.

"The truth comes in
a strange door."
-- Francis Bacon

 on Jan 21 14:44:46 EST 1997 in HUNGARY #891:

>It is conceivable that the present Hungarian government when signed new
>treaties with Slovakia and Romania remembered not only the Yugoslav civil
>war (Bosnia) but events of long ago, 1848/49.
>
>Peter I. Hidas

Would you care to elaborate on this?  I can't see a connection.

Ferenc

As you know, it would be helpful to know how he pronounces the name so that
we can figure out the proper Hungarian spelling.

There is no CERA in the Budapest phone book.

Doug Holmes

At 01:58 23-01-1997 GMT, you wrote:
>In article >, "Marco Cera"
> writes:
>
>>mi primer apellido es "Cera", creo que de origen hzngaro. Agradecerma
>>cualquier informacisn sobre il (si es un apellido muy extendido, de que
>>zona de hungrma es, etcitera).
>>Agradecerma cualquier mensaje a mi correo. Muchas Gracias.
>>
>>
>
>This may be entirely unnecessary, but for those who might not speak
>Spanish, Marco says his last name is "Cera" and he thinks it's originally
>Hungarian. He'd like to know whether it's a common surname in Hungary,
>which parts of Hungary it might be common to, etc. If anyone has any
>information they'd like to send Marco, but don't speak Spanish or French,
>pass it on to me and I'll translate.
>Sam Stowe
>


   ================================================================
Doug da Rocha Holmes            | Doug Holmes - Director
------------------------------- | Hungarian/American Friendship Society
Specialist in Azorean Genealogy | Website: www.dholmes.com/hafs.html
Website: www.dholmes.com        | (Specializing in Hungarian & Slovak genealogy
)
   ================================================================

 on Jan 21 14:44:46 EST 1997 in HUNGARY #891:

>It is conceivable that the present Hungarian government when signed new
>treaties with Slovakia and Romania remembered not only the Yugoslav civil
>war (Bosnia) but events of long ago, 1848/49.
>
>Peter I. Hidas

Would you care to elaborate on this?  I can't see a connection.

Ferenc

To my knowledge the Hungarian government acted under HEAVY German - and probabl
y
US - pressure when signing the treaties ( as precondition for further progress
towards EU & NATO ). The same was true - as far Messr. Kohl and Kinkel is
concerned - when Hungary had to accept Slovakia4s membership in the European
Council ( the vote had to be unanimous and Hungary was already member. Hungary
tried to get a garantee of handling ethnic minorities according to European
standards for consenting. Germany didn4t feel this was necessary and got it4s
way ) .
signing the treaties. The same was true

 on Tue Jan 21 07:34:21 EST 1997 in HUNGARY
#891:

>Hungarian content:  Does anyone think that our great Hungarian nationalist
>and stud muffin, Istvan Lippai, would be a good time in bed?  How about the
>kitchen table?  Food for thought, eh?

Joe, could you please keep your twisted fantasies out of here?  Thanks.

Ferenc

And, me stupid naive soul, I thought, we were coming back to civilization...
Forgive me.

At 08:45 PM 1/22/97 -0500, Szabolcs Magyarody wrote:

>During the heydays of Erik Molnar and  Erzsebet Andics, there was a
>requirement to emphasize and exaggerate  our faults, mistakes, and crimes.
>The wrongdoings of our enemies of the wars recent and past, and present
>adversaries were  never mentioned. Generations grew up in Hungary, who were
>ashamed to be Hungarians, because  the feeling of collective guilt was
>pounded into them during an impressionable young age.

        First, I think one ought to distinguish between Erik Molnar and
Erzsebet Andics. The former was a much better historian. Also, he was a
better man. He saved a lot of historians who were sacked from the university
after 1956 by hiring them at the Historical Institute. Second, the period
mentioned above was relatively short and therefore their influence, if there
was much of it, did not last for generations. Moreover, although I haven't
read Erik Molnar's books for years (and I don't remember of reading Andics
at all), but my recollection is that in some ways both historians presented
a very nationalistic view of history. Heavily sprinkled, of course, with
Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist ideology and servility to the Soviet Union, but
otherwise "progressive forces" were always on the nationalistic side. (A
very similar sentiment appeared today in one of the Hungary-related lists by
a very ordinary Hungarian mortal.) Thus, I'm afraid most people on the
"national side" today--including most likely you--are much closer to the
historians of the 1950s than I am. As you may have noticed I belong to the
school which prefers Szechenyi, Deak, or Eotvos, to Kossuth and his friends
and not sympathetic to sentiments of independence given Hungary's
nationality problems.
        Neither can I agree with you about a general feeling of shame or
collective guilt. In fact, I can't recall any reference in Hungarian
historical writings--at least from the 1960s on--to collective guilt.
Historians working on the period of twentieth-century Hungarian history
certainly pointed out that the Hungarian government, pressured by the
military, the growth of the right and fearful of the Soviet Union, ended up
on the side of Germany and was unable or unwilling to extricate itself from
that position until the bitter end. If I have any criticism of the general
tone of Hungarian history of this period is that the "remedy" historians
offered was a Soviet orientation. As for the holocaust and the Hungarian
government's responsibility although historians wrote about it but it either
didn't percolate down to general consciousness or the public refused to face
facts: the Hungarian government cooperated with the Germans. As later events
showed one could say "no," to the Germans. They didn't until the majority of
Hungarian Jewry was shipped off to Auschwitz and other camps.

>Some professors even today are unable to look at  history in an objective way.
>The case in point is the history section of "Hungary, Essential Facts,
>Figures and Pictures. (MTI 1994).  In a  couple of hours I have found 12
>objectionable points,  comrade Andics would have been proud of.  When  I
>presented my objections in writing  to the composer of this opus in his
>office (MTA, Tortenelmtudomanyi  Intezet, Uri utca),  he could not offer an
>argument.

        I haven't read the book and I don't even know who the author is. As
for "objectionable" points, well, they are hard to pinpoint. What maybe
objectionable to you may not be objectionable to someone else. I recall a
futile and very protracted discussion on some "objectionable" points in an
English-language history of Hungary edited by Peter Sugar of the University
of Washington. The work was a compilation and it was a collaborative work
between historians living in Hungary and historians living abroad. One
article was on the post-1956 period and the author of the chapter wrote the
following sentences: "The new government [meaning Kadar's] began, on
November 11, to reorganize its own armed forces and law enforcement
detachments and introduced martial law. Important anti-government
demonstrations continued, however, including the women's march in early
December in Budapest and the confrontatiaon in Salgotarjan during which
several people lost their lives and about one hundred were wounded." Some
people found the word "several" objectionable. It was interpreted as "few,"
and according to the critics this showed disregard to the victims, and a
bagatellization of the event itself. It didn't matter that in this case
"several" doesn't mean "few." I tried to explain also that given the fact
that the exact numbers were not known and widely different figures were
offered, the safest thing was to say "several," it made no impression. So,
not all objections are valid. Someone objected to one of my own writings
claiming that I didn't offer an in-depth analysis of the differences between
Hungarism and Fascism and Nazism! Never mind that the whole article was less
than 20-page long and it was supposed to be on Hungarian diplomacy between
the two world wars.

>A lot of younger people are reading this pages. I am  in the fray for them.
>I would like them to look at  history as is, not how  some people see it
>from the perspective of a frog, or a special interest group. They should
>have access to any point of view, as long as it is fair and objective.

        But the trouble with this is as follows: Who will decide what is
fair and what is objective. What to me is objective and fair may not be
objective and fair to you and vica versa. There can be no one "official"
"fair and objective" interpretation of history.

        Eva Balogh

On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Sam Stowe wrote:

> and if it jumps up and bites you on the ass. Stop lecturing the rest of us
> for things we haven't done, you twit, and pay attention to what's really
> going on.

An other pearl from Sam. When I used "we" in one of my posts someone
quickly instructed me: "Speak for yourself". I think the same advice
should apply to Sam as well.

Barna Bozoki

At 01:01 PM 1/23/97 +0100, Gyorgy Kadar wrote:

>        Now let me quote the posting, which explained for me the origins
>of such an atmosphere:
>
>>Forgive me, but this is a discussion forum.  You are the "other side".
>{...}
>>as a debating tactic it is
>>very unlikely to cause people to conclude that you are right and
>>Mr Hidas is wrong.
>>
>>-----
>>Gabor Fencsik
>>
>
>        Now I learnt from the above quotation, that some people  are not
>really interested in  t h e  t r u t h, but have only one goal:
>"to cause people to conclude that: I am right and the 'other side' is
>wrong"! This type of ideology has rarely been presented with such clarity
>as quoted above, but it has been present and many of us are infected
>somewhat.

        I am afraid, you misunderstood what Gabor Fencsik meant by this. Let
me repeat, the original question was: was 1848-48 also a civil war. There
was one side: claiming that it wasn't or if it was it was too small to be
considered important. The other side claimed that it was a very large issue.
Gabor Fencsik is right: there are two sides every time we argue about
something. Gabor Fencsik was also right when he claimed that by shifting the
focus of the discussion from "was it or wasn't it a civil war" to "who
killed how many," or rather "who started the killing first," and accusing
Mr. Hidas of one-sidedness gave the impression is that Hidas's side is wrong
and and his opponents are right. After all, the only issue was: was it a
civil war? And surely, Mr. Hidas is right. It was.

        As for your example of the complecities of human nature. Of course,
you are right. But it is not applicable here. The "sides" shift. I may take
more conservative "side" in this or that issue and a more liberal "side" in
some other isse. But every discussion must have two sides. Otherwise we
wouldn't have a discussion.

        Eva Balogh

At 09:52 PM 1/22/97 -0500, Ferenc Novak wrote:

 on Tue Jan 21 07:34:21 EST 1997 in HUNGARY
>#891:
>
>>Hungarian content:  Does anyone think that our great Hungarian nationalist
>>and stud muffin, Istvan Lippai, would be a good time in bed?  How about the
>>kitchen table?  Food for thought, eh?
>
>Joe, could you please keep your twisted fantasies out of here?  Thanks.
>
>Ferenc

*My* twisted fantasies?  Oh, come on!  Where the hell were you when Mr.
Lippai was dishing out *his* fantasies?  Or, did you not notice that he
called many of the regular contributors to this list: 1)garbage, 2)communist
3)anti-Hungarian, 4)anti-American?

Can I conclude that your silence meant that you agreed with his general
thrust?  Or is "thrust" too suggestive a word for *your* fantasies?  If it
is, then all I can say is, "get a grip, will ya!".

Joe (I used to be Snow White .... but I drifted) Szalai

P.S.  You're probably the wrong person to ask, but I'll ask anyway.  Why are
so many people who hold right-wing political views so upset by anything that
has to do with sex or sexuality?  Did you all experience bad toilet training
when you were young?  Where does your guilt, fear, shame, and disgust come from
?

>
> > A fact (if it is a fact) is anti-Hungarian (or anti-Utopian, or anti-US,
> > or anti-Fencsik) propaganda, if it is not counterbalanced by the facts of
> > the "other side". The one-sided  presentation of facts is totally unfair.
> > In better historian circles it is classified as propaganda.
>

Do you mean, there are multiple sets of reality?
There are facts - sometimes not easy to come by them,
there can be debate, if they are established or not.
Ones they are accepted as facts by a multitude of the scientific
community, you have to accept them as the best approximation to
"truth".  As someone said, reality is the thing,
that won't go away, just because you don't believe
in it anymore. And vice versa.

NOMAIL

At 09:52 PM 1/22/97 -0500, Ferenc Novak wrote:

 on Tue Jan 21 07:34:21 EST 1997 in HUNGARY
>#891:
>
>>Hungarian content:  Does anyone think that our great Hungarian nationalist
>>and stud muffin, Istvan Lippai, would be a good time in bed?  How about the
>>kitchen table?  Food for thought, eh?
>
>Joe, could you please keep your twisted fantasies out of here?  Thanks.
>
>Ferenc

*My* twisted fantasies?  Oh, come on!  Where the hell were you when Mr.
Lippai was dishing out *his* fantasies?  Or, did you not notice that he
called many of the regular contributors to this list: 1)garbage, 2)communist
3)anti-Hungarian, 4)anti-American?

Can I conclude that your silence meant that you agreed with his general
thrust?  Or is "thrust" too suggestive a word for *your* fantasies?  If it
is, then all I can say is, "get a grip, will ya!".

Joe (I used to be Snow White .... but I drifted) Szalai

P.S.  You're probably the wrong person to ask, but I'll ask anyway.  Why are
so many people who hold right-wing political views so upset by anything that
has to do with sex or sexuality?  Did you all experience bad toilet training
when you were young?  Where does your guilt, fear, shame, and disgust come from
?

NETIQETTE!!!!!!!!!! :-( !!! >> :-) !!!

****************** CALL FOR ACTION ****************

Priority:
   urgent

Background:
   According to a statement of  the Vice President of  J.P. Morgan
from last year the bank received assurances from the Water
Development Enterprise of Slovakia that none of the loans it lead
manag for this company was spent on the Gabcikovo dam.
   In November, 1996, Miroslav B. Liska, an employee of the Water
Development Enterprise of Slovakia, indicated that the company has
received a loan for end building of Gabcikovo by a group of banks
headed by J.P. Morgan.

What to do:
    Please send a letter to the Vice President of J.P Morgan and
protest. Feel free to use the attached letter. REMEMBER WE HAVE ONLY
6 WEEKS LEFT TO ACT. PLEASE HELP!! EVERY LETTER COUNTS!!

Fax 212-648-5210

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

January 23, 1997

Margaret W. Southerland
Vice President
J.P. Morgan
60 Wall Street
New York, N.Y. 10260-0060

RE: Loan to Slovakia

Dear Mrs. Southerland,

   according to a statement of your bank from July 1996 J.P. Morgan
received assurances from the Water Development Enterprise of Slovakia
that  none of the loans you lead manage for this company will be
spend on the Gabcikovo dam.

   On the 26th of November, 1996,  at the International Water Power and
Dam Construction conference, Miroslav B. Liska, an employee of the
Water Development Enterprise of Slovakia, indicated that the company
has received a loan for end building of Gabcikovo by a group of banks
headed by J.P. Morgan.

   Mrs. Southerland, did J.P. Morgan lead manage the loan for the
completion of the Gabcikovo project? In this case, your bank did not
only neglect the warnings of numerous environmental activists who
recognized this project as environmentally disastrous and illegal.
Furthermore J.P. Morgan acted contrary to its statement from July
1996. Please clear this up.

   I hope it will not become necessary for me to recommend my
partners and business friends who are in contact with J.P. Morgan to
favor an environmentally more sensitive bank.

Sincerely

name, title, address

In article >, Ferenc Novak
> writes:

>>Hungarian content:  Does anyone think that our great Hungarian
nationalist
>>and stud muffin, Istvan Lippai, would be a good time in bed?  How about
the
>>kitchen table?  Food for thought, eh?
>
>Joe, could you please keep your twisted fantasies out of here?  Thanks.
>
>Ferenc

You object to sex on a kitchen table?
Sam Stowe

"The truth comes in
a strange door."
-- Francis Bacon

He's either going to pronounce it "Sera" or "Thera," most likely the
latter. In Hungarian orthography, the first could probably be approximated
by Sze'ra'.

Querido Senor Cera, donde nacio Ud.? Sabe Ud. cuantos anos la familia Cera
ha vivido en Espana? Nos ayudaria si aprendamos mas de la historia de su
familia. Hay algunas cuentas en su familia con respecto a sus origines en
Hungaria y como les vinieron a sus antepasados a Espana? Me siento mucho
mi espanol rompido, senor.
Sam Stowe

In article >, Doug Holmes
> writes:

>Subject:       Re: INFORMATION ON SURNAME "CERA" (SPANISH OR FRENCH,
PLEASE)
>From:  Doug Holmes >
>Date:  Wed, 22 Jan 1997 15:51:13 -0800
>
>As you know, it would be helpful to know how he pronounces the name so
that
>we can figure out the proper Hungarian spelling.
>
>There is no CERA in the Budapest phone book.
>
>Doug Holmes
>
>At 01:58 23-01-1997 GMT, you wrote:
>>In article >, "Marco Cera"
> writes:
>>
>>>mi primer apellido es "Cera", creo que de origen hzngaro. Agradecerma
>>>cualquier informacisn sobre il (si es un apellido muy extendido, de que
>>>zona de hungrma es, etcitera).
>>>Agradecerma cualquier mensaje a mi correo. Muchas Gracias.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>This may be entirely unnecessary, but for those who might not speak
>>Spanish, Marco says his last name is "Cera" and he thinks it's
originally
>>Hungarian. He'd like to know whether it's a common surname in Hungary,
>>which parts of Hungary it might be common to, etc. If anyone has any
>>information they'd like to send Marco, but don't speak Spanish or
French,
>>pass it on to me and I'll translate.
>>Sam Stowe
>>



"The truth comes in
a strange door."
-- Francis Bacon

In article <l03010d00af0b00b77433@[198.168.48.35]>, "Peter I. Hidas"
> writes:

>Subject:       Re: The Compromise of 1867
>From:  "Peter I. Hidas" >
>Date:  Tue, 21 Jan 1997 20:01:59 -0400
>
>At 1:32 PM +0000 1/18/97, Sam Stowe wrote:
> Wasn't
>>there a guy named Ban Jelacic who organized the South Serbs in 1848 and
>>unceremoniously chased the Hungarian rebels out of the crownlands south
of
>>the Danube?
>
>Jelacic was defeated by the new Hungarian army and was chased in the
>direction of Vienna.
>At that point the Hungarians were not considered "rebels".

Read what I wrote, Dr. Hidas. Jelacic faced off against the Hungarian army
at Pakozd, thirty or forty miles outside Budapest. Istvan Deak (in "The
Revolution and the War of Independence, 1848-49" in A History of Hungary;
Sugar, Hanak and Frank, eds.; Indiana University Press, 1990) describes
what followed as a major skirmish, not a battle. Jelacic then moved west
to join forces with Windischgraetz. He may have lost his nerve following
the brush with Gen. Moga's army, but he was hardly "chased." Deak says the
two armies even implemented a "temporary armistice" following the skirmish
and that Jelacic used the opportunity to make off to Vienna. Your second
statement is specious. Obviously, at the point Jelacic withdrew to Vienna,
a large portion of the Austro-Hungarian military and governmental leaders
considered the Hungarians "rebels." Four days before Pakozd, Deak writes,
the Habsburg emperor "withdrew his confidence from Batthyany" and
installed Count Franz Philipp Lamberg as commander-in-chief of all the
Habsburg armed forces in Hungary. Three days after his appointment,
Lamberg was set upon by a mob in Budapest and murdered. Obviously, the
unrebellious Hungarians knew (or at least thought they knew) why Lamberg
was there -- to put down their unrebellion. It's a shame they tore him
limb from limb. Lamberg was sympathetic to the Hungarian cause and might
have dealt much more leniently with the nation at the conclusion of the
revolution.

>
> And didn't the Hungarian rebels spend a lot of time and
>>available manpower sending armies into Erdely during 1848-49 (including
>>General Bem, I think, at some point) trying to keep the Romanian
peasants
>>down? That doesn't sound miniscule to me. It sounds like it might have
>>drawn off enough manpower and resources to make it easier for the
>>Austrians and the Russians to move in.
>>Sam Stowe
>
>General Bem was sent to Transylvania to fight the Austrians and the
>Russians. He defeated both in December 1848-January 1849. The Russian
>troops were forced to retreat to the Danubian Principalities. General Bem
>was also able to stop the civil war in Transylvania.

Deak says Bem was never able to entirely run the Austrian army out of
Erdely. He also says the Russian expeditionary force lost 543 men in
battle during its incursion into Habsburg territory. (He also notes the
Russians buried 11,028 cholera victims during the incursion.) This hardly
speaks for a very high level of conflict on the part of the Russians,
particularly when you consider that the Hungarian and Austrian armies each
lost 50,000 men during the revolution. (Deak's figures) I think it's
debatable whether Bem put a stop to the fighting in Erdely all on his own
or whether the revolutionary regime's last-minute embrace of non-Hungarian
minorities combined with mutual fear of the Russians did the trick.
Undoubtedly, Bem was the best general on the Hungarian side throughout the
conflict.
Sam Stowe

>
>Peter I. Hidas
>>
>>"The truth comes in
>>a strange door."
>>-- Francis Bacon
>
>



"The truth comes in
a strange door."
-- Francis Bacon

>
> And how does this compare with the "mood for starting businesses" when you
> and Kadar were running the country? Are you really going to try to argue
> that the Marxist-Leninists were more favorable to small business
> development than the current government? And what about the practice of
> holding down an extra job or two so you can make income "off the record"
> and not report it to the government? That's a form of tax-cheating and it
> became endemic under the Kadar regime.
>

As it happens I was not running the country, they wouldn't let me -
the story of my life.  I did not argue for the marxist-leninists
(anyway, in my opinion there were not a lot of them around, but
this'd be to subtle for you). Whenever I criticise capitalism, you
acuse me of defending a past undemocratic socialism. (I only
"defended"  it, when I see wild untruths about the period, which I
had more chance of knowing, than someone who had not lived in Hungary
in that period.) For your benefit, I worked as an employee of
Videoton, not  the member of the party, with very little chance
of being the apparachnik role you have loved me to have.



> Your constant theme of apocalypse when it comes to considering any form of
> organized life other than Marxism-Leninism wears no easier with constant
> repetition. Communist regimes throughout eastern Europe and the former
> Soviet Union perpetrated monstrous human rights and environmental crimes,
> yet you never seem to get around to protesting those. Remember, folks --
> Gabcikovo is as much a product of communist ideology as what passes for
> Eva Durant's intellectual honesty.
> Sam Stowe
>

Your constant theme of apocalypse when it comes to considering any
form of organised life other than Capitalism wears no easier with
constant repetition. Capitalist countries throughout Europe and the
globe perpetrated monstrous human rights and environmental crimes,
yet you never seem to get around to protesting those...

I AGREE, THAT TOTALITARIAN SOCIALISM IS AND WAS
BAD.  When did I last dispute this?  However,  totalitarian capitalism is bad.
How do you know that a democratic version of socialism would be bad?
Why do you presume every time that I want an undemocratic future?
If I did, I would be happy with capitalism, where democracy is
nominal. Free meaningful decisionmaking for all individuals - show
me.  I know, your answer will be, that I am an evil goat...
For similar responses and malicious characterassassination-attempts
I promised not to read  or answer your mail - but yes, I'm too bloody
curious even of your contributions... If you take the abusive line
again, don't expect any more comments from me.


> "The truth comes in
> a strange door."
> -- Francis Bacon
>

(Aniko:)
> With pleasure!  If you dial  1(Canada) 902-426-5331 -Inquiries and Research
> Stat Canada - Atlantic Office, for $50.00 Can, you can receive all the
> stats regarding this, or just about anything you like.
>

Hey, we are not living (yet) in a democratic socialist society, at
the moment I have enough problems to pay my phonebill without
dialling Canada!  For the same reason I don't do much "surfing",
so I'd be greatful if you dig out the stuff, you wanted to prove your
point...  I'd like to see what percentage of people own what percent
of the  wealth, and if there is a tendency for the top layer for
owning a growing share.  Also if the real bit the rest (lower layers)
share is actually shrinking or not.  (You can include here social
services).     If you let me know some figures about any
inprovement in the working conditions, such as shorter hours and
longer holidays since the conservatives went for the freeer markets
in Canada. I'd be really greatful for this information, if you'd have
the time - or others, who have easy access to such data.



> I thought that we were discussing your concept of  "private business"
> (Ownership) being a minority - not distribution of wealth.  To me, there is
> a difference.
>

You can elaborate if you would - I can't see the point you
are making.


>
> >Oh, downsizing, what a lovely word. Do you mean, sacking people and
> >employing temporary contract people with worse working conditions?

> You may call it what you like unfortunately it remains to be a fact of our
> lives.  You neglect to mention, that the people  "sacked" as you put it,
> generally receive very handsome severance packages.

Some. There are a lot of conditions attached. You probably had to be
at that company for about 20 years before you get a meaningful
lumpsome, and even than, the amount doesn't equal what the sacked
person would have earned.  If you are with a small "family" firm,
your chances for compensation in the case of bankrupcy etc. is
limited. Especially, if you are a one man business... but I regress.



>Some, may choose to
> invest it in a business for themselves - and it is conceivable that
> consulting businesses would be  amongst them.

I would just love to know how many 50+ years old miners or carworkers
made it into consultancy. You must have been thinking of profs or
senior lecturers taking early retirement. They are a small minority
of the downsized community...


> It is also conceivable, and
> an intelligent move, that their ex employer the magnate would look to hire
> an ex employee's consulting service and or company if or when such services
> are needed.
>

No doubt at a much lower price, and no silly tax/health insurance
or health and safety regulations to worry about.  It makes sense if
your employees are selfemployed... looks good  on the statistics
figures, you have really no compensation worries... not renewing a
contract is so much simpler, than sacking people...

> >Look at any public survey, if people have to choose between
> >job security and "self reliance", they go for the first, unless their
> >daddy is a "magnate"
> [...]
> Bingo ... I assume you to be amongst them.  After all it is by far the
> easiest way out to project displeasure, to critique, dream and want -
> rather than take necessary risks to make it happen.
>

Just what risk is a person with enough money to start of a business ,
is taking?  At most, the surplus money - he/she didn't need it to
survive, if it was there to invest.  Most of the time it is borrowed,
with personal property made safe. The more the money is to invest, the
less is the risk.   People loose far more, if they loose there job -
and they don't even have a choice.
No, the heroic risktaking is rather over-rewarded at the expense of
those, who are not at all rewarded for hard and not enjoyable work.



> >Funny, you should mention Hungary, HVG statistics just stated, that
> >the "mood for starting businesses" is sharply declining in Hungary,
> >as people are worried about the clamping down on tax-evasion.
> [...]
> Being in the mood for something and actually doing it are two different
> things.  I see a trend in Hungary, where more and more people are venturing
> out on their own.  That is not to say, that they are in the mood for it.
> It is to say that some likely don't have other choices or desires.  It is
> also to say; that your statement of "private ownership" being a minority is
> well outdated in it's accuracy.
>

No, the statistics I referred to actually said, the "starting out"
numbers are down.  Owning a small shop or a one-man business is not
private ownership, you are only exploiting yourself and your family.
People owning businesses that employ more than 3 people are in a fairly small
minority I'd say.  Again, statistics appreciated.

> >They contribute to their own economic stability. They couldn't care
> >less about the country.
> [...]
> May I remind you that "they" are the very  "private property" owners, whose
> growth you not only advocate, but claim to be in a minority; and are
> objecting to.  May I also remind you, that the "private owner's" economic
> stability is the *one* essential requirement to keep his business alive,
> therefore others employed.

That's the operative word - others. Not necessarily in your country.
Not necesserily after the local grants and tax-concessions run out,
etc, etc.   Sorry, I cannot picture anyone drawing 10 times more than
an employee, a majestic and selfless  hero.


> So what are you saying here then?  First you
> want them, now you don't?

Whenever did I want them???


> What I would rather like to see, than you throwing out stats, statements,
> and continuous complaints against capitalism,

Do my complaint have a base?  Is everything alright with the present
system? Can't you observe just a few of the teeny weeny flows
I mentioned? Aren't you worried just a teeny-weeny bit about the
future?  What is your picture for the future?


> would be an exact, concrete
> example of how you would attain your proposed state of progress with your
> concept(s).  To realize this, I propose (with the blessings of Mr. Agnew
> that is), that GWUHungary is a country; of which you are the sole known
> leader.  You have total 100% power.  Tell us your title.  Give us a picture
> of how you will develop the educational structure, political structure,
> social programs, the economy, laws, whatever you want seen in your ideal
> world.  You are given total free reign.  Then, when all are totally clear
> of your vision as a whole, I foresee potentially interesting, if not better
> discussions.
> Regards,
> Aniko
>

I do not envisage a country with a leader with total power, thank you
very much, even though I know you have some notion for this wise and
strong leadership-thing.
First and formost I picture a real democracy, where people are well
informed and well educated to make decisions. For this technological
and material conditions already exist - but not utilised.
With this condition I hope people would decide, that the market
economy system is outdated, and will choose to have a cooperative
society, where they can control production and distribution openly
and democratically. They will decide how to do this best. I have my
own ideas ofcourse, and I will argue for them until convinced
othervise, so to demand an exact blueprint is misplaced. Try to think
up how you picture a world without massproduction of massmurder tools
for profit, spending effort and tons of resourses on selling
environment-destroying machines, etc, etc. It's easy if you try...

If all our expertise and experiences put into an excercise like this,
I'm sure there will be very practicle solutions. Why waste it on your
individual fortress-comfort?

>
> And how does this compare with the "mood for starting businesses" when you
> and Kadar were running the country? Are you really going to try to argue
> that the Marxist-Leninists were more favorable to small business
> development than the current government? And what about the practice of
> holding down an extra job or two so you can make income "off the record"
> and not report it to the government? That's a form of tax-cheating and it
> became endemic under the Kadar regime.
>

As it happens I was not running the country, they wouldn't let me -
the story of my life.  I did not argue for the marxist-leninists
(anyway, in my opinion there were not a lot of them around, but
this'd be to subtle for you). Whenever I criticise capitalism, you
acuse me of defending a past undemocratic socialism. (I only
"defended"  it, when I see wild untruths about the period, which I
had more chance of knowing, than someone who had not lived in Hungary
in that period.) For your benefit, I worked as an employee of
Videoton, not  the member of the party, with very little chance
of being the apparachnik role you have loved me to have.


> Your constant theme of apocalypse when it comes to considering any form of
> organized life other than Marxism-Leninism wears no easier with constant
> repetition. Communist regimes throughout eastern Europe and the former
> Soviet Union perpetrated monstrous human rights and environmental crimes,
> yet you never seem to get around to protesting those. Remember, folks --
> Gabcikovo is as much a product of communist ideology as what passes for
> Eva Durant's intellectual honesty.
> Sam Stowe      NOT VERY GENTELIKE, SIR
>
I LOVE THE FIRST SENTENCES OF THE TWO ADJACENT PARAGRAPHS ( ...CONSTANT THEME O
F
APOCALYPSE... ). AND IF LIFE WERE JUST BLACK AND WHITE, YOU BOTH WERE RIGHT.
ONLY, REALLY EXISTING CAPITALISM AND REALLY EXISTING SOCIALISM HAVE ON THING
COMMON : THEY JUST DO NOT DO U THE FAVOR TO COMPLY WITH EXPECTATIONS (  ESPE-
CIALLY  WITH THOSE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE BELIEVERS )...

( I BEG YOUR PARDONS FOR DARING TO INTRUDE BETWEEN TWO PARAGRAPHS. )
 Your constant theme of apocalypse when it comes to considering any
form of organised life other than Capitalism wears no easier with
constant repetition. Capitalist countries throughout Europe and the
globe perpetrated monstrous human rights and environmental crimes,
yet you never seem to get around to protesting those...

I AGREE, THAT TOTALITARIAN SOCIALISM IS AND WAS
BAD.  When did I last dispute this?  However,  totalitarian capitalism is bad.
How do you know that a democratic version of socialism would be bad?
Why do you presume every time that I want an undemocratic future?
If I did, I would be happy with capitalism, where democracy is
nominal. Free meaningful decisionmaking for all individuals - show
me.  I know, your answer will be, that I am an evil goat...
For similar responses and malicious characterassassination-attempts
I promised not to read  or answer your mail - but yes, I'm too bloody
curious even of your contributions... If you take the abusive line
again, don't expect any more comments from me.


> "The truth comes in
> a strange door."
> -- Francis Bacon
>

Dear Colleagues,

I received a letter from Mr. James T. Dowell, Executive Director of Riverside
Park Fund
(475 Riverside Drive, Suite 249, NYC 10115, tel:212-870-3070, fax:
212-870-3079), asking for the Hungarian Lobby's support for the restoration
of the Kossuth monument at Riverside Drive and 113rd Street.

The total project cost is $45,000 and the Riverside Park Fund is offering to
match every dollar we donate with one of their own.

I ask for the advice of all of you on how to proceed. (We are just starting
the campaign for getting Mayor Giuliani to name 2nd Avenue after the
Hungarian Freedomfighter. We have just recently failed to collect the $20,000
for the NYTimes advertisement on the 40th anniversary and spent the $5000
that was collected on ads in smaller papers, our csango and Cseresznyes funds
to date received less than $10,000, in short, we are much better generators
of hot air, than money!)

Still, I would like to receive your comments and advice on how to respond to
Mr. Dowell?

Best regards: Bela Liptak

Dear Colleagues,

I received a letter from Mr. James T. Dowell, Executive Director of Riverside
Park Fund
(475 Riverside Drive, Suite 249, NYC 10115, tel:212-870-3070, fax:
212-870-3079), asking for the Hungarian Lobby's support for the restoration
of the Kossuth monument at Riverside Drive and 113rd Street.

The total project cost is $45,000 and the Riverside Park Fund is offering to
match every dollar we donate with one of their own.

I ask for the advice of all of you on how to proceed. (We are just starting
the campaign for getting Mayor Giuliani to name 2nd Avenue after the
Hungarian Freedomfighter. We have just recently failed to collect the $20,000
for the NYTimes advertisement on the 40th anniversary and spent the $5000
that was collected on ads in smaller papers, our csango and Cseresznyes funds
to date received less than $10,000, in short, we are much better generators
of hot air, than money!)

Still, I would like to receive your comments and advice on how to respond to
Mr. Dowell?

Best regards: Bela Liptak

At 4:07 PM +0000 1/22/97, Sam Stowe wrote:
>In article <l03010d00af0b00b77433@[198.168.48.35]>, "Peter I. Hidas"
> writes:
>
>>Subject:       Re: The Compromise of 1867
>>From:  "Peter I. Hidas" >
>>Date:  Tue, 21 Jan 1997 20:01:59 -0400
>>
>>At 1:32 PM +0000 1/18/97, Sam Stowe wrote:
>> Wasn't
>>>there a guy named Ban Jelacic who organized the South Serbs in 1848 and
>>>unceremoniously chased the Hungarian rebels out of the crownlands south
>of
>>>the Danube?
>>
>>Jelacic was defeated by the new Hungarian army and was chased in the
>>direction of Vienna.
>>At that point the Hungarians were not considered "rebels".
>
>Read what I wrote, Dr. Hidas. Jelacic faced off against the Hungarian army
>at Pakozd, thirty or forty miles outside Budapest. Istvan Deak (in "The
>Revolution and the War of Independence, 1848-49" in A History of Hungary;
>Sugar, Hanak and Frank, eds.; Indiana University Press, 1990) describes
>what followed as a major skirmish, not a battle. Jelacic then moved west
>to join forces with Windischgraetz. He may have lost his nerve following
>the brush with Gen. Moga's army, but he was hardly "chased." Deak says the
>two armies even implemented a "temporary armistice" following the skirmish
>and that Jelacic used the opportunity to make off to Vienna.

The Hungarian units followed Jelacic's units all the way to the Austrian
border.

Your second
>statement is specious. Obviously, at the point Jelacic withdrew to Vienna,
>a large portion of the Austro-Hungarian military and governmental leaders
>considered the Hungarians "rebels." Four days before Pakozd, Deak writes,
>the Habsburg emperor "withdrew his confidence from Batthyany" and
>installed Count Franz Philipp Lamberg as commander-in-chief of all the
>Habsburg armed forces in Hungary. Three days after his appointment,
>Lamberg was set upon by a mob in Budapest and murdered. Obviously, the
>unrebellious Hungarians knew (or at least thought they knew) why Lamberg
>was there -- to put down their unrebellion. It's a shame they tore him
>limb from limb. Lamberg was sympathetic to the Hungarian cause and might
>have dealt much more leniently with the nation at the conclusion of the
>revolution.
>
>>
>> And didn't the Hungarian rebels...

To call the Hungarian units "rebels" is a condemnation of their activities.
You are using a highly subjective term that was used by the imperial forces
at the time. Americans use the term "rebs" with  hostility and contempt.
The Honved Army and the Kossuth government represented more than just a
rebellious group. If you do not wish to use the terms "revolutionaries" or
"freedom fighters" you should apply the more neutral term "insurgents".


>>
>>General Bem was sent to Transylvania to fight the Austrians and the
>>Russians. He defeated both in December 1848-January 1849. The Russian
>>troops were forced to retreat to the Danubian Principalities. General Bem
>>was also able to stop the civil war in Transylvania.
>
>Deak says Bem was never able to entirely run the Austrian army out of
>Erdely. He also says the Russian expeditionary force lost 543 men in
>battle during its incursion into Habsburg territory. (He also notes the
>Russians buried 11,028 cholera victims during the incursion.) This hardly
>speaks for a very high level of conflict on the part of the Russians,
>particularly when you consider that the Hungarian and Austrian armies each
>lost 50,000 men during the revolution. (Deak's figures)

The Hungarian army concentrated against the Austrians. Paskevich was one of
the worst generals the Russians had at the time. Nevertheless, he had a
great respect for the fighting qualities of the Hungarians and tried to
save their leading generals from Austrian vengence. Unfortunately he only
succeeded in saving Gorgey.


 I think it's
>debatable whether Bem put a stop to the fighting in Erdely all on his own
>or whether the revolutionary regime's last-minute embrace of non-Hungarian
>minorities combined with mutual fear of the Russians did the trick.

There were two Russian intervention in Transylvania. The first one was
unsuccessful. Bem expelled both the invading Russians and the Austrian
units to Wallachia. Official invitation was issued for the invasion by the
local Saxons. Bem stopped the civil war by force. The Romanian insurgents
withdrew to the mountains and began to negotiate with the Hungarian
government. During the summer of 1849 hostilities intensified and Bem could
not alone stop the invading imperial allies.

Peter I. Hidas, Montreal

In article >, Durant
> writes:

>As it happens I was not running the country, they wouldn't let me -
>the story of my life.  I did not argue for the marxist-leninists
>(anyway, in my opinion there were not a lot of them around, but
>this'd be to subtle for you). Whenever I criticise capitalism, you
>acuse me of defending a past undemocratic socialism. (I only
>"defended"  it, when I see wild untruths about the period, which I
>had more chance of knowing, than someone who had not lived in Hungary
>in that period.) For your benefit, I worked as an employee of
>Videoton, not  the member of the party, with very little chance
>of being the apparachnik role you have loved me to have.

So you were a peon and you still carry water for this bunch. Hey, whaddaya
know? I've met my first Hungarian masochist. I guess we can assume that
you're not going to answer my questions.

>
>
>
>> Your constant theme of apocalypse when it comes to considering any form
of
>> organized life other than Marxism-Leninism wears no easier with
constant
>> repetition. Communist regimes throughout eastern Europe and the former
>> Soviet Union perpetrated monstrous human rights and environmental
crimes,
>> yet you never seem to get around to protesting those. Remember, folks
--
>> Gabcikovo is as much a product of communist ideology as what passes for
>> Eva Durant's intellectual honesty.
>> Sam Stowe
>>
>
>Your constant theme of apocalypse when it comes to considering any
>form of organised life other than Capitalism wears no easier with
>constant repetition. Capitalist countries throughout Europe and the
>globe perpetrated monstrous human rights and environmental crimes,
>yet you never seem to get around to protesting those...

Hey, imitating me! That's the first concrete step I've seen you take
toward thinking for yourself. Keep this up and I may have to send you
roses. And it is official, gentles -- Eva D. won't answer my questions!

>
>I AGREE, THAT TOTALITARIAN SOCIALISM IS AND WAS
>BAD.  When did I last dispute this?  However,  totalitarian capitalism is
>bad.

Totalitarianism means the political system is structured to admit no
opposition. That's a far cry from the position of most Western European
and North American nations, although the influence of money on politics is
a worrisome factor in those nations. Your statement shows absolute
ignorance: a) of the political system you live in and b) why you can't get
many people to take your political views seriously.

>How do you know that a democratic version of socialism would be bad?
>Why do you presume every time that I want an undemocratic future?
>If I did, I would be happy with capitalism, where democracy is
>nominal. Free meaningful decisionmaking for all individuals - show
>me.  I know, your answer will be, that I am an evil goat...
>For similar responses and malicious characterassassination-attempts
>I promised not to read  or answer your mail - but yes, I'm too bloody
>curious even of your contributions... If you take the abusive line
>again, don't expect any more comments from me.

Heh, heh, heh -- what temptation, folks! You're not curious; you're just
drawn to the dark side. A democratic version of socialism? Doesn't
"democratic" imply a political system where decision-making is devolved as
much as possible to the individual level? On the other hand, socialism
puts the good of the group ahead of the individual. You just stepped in an
oxymoron, kinda like "democratic people's republic." Here, take this paper
towel and wipe that mess off your shoe. "Free, meaningful decisionmaking
for all individuals" my uncle Irving. The point is that any ideology
driven to even its logical extremes, be it "socialist" or "capitalist,"
can be a powerful engine for individual human misery. The difference is
that most of us have been convinced of this for Marxism-Leninism because
of empirical experience. Given that, I wouldn't brag about having lived in
such a society if I were you, because it's apparent that you didn't notice
the barbarities it was inflicting on everyone around you. It will become
very apparent sooner rather than later to most everyone that laissez-faire
capitalism is no better in this regard. You will still, however, be
thoroughly dissatisfied with what takes its place.
Darth Vader
>
>



"The truth comes in
a strange door."
-- Francis Bacon

Lectoris Salutem!

        After a period of participating in these discussions, I have not
appeared here for a while. Yesterday I read an enlightening posting, which
explains my uneasy feeling. This uneasy feeling has been caused by a
contradiction:
        - some threads are really interesting, worthwhile to take part in
their discussion,   b u t
        - anybody, whose style  and opinion seems to be "conservative" or
"patriotic" or "rightist", will be severely rejected, misunderstood and
possibly chased away...
        In such a rejecting and misunderstanding atmosphere real,
detailed, "multi-lateral" discussions are not easy.
        Now let me quote the posting, which explained for me the origins
of such an atmosphere:

>Forgive me, but this is a discussion forum.  You are the "other side".
{...}
>as a debating tactic it is
>very unlikely to cause people to conclude that you are right and
>Mr Hidas is wrong.
>
>-----
>Gabor Fencsik
>

        Now I learnt from the above quotation, that some people  are not
really interested in  t h e  t r u t h, but have only one goal:
"to cause people to conclude that: I am right and the 'other side' is
wrong"! This type of ideology has rarely been presented with such clarity
as quoted above, but it has been present and many of us are infected
somewhat.
        Having been engaged in such type of discussion once, one (I) tries
to avoid such occasions if possible (sometimes it is impossible...)
(I wish to make clear that in the case of the particular thread I
apologize in advance if Mr. Hidas or Ms. Balogh feel attacked by me. It
was not my intention... my intention is much more general ... or much
more specific)
        We are all human beings, and as such, a little bit more
complicated, than being able to stand only on one side or only on the
"other side". We are all mostly right and sometimes wrong... ;-)
Just for illustration I would like to remember one of the most humane
human persons I have ever had the privilege to meet in my life:
        in order to prove how wrong he was, here are some facts:
        he was a Mussolini-fascist catholic Italian, who took part in the
Spanish civil war on the side of Franco, he was a shallow, frivolous
businessman in Budapest until the autumn of 1944, he cheated the Hungarian
and the Spanish governments declaring himself the "chargee d'affair" of
the Budapest Spanish Embassy.
        He was Giorgio (Jorge) Perlasca.

        Istenvelunk...                  kadargyorgy

PS.: Was he really wrong? I do not think so:
Perlasca saved the life of about 5000 Hungarian Jews partly by hiding
them in the protected houses of neutral Spain partly by providing them
with Spanish passports or personal documents. Then he lived forgotten and
unnoticed in Padova for 44 years and was refound by his protegees in 1989.
He was honoured by Yad Vashem of Israel, by the Republic of Hungary, by
Italy and Spain. He passed away in 1992 at an age of 92 years.