Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
HIX HUNGARY 192
Copyright (C) HIX
1995-01-12
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 What's in a name (mind)  73 sor     (cikkei)
2 Re: Corresponding in Hungarian (mind)  16 sor     (cikkei)
3 Catching up (mind)  97 sor     (cikkei)
4 Re: Utopian socialist? (mind)  32 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: Orange blood (mind)  26 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: What's in a name (mind)  125 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: Trees was Nationalism and its pitfalls (mind)  30 sor     (cikkei)
8 Re: Catching up (mind)  33 sor     (cikkei)
9 even under the most liberal interpretation? (mind)  83 sor     (cikkei)
10 Re: Trees was Nationalism and its pitfalls (mind)  17 sor     (cikkei)
11 Hungarian Business CD-ROM (mind)  13 sor     (cikkei)
12 Re: Nationality law of 1868 (mind)  46 sor     (cikkei)
13 Barbarism (was Re: Occupation) (mind)  57 sor     (cikkei)
14 Re: Classical capitalist (was re:jargon) (mind)  11 sor     (cikkei)
15 Re: Jacobin nationalism (mind)  135 sor     (cikkei)
16 Re: Occupation (mind)  110 sor     (cikkei)
17 Re: Proudhon (mind)  16 sor     (cikkei)
18 Wie sag ich es meinem Kind? (mind)  46 sor     (cikkei)
19 Re: Orange blood (mind)  141 sor     (cikkei)
20 Capitalism vs communism (Was: Re: Catching up] (mind)  45 sor     (cikkei)
21 Re: nferenc vs ibokor/d.a (mind)  27 sor     (cikkei)
22 Effects of Turkish occupation [Was: Catching up] (mind)  46 sor     (cikkei)
23 Re: Orange blood (mind)  23 sor     (cikkei)
24 Re: fatherland and national pride (mind)  17 sor     (cikkei)
25 Re: *** HUNGARY *** #173; Biological relationship (mind)  25 sor     (cikkei)
26 Re: Corresponding in Hungarian (mind)  18 sor     (cikkei)
27 Re: Corresponding in Hungarian (mind)  13 sor     (cikkei)
28 Re: Corresponding in Hungarian (mind)  8 sor     (cikkei)
29 Re: Corresponding in Hungarian (mind)  20 sor     (cikkei)
30 Re: Orange blood (mind)  72 sor     (cikkei)
31 Re: Corresponding in Hungarian (mind)  32 sor     (cikkei)
32 Re: Corresponding in Hungarian (mind)  29 sor     (cikkei)
33 Re: *** HUNGARY *** #173; Biological relationship (mind)  36 sor     (cikkei)
34 Re: Corresponding in Hungarian (mind)  13 sor     (cikkei)

+ - What's in a name (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva Durant writes:
> I think you are keen to associate the word communism with
> stalinism for propagada reasons
The Great Leader did a fine job of associating the two, so you are in the
unenviable position of trying to *dissociate* stalinism from communism for,
it seems, propaganda reasons. Problem is you are not getting anywhere with
those of us hardened by several semesters of Scientific Socialism:-)

> - to make the IDEA as nasty as possible,
No the idea is not nasty it is just naive bordering on stupidity.

> as it is the only viable existing anti-capitalist notion.
Militant Islam seems to me pretty viable. Certainly it is much more
dangerous at this point -- the kind of communism you espouse seems to have
lost its credibility even around the Berkeley coffee tables...

> I think I would still rather stick with the definitions
> of Marx, Lenin and Trocki, they surely are experts in this subject.
You don't mean the _definitions_, you mean the _dreams_ of Marx, Lenin,
Trotsky, right? Societies cannot be defined into being, they can only be
built.  What Lenin and Trotsky, imbued with Marx's ideas, managed to build
was, to borrow a phrase, the Evil Empire. What they dreamt about might be an
interesting part of the history of ideas (personally I found it dreadful,
based on some reading of "Lenin O2sszes Mu3vei" that the family library
still has, in umpteen fake leather bound volumes) but in the end it was
Stalin who made his dreams come true.

> Why is Stalinism such a difficult phrase to digest? I can't see
> why it should be called anything else. As for the later versions -
> such as "existing socialism" it was still a form of totalitarian
> stalinism, as it was not democratic.
It was sometimes milder, particularly in the case of Yugoslavia and Hungary
after the fifties. But the fact still remains that Stalinism is a good term
to describe the _reality_ associated with communism, and language is most
helpful in describing reality, and often completely unhelpful in describing
dreams. Orwell exposed the communist tendency to turn language away from
reality so well that I feel no need to rehash it with you here.

> I think Castro turned Cuba Stalinist describes the situation
> there without ambiguity.
While "Castro turned Cuba communist" presumably leaves open the ambiguity
between stalinism and a workers' paradise, right?

> I do not know how  can you call Sweeden socialist as more
> of the economy is owned privately there than in a lot of other
> places, e.g.France I think. The social benefits are not
> guaranteed by a constitution or else it shouldn't be so easy
> to get rid of them in the years of financial crisis or
> rotten goverment or just - rotting capitalism.
As the old joke said -- yes, rotting, but ah what a pleasant smell!

> Please tell me why there cannot be such a society where people
> own and use the wealth they create democratically?
Who created it? Even according to Marx, creation of wealth involves both
capital and labor. Are you suggesting "democratic use" in which one person
putting up a million dollar capital is entitled to 1% of the wealth created
if s/he hired 99 workers but to 10% if s/he hired only 9 (based on a mucho
democratic notion of one person one share), or are you suggesting that the
amount of capital s/he put in actually plays some role in establishing
his/her share? What would be, in your mind, a reasonable formula to compare
capital to labor? Is there a point at which the person investing the capital
ceases to be an exploiter, or is anybody providing capital, by definition,
an exploiter?

> I think - as described by others - capitalism cannot solve
> existing problems and is suffocating further progress.
Now if that's your assessment of the accomplishments of capitalism I
wonder how you assess the success rate of "existing socialism".

> And we are running out of time.
Carpe diem.

Andra1s Kornai
+ - Re: Corresponding in Hungarian (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

> >I only noticed an objective and at time skeptical stance [from Imi Bokor], I
> >thought both traits positive for any discussion.
>
>         Are those qualities that you find in yourself as well?
>
>         Norb

Well, ofcourse! It doesn't appear so to you I know, but I don't
think you take the trouble to think over what I say. You think I
say what I was brainwashed in school with: From that I only accepted
what my mind found logical - the philosophy/method of Marxism .
Especially after I left first in 1972 - the marxist analysis
I'd found sensible to explain Stalinism and the reasons for it,
wouldn't have been very popular with my teachers, and put to jail
a few people all over in Stalinist states.

+ - Catching up (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Laborfalvi Benke Tibor writes:
>       I respect Marx for being one of the three founders (with Max Weber
> and Emile Durkheim) of the scientific study of society.
On this we agree.

> Marx's concept of 'science' [..] was more in tune with the German concept
> of "Wissenschaft" which acknowledges systematic thought about history,
> language and philosophy as capable of being 'scientific'
True but why do you find that attractive? If there is one thing that I
find really insufferable about Marx it's the constant Hegelisms, including
the grandiose schemes, and the pathetic effort to try to be universal
and include everything while being ignorant of anything outside the
European tradition.

> 2)  science does not consist of the body of
> true facts, but on the contrary, is a process of ascertaining reality by
> constant trial and error through practice informed by theory - PRAXIS.
Again quite true, but strongly contradicting the first one, especially
when it comes to theories of society aiming at universality: where do
you find the replicable experiments?

>  As for his predictions, it seems to me, we will have to wait to see what
> the capitalists will do when the next crisis hits after they disassemble
> the social safety net everywhere claiming that it is too expensive  (cuts
> into profits, that is while the falling rate is still in effect).
As for his predictions, how come he completely failed to predict the
emergence of a capitalist system *with* a safety net? Engels described the
terrible condition of the working class in England, but neither he nor Marx
predicted that a broadly social-democratic system, in which the workers (and
not the capitalists) are the most important consumers, will emerge, or that
the condition of the working class will in fact be far from terrible in a
hundred years. If I have to single out one social change as *the* most
important, it was the emergence of a broad middle class which completely
changed the harsh bipolar world of haves and have-nots that Marx based his
theories on. Never mind global warming and ecological breakdown -- how come
he completely failed to predict the emergence of the middle class?

> But _it is_ the eve of the Twenty-first Century and we do need new ideas.
> While the jury is out about Marx's critique of political economy,
I think this is way too charitable. The jury already came back in 1989.

> It is clear that command economies work even less well then market economies.
Yup. And dictatorship works even less well than democracy.

> IMHO, Market economies don't work either, else the state would have never
> arisen independently in so many different places (Mesopotamia, Egypt,
> China, India, South East Asia, Central America, etc).
Are you seriously suggesting these states emerged as a response to the
excesses of free market economies?

> Free markets never existed and cannot exist in principle because some
> rules must exist to make a market possible
Never in a "chemically pure" form, but then even dictatorship is hard
to find in an absolutely pure form -- some decisions based on tradition,
free will, etc. always remain. This is not to deny that markets need rules,
as do any other form of social activity. But they need to be agreed upon by
the players, who can (and often do) choose an enforcement mechanism other
than a state.

> and whatever rules are adopted always disadvantege some
> players  (see Aesop's fable of the Fox and the Stork).
Who are the players disadvantaged by the current rules of foreign exchange
trading, those selling the peso or those buying? It takes quite some work
(often the work of centuries) to come up with fair rules, but it seems to
me that the current laws about renting an apartment are not particularly
biased in favor of the renter nor in favor of the owner. How about the
rules for lending money? Do you find them biased in favor of the lender,
or in favor of the borrower? How about the rules for employing people?

> For this reason
> states always arise where market specialization creates enough surpluss to
> make banditry profitable, and states always interfere with market
> functioning to the benefit of some at the expense of others.
Banditry has its own cost-benefit analysis, and if the costs are made
high enough the benefits are no longer appealing. Anyway state interference
with free markets need not be a zero-sum game, e.g. the protection against
monopolies tends to favor both the consumer and the competing producers
(as long as they are competing, that is).

> I'll stop now 'cause I'm getting depressed.
>From a sample of two (you and E1va Durant) am I justified in drawing the
conclusion that one has to have a dark vision of society to be a socialist?

Andra1s Kornai

PS. On a completely unrelated matter (Turks destroying the land) let me give
a faint recollection of what I learned in high school: the idea was that the
Turks instilled a system of agricultural production (giving the profit from
an area to one person for a strictly limited time, maybe 10 years) that
encouraged robbing the land (rablo1gazda1lkoda1s) and discouraged the kind
of land conservation practices that were advantageous only over a longer
period, such as rotating crops in a certain manner (vete1sforgo1) and
leaving the land fallow. If this is true, having a new landholder (be1g?) in
every decade for over hundred years might very well have resulted in a
complete breakdown of infrastructure (in particular wells, ditches, and
other costly-to-repair technology for irrigation) and pushed large stretches
of land, that were only marginally arable in the first place, over the limit.
+ - Re: Utopian socialist? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Utopian means "good idea, but impracticable" (old dictionary).
Marxist theory (as applied by this century's analysts) shows
for what factual reasons Stalinism wasn't the next stage of society's
development (no democratic control over the means of production) and
what factual deficiencies in the prevading conditions caused this
system to exist as it did.
So far the theory as a method of analysis and a method of working
out what is the best practicable way for society to proceed,
still stands on the ground of logic.
Please show me, what way it is practical to expect capitalism
to solve the problem of wars/misery/environmental catastrophy.
You somehow do not tell me, and your philosophy is as far as
expressed so far is : leave everything as it is, basically
nothing is wrong with it... I think you are utopian and naive.

I am not a true believer in anything, you show me a
capitalist way out, and I'll sleep well and trouble you no more.
This is not the best possible worlds, things are getting worse,
time is running out, hurry up for Pete's sake.

If you are not worried, you are more dangerous than me.



>
> Eva Durant objects to be called a utopian. But what on earth can one call her
> when she keeps talking about an ideal communist state still to come a la Marx
> and Engels. The only problem with true believers that they can be dangerous.
> Lenin and company when they found that "the time was not ripe" got a little
> impatient. And you see what happened.
>
> Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Orange blood (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

> your heritage.  If a Frenchman wants to marry only another ethnic
> frenchman, since he wants to raise a French family, that it reasonable
> and proper, and there is nothing prejudist about it.

I think this Frenchman is racist (besides being slightly confused
in this case...) how will he get a proof of the french identity of
a future partner? Will a black french person do? I think love and
similar ideas about childrearing is more important...
My English husband is probably more helpful bringing up my
children bilingual and fairly "cultured" in Hungarian history
and literature than a Hungarian with a bend to become
a westernised MacDonald freak.


> for a multiculturalism world to continue, rather than the slow
> decay of ethnic/cultural/racial distinctions.
>

There is a continuous change in all that without any foreign
intervention,  e.g. the industrial revolution
killed English folk art and traditional cookery as to
compare with Hungary.
If you allow people to have enough time and resources,
they will willingly preserve/support their and their neghbours
traditions, becouse it is fun.

+ - Re: What's in a name (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>
> Eva Durant writes:
> > I think you are keen to associate the word communism with
> > stalinism for propagada reasons
> The Great Leader did a fine job of associating the two, so you are in the

I thought Stalin was wrong in most things he did. Why should I accept
his definition on anything? It doesn't sound very scientific...

> unenviable position of trying to *dissociate* stalinism from communism for,
> it seems, propaganda reasons. Problem is you are not getting anywhere with
> those of us hardened by several semesters of Scientific Socialism:-)
>

Perhaps you hardenned ALL of your critical faculties that time?
By the way my scientific socialism studies did not include
calling any period in this century communism. - and that is a
bit I decided to agree with.


> > - to make the IDEA as nasty as possible,
> No the idea is not nasty it is just naive bordering on stupidity.
>

See post to Eva Balogh on utopism/naivity.

> > as it is the only viable existing anti-capitalist notion.
> Militant Islam seems to me pretty viable. Certainly it is much more
> dangerous at this point -- the kind of communism you espouse seems to have
> lost its credibility even around the Berkeley coffee tables...
>

As far as I know militant islam is based on private property and
got rid off fast of its communist-leaning citizens, the capitalists
are doing ok... I think Saudi Arabia is fairly capitalist...
So is Iran... If they happenned to nationalise anything, it was TO
SAVE the prevailing economic relations. Just when energy, trans-
port etc was nationalised in western countries first of all to provide
cheap energy and transport for private industry. However, as history
shows, if not controlled democratically, it doesnt work.

If the capitalist state cannot afford to be democratic any more
it turns totalitarian... see also: Chile, Greece...etc, etc.
You see, not only Stalinist states are totalitarian...


> You don't mean the _definitions_, you mean the _dreams_ of Marx, Lenin,
> Trotsky, right? Societies cannot be defined into being, they can only be
> built.

Yes, but the reason for theories to exist is to point us to the
right direction, let us calculate how to do things next. So these are
not dream, but plan for action. Evil empires grow very well from
capitalism: see Hitler etc.

> It was sometimes milder, particularly in the case of Yugoslavia and Hungary
> after the fifties. But the fact still remains that Stalinism is a good term
> to describe the _reality_ associated with communism, and language is most

so it is a universal, useful definition. Thank you.

> dreams. Orwell exposed the communist tendency to turn language away from
> reality so well that I feel no need to rehash it with you here.
>

Nevertheless he was a socialist, who has seen that for well
identifiable reasons socialism did not succeed - so far.

> > I think Castro turned Cuba Stalinist describes the situation
> > there without ambiguity.
> While "Castro turned Cuba communist" presumably leaves open the ambiguity
> between stalinism and a workers' paradise, right?
>

yes, as it happens...

> As the old joke said -- yes, rotting, but ah what a pleasant smell!
>

I am glad for your luck being at the pleasant end - I feel privilaged
too even when behind with the mortgage and the gas payments...
However, correct me if I'm wrong - the vast majority of people most
of whom living under a form a capitalism are overtaken by odours
you don't want to know about. Lots of them in the US - the
fortress of capitalism...


> Who created it? Even according to Marx, creation of wealth involves both
> capital and labor. Are you suggesting "democratic use" in which one person
> putting up a million dollar capital

Well, sorry, I would take it away from him, compensating in the case
of proven need. He would agree, if he can still keep his standard of
living. If he inherited it, he did not do anything more useful
than his workmates so far.  I think you cannot envisage anything
different from shareholding market economy - please try, and look
into the future with some data from the present, do you think
todays stockexchange/financial system is really working for the
benefit of all humanity?????
Capital and means of production should be owned collectively
and democratically to be effective. Capitalism  worked and was
effective for some time - now it is a brake and will destroy us if
left unchanged.

>
> > I think - as described by others - capitalism cannot solve
> > existing problems and is suffocating further progress.
> Now if that's your assessment of the accomplishments of capitalism I
> wonder how you assess the success rate of "existing socialism".
>

It developed until there was scope, than it was a brake on further
progress and collepsed, thankfully fairly peacefully. That is
the fate of your beloved system however I am pessimistic about the
peaceful outcome, as  people like you  can't be bothered to think it
over.


> > And we are running out of time.
> Carpe diem.
>

Beg your pardon? It looks latin... I know one too, and this
one I also know the meaning of: panta rei (do I remember right?)

+ - Re: Trees was Nationalism and its pitfalls (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

B Batkay wrote:
>  The Plains are even now much more heavily
> planted with trees than our own U.S. Great Plains, but I do not know what
> the pre-Ottoman conquest situation was.  Undoubdtedly as Eva analysed it.

Recently. I have read an interesting article in the World & I (dont start
the religious bashing, I am sick and tired of it regardless of who
practices it) regarding the "akacfa" which is so prevalent in th the Puszta
According to the article, the locust was transplanted from the New World
and used vey well to stop soil erosion on the Hungarian Great Plains. To me
the locusts trees here always looked somewhat different from the ones in
Hungary (more branchy lower on the trunk) and the article had an intersting
answer to this puzzle, because it stated that some of the Hungarian
varieties became straight trunked, excellent for tool and fence post making
and now are being reintroduced into the US as a preferred varietal of the
locust. I am going to get hold of some seedlings and see how Ohio likes the
Hungarian version. Until than I will use Osage orange for fence posts, it
sure is useless for anything else.
Those who want to preserve the racial purity of the native locusts are free
to start the flame war. Imi, I know the genetic names for the above trees,
you do not need to check up in the Britannica. Tony, I know the Svatopluk
mission to the US has imported the locusts to Nitra before the Hungarians
ever heard of it. Dima, I know that the genetic name is Romanian derived
(well it was Latin originally, but it is close enough), Eva Durant, I know
it is terrible to exploit innocent trees. Liberals, I know that tree
nurseries are really disguised orphanages.

Regards,Jeliko.

Regards,Jeliko.
+ - Re: Catching up (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

> find really insufferable about Marx it's the constant Hegelisms, including
> the grandiose schemes, and the pathetic effort to try to be universal
> and include everything while being ignorant of anything outside the
> European tradition.
>

You can work out a relationship/rule without knowing all the facts.
If the facts conform to it most of the time, you have a working
theory, which you can apply for future plans or new situations.
This is a human way to react to reality, it appeals to me
tremendously.


> Yup. And dictatorship works even less well than democracy.
>

Dictatorships emerged from capitalism: Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan,
Chile, Greece, Latin America, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc.


> >From a sample of two (you and E1va Durant) am I justified in drawing the
> conclusion that one has to have a dark vision of society to be a socialist?
>
> Andra1s Kornai
>

Well, if we were happy with it why would we bother? It is not
a pleasant job to rock the boat, but someone has to do it if
it is stuck in mud.
I kinda feel guilty to be happy in the midst of
misery.  Also have a selfish worry about the future of my children's
children...

+ - even under the most liberal interpretation? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Csaba writes:

>Based on the "data" presented, one would be tempted to conclude that
>those Magyars were a bad, intolerant bunch.  Still, before passing
>judgement, the accuracy and validity, if any, of the presented
>"evidence" needs to be scrutinized. Statements like "Certain teacher in
>1910, when ...." can hardly, even under the most liberal
>interpretation,  be taken as anything but handwaving. Where can the
>"confidential report No. 55" of the Nyitra (note spelling!) High
>Commissioner be found? In short, Mr. Pace's allegations would be helped
>if he cited complete (!) references, including document/archive numbers,
>publishers and where these references can be accessed. Without such
>underpinnings, the quoted texts are little more than hearsay, and can
>not be taken as serious scholarship.

I'm afraid that Csaba misinterpreted the text as having been written
by me, to correct his misinterpretation, the text in question was quoted
from Deak's article The Slovaks in the Hungarian statistics, which was
presented at the third Bratislava Symposium on History 12.-15. XI. 1992.

So the following excerpts (in contextual order) are from Deak:
"From 1900 the interpretation went ever further and the instructions
contained the following guideline: "as mother tongue will be considered
the language perceived by the given person as proper, own and that he/she
knows best and likes best" [4]. Thus the detection of mothers tongue as
a criterion of nationality lost its meaning, as the statistics allowed
to consider Hungarians also those who spoke Hungarian but were not Hungarians.
And that went especially for the members of non-Hungarian nationalities,
who could speak two languages, but in the atmosphere of the nationalistic
passions the refusal to consider the Hungarian the most liked language
for communication was too risky for them.
Even worse situation was that of the Slovak youth who in the conseque-
nce of deficient education in mother tongue in basic school was rapidly
accepting the Hungarian language while forgetting and neglecting
the Slovak. Thus it happened, that after some time young people spoke
better Hungarian than their mother tongue and fulfilled the criterion
according to which their tongue was Hungarian and not Slovak.
The pressure to which the youth was exposed, is best illustrated by
the following example: Certain teacher in 1910, when compiling
the statistics on his pupils instead of doing it individually,
simply declared that he hoped and expected that there was not anyone,
who would not consider the Hungarian the dearest language [5]...
        Diligence of numerous local authorities often exceeded to such
an extent that the mere knowledge of the Hungarian was considered a
sufficient reason to - as confesses an official report from 1890
- quote "the part of population who could speak Hungarian, but
with different mother tongue" as Hungarians [7]."

  [2] Kova'cs, A. - A totok helyzete Csonka-Magyarorszagon a statisztika
                    megvilagitasaban (Confidential manuscript). Budapest,
                    1936, p. 4; Ja'szi, O. - A nemzeti allamok kialakulasa
                    es nemzetisegi kerdes. Budapest, 1912, p. 377.
  [4] Sveton, J. - Slovaks in Hungary, Bratislava, 1942, p. 10-11.
  [5] Archive of Ministry of Foreign Affairs (AMZV), Prague, Juridical
      Section, box 64, f. 20, No 88.
  [7] Sveton~, J. -  Slovaks in Hungary. Bratislava, 1942, p. 11.
 [12] Ja'szi, O. -  p. 379; Ko"va'go', L. - Nemzetisegek a mai
      Magyarorszagbon, Budapest, 1981, p. 7.

>Also, how credible was G. Beksics and the other cited "authorities"?
>Based on our current experience with politicians, some scepticism is in
>order. Politicians, especially of the nationalist variety, are not known
>for accuracy or balanced points of view.

For another opinion please refer to the Magyar historian
Peter Hanak's Zu den Anfangen der Arbeiterbewegung in der Slowakei
(die Jahre 1848-1890) Historica, XIV (Prague, 1967) and for another
Der Ausrottungs Kampf Ungarns gegen seine Nationalen Minderheiten,
Muenchen 1968 2nd edition,

>The Benes Decrees and the deportations in Slovakia, the [....]
>ethnic intolerance is neither temporally nor ethnically circumscribed.

I have never condoned the Benes Decrees nor any deportations.
I have never condoned ethnic intolerance.

>In the broad historical context, and the practices in Europe of that
>time, the era of A-H "oppression" doesn't look so bad after all.

May I refer you to Peter Hanak's Zu den Anfangen der Arbeiterbewegung
in der Slowakei (die Jahre 1848-1890) Historica, XIV (Prague, 1967)?

Tony
+ - Re: Trees was Nationalism and its pitfalls (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Jeliko writes:

>  Those who want to preserve the racial purity of the native locusts are free
>  to start the flame war.

There are several cultivars of Robinia to look into, including pink flowering,
purple flowering, yellow leaved, columnar (which you hinted at).

They produce (by exploiting bee labor) excellent honey, too.  A little
(well, a little more than a little, but not all that much) pruning in youth
produces excellent form in maturity.

They are extremely tough.  Try not to ever break the roots, because they'll
send up suckers forever...


--Greg
+ - Hungarian Business CD-ROM (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Someone had asked for business contacts in Eastern Europe.   A truly
excellent
source of information is the EASTERN EUROPE BUSINESS DATABASE CD-ROM which
contains information on almost every company in Eastern Europe as well as
thousands of pages of text related to doing business to or from Eastern
Europe.    The CD is distributed by the U.S. Dept of Commerce, NTIS,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA   22161  (703) 487-4650.  Their fax
is (703) 321-8547.   The price is $395.00, however, for orders from countries
other then USA, Mexico or Canada, the price is $790.00.    The same/similar
CD is also available from the American Directory Corp., G.P.O. Box-7426,
New York, N.Y.   10116   Fax: 718-596-4852 also for $395.00.   The price
seems to be the same for all countries from them.   We use the CD all the
time to find out who produces what in Eastern Europe.
+ - Re: Nationality law of 1868 (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva writes:

>First of all, I was talking about the nationality law of 1868. Second, as I
>told Tony a long time ago, those "laws" he quotes from the late eighteenth
>century were no more than pieces of paper. The Diet passed all sorts of
>extravagant, romantic stuff about the great Hungarian language but nothing
>was really done about it. As for the period between 1849 and 1861-62 Hungarian
>was under direct Austrian control and no Magyarization effort took place.

Eva, some time ago you mentioned attending a Peter Hanak's class at Yale,
so if I may refer you to Hanak's Zu den Anfangen der Arbeiterbewegung
in der Slowakei (die Jahre 1848-1890) Historica, XIV (Prague, 1967)
in which Hanak differentiated the form of Magyarization as follows:

"In the sixties and in the seventies of the 19th century, that is,
 practically down to the liquidation of the Matica Slovenska in 1873
 and the onset of the *brutal Magyarization*..."

for further info refer to Nemzetisegek a mai Magyarorszagbon, Ko"va'go', L.
- Budapest, 1981, p. 7.  Ja'szi, O. -  p. 379;

>Also, Tony should keep in mind that I didn't claim that the provisions of the
>nationality law were adhered to. In fact, I explain that as time went on, the
>law was violated all the time.

However the Magyar historian Szekfu in July of 1935 in his lecture given
at Ostrihom on The State, Nation and Nationality stated that *from 1848*
Magyar policy stubbornly fought for the denationalization of non-Magyar
peoples. (Der Ausrottungs Kampf Ungarns gegen seine Nationalen Minderheiten,
Muenchen 1968 2nd edition, Z. Paclisanu.)

Tony
Ps. someone had a question regarding references in a previous posting,
they were from Deak's article The Slovaks in the Hungarian statistics
presented at the third Bratislava Symposium on History 12.-15. XI. 1992.

  [2] Kova'cs, A. - A totok helyzete Csonka-Magyarorszagon a statisztika
                    megvilagitasaban (Confidential manuscript). Budapest,
                    1936, p. 4; Ja'szi, O. - A nemzeti allamok kialakulasa
                    es nemzetisegi kerdes. Budapest, 1912, p. 377.
  [4] Sveton, J. - Slovaks in Hungary, Bratislava, 1942, p. 10-11.
  [5] Archive of Ministry of Foreign Affairs (AMZV), Prague, Juridical
      Section, box 64, f. 20, No 88.
  [7] Sveton~, J. -  Slovaks in Hungary Madarsku. Bratislava, 1942, p. 11.
 [12] Ja'szi, O. -  p. 379; Ko"va'go', L. - Nemzetisegek a mai
      Magyarorszagbon, Budapest, 1981, p. 7.
+ - Barbarism (was Re: Occupation) (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Januar 9 Eva Balogh wrote:
>
E>Tom says,
>
T>>All of Northern Europe, from Kent to Krakow, was pretty damn barbaric
T>>during the 9th century.
>
E>Yes, looking at it from today's point of view. However, there were
E>differences. There was no Hungarian or Slav Boewulf at the end of the
10th
E>century. The closest, Song of Igor (of Kiev) was late 12th century. The
eastern
E> part of Europe was always more backward then the west.
>
E>Eva Balogh

But in a previous post, Nationalism and its pitfalls,  she writes to Pali:

E>Pali claims that we, in fact, must not be objective. We have to put our
E>people first! But where does this lead us? For Palacky, the belittling of
the
E>Hungarians, and considering them the source of their own Slavic tragedy.
For
E>a nationalist Hungarian historian the emphasis is on the "leadership
E>qualities," "the nation-building genius" of the Hungarians as opposed to
the
E>nationalities without a country of their own. That is a dead end.

I am all for objectivity, but Eva seems to have a definite literacy bias.
Just who is backward ?   Can backwardness be objectively discerned in the
present or the past?  It seems to me that a solid case can be made to
support the attititude of those ancient Greeks who maintained that the
adoption of writing will stupefy (literally, make stupid) by allowing
memory to atrophy.    One of the things we resolutely refuse to remember
(maybe we are unable?) is that the conversion to Christianity intailed the
erasure of the local knowledge of both Hungarians and Slavs.   Thus they
may have had oral literature comparable to _Beuwolf_ ,  but the technology
and tradition of erasing history goes back considerably further then 1984,
( or  is it 1948 ?).

I agree that arguing about the historical accomplishments and/or  sins of
the forbears of the present population of Central Europe is a dead end.
But uncritical worship of Western Civilization is not any more promising.
Especially those who consider themselves inheritors of the accomplishments
of Christianity should remember what the Master said:

"Give us this day our daily bread,
 and forgive our tresspases as *we forgive others*"   (emphasis mine)

And also:

"*The first shall be the last and the last shall be the first!*"  (same as
above)

Hej! Regu"l Rejtem,

Vazul, ( lehetn'ek mert nagyon fa'j a fu~lem!)
+ - Re: Classical capitalist (was re:jargon) (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Jeliko wrote on January 10:

> the first ape
>that had tools was a "classical capitalist"

No, no, no!  The first capitalist was the one who got someone else to use
her/his tool, then took most of the product and paid the tool user a little
bit (enough so the poor bugger could be used again a nother day) .  It's
important to keep our definitions straight, eh?

Tibor  ;-)
+ - Re: Jacobin nationalism (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>
>Dear Fellow-listmembers,
>
>Thomas Breed suggests linguistic nationalism wasn't characteristic of the
>French Revolution.  I agree that the Jacobins didn't dress up their project
>in the sort of Romantic Herderian pathos that the next generation (especially
>in Germany and elsewhere in CEEur) did when they practiced linguistic
>nationalism, but indeed, indeed it was _very_ much a characteristic of the
>French Revolution (at least in its Jacobin version) that it vigorously
>promoted French against the patios and other languages of the citizens of
>France.  That they, and their successors whether Bourbon, Orleanist,
>Bonapartist or Republican had hard going of it (see Eugen Weber's _Peasants
>into Frenchmen_) doesn't mean that it wasn't part of their ideology that
>good citoyens spoke French, and only counterrevolutionaries used Breton,
>Occitan, etc.

I'm headed to the library today to pick up the Weber book.  For now,
however, could someone please name a single law that was intended to
eliminate non-French languages in France?  How about a law that was
proposed?  As far as I'm aware, there was none: even during the high point
of Jacobin power (Committee of Public Saftey).  If someone can provide one,
great!  I'll have learned something new.

If Jacobins were prejudiced, that does not automatically translate into
political agenda.  They had a reason to distrust non-French speakers, since
much of non-French speaking France was rebelling during the Committee of
Public Saftey.  In Breton speaking regions, the Vendee had broken out in
reaction to high rates of conscription and persecution of refractory
priests.  In much of the South, the Federalist Revolt was occuring, mostly
due to the expulsion of the Gironde (Spell?  I don't have my books near me)
from the assembly.  Neither revolt had it's origins in ethnic or linguistic
issues.  Jacobins may not have trusted those who were revolting, but that
was probably due to the revolts rather than linguistic nationalism.

One note:  the army's language does not count.  I agree with Eva B. on this
count (in both Habsburg lands and in France):  that a single language for a
nation's army does not constitute linguistic nationalism but instead is a
projection of the Enlightenment desire for rational organization.

>
>The now-superseded but pioneering historian of nationalism, Carleton Hayes,
>even included a category of "Jacobin" nationalism in his still-influential
>typology.

I thought that it was established that the French Revolutionary period was
marked by Political Nationalism, which is not the same as ethnic or
linguistic.  My local library and even other University libraries in the
area does not have a copy of this book.  Could you summarize what it says
about the French Revolution.
>
>The "French" version of nationalism started with a well-defined state,
>in which the nation then had to be created (by this process, pursued with
>vigor by the Jacobins, of making "Frenchmen" out of peasants)

I thought their number one goal was political indoctrination rather than
changing their language.  But I will read the Weber book and possibly be
surprised.

; in the "German"
>version before a state could be created and centralized, the "nation" had
>to be homogenized (Kedourie's book goes into some of the intellectual
>genealogy of this process).

What is the title of this book?  (Is it _Nationalism_?)  Several thoughts:
the Habsburg state preceded attempts to homogenize the "nation."  While
the government in Austria was interested in homogenizing, it was not in order
to create a state, but rather to further strengthen it and rationalize it.

>
>One of my former students once suggested that the Hungarian case combines
>some aspects  of both:  a state existed, in which, however, the Hungarian
>political class applied "imported" German linguistic nationalism to try
>to assimilate the linguistic minorities ("national" minorities, if you
>prefer, though that terminology shift was only then occurring, and maybe is
>itself part of the whole story).  Though (espcially after 1867, at least for
>a while) some attempt was made to create state legitimacy through the French
>style "civic equality" before the law, nevertheless the feudal social
>structure was to a great extent preserved, together with the political
>power of the traditional ruling groups.  Meanwhile the minority elites (intel-
>ligentsia) adopted the same "German" style program of linguistic mobilization
>to "homogenize" their own nations and "awaken" them to the principle that
>they had a right to self-determination in a state of their own (breaking up
>the state unity of the old Hungary).
>
It's a charateristic of Linguistic or Ethnic nationalism that language
and/or ethnic identity is a legitimazation tool.  Yet here you claim that
the French method dealt with political change, while the Geman method was
Linguistic.  This seems to contradict your initial point (that Fr. Rev. was
the source of linguistic nationalism).  Otherwise, I agree.

>I recently read what I thought was an excellent article by David Daniel on
>the Slovak situation at the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth century,
>in which he argued about the policies of linguistic assimilation, not
>using the term "immoral" but asserting that they were stupid and in the end
>a failure, contributing eventually to the breakup of the state they were
>supposed to homogenize.

I also agree here, though on an informal basis I consider them also to be
immoral.  I wouldn't incoporate this belief into any formal setting,
however.

  Meanwhile, other policies followed by the Hungarian
>governments in the later decades of the old and the first years of the new
>century were in fact hastening the development of the Slovak nation (he takes
>gentle issue, btw, with Seton-Watson's contention that the number of
>nationally conscious Slovaks in 1914 amounted to only a few hundred --certainl
y
>a wonderful, pathetic image for a particular type of nationlist ideology, but,
>he says, strongly exaggerated).

Where was the article?  It sounds interesting.
>
>There was an interesting commentary in today's _Lidove noviny_ by the Czech
>medieval specialist Dusan Trestik on the celebration by Cardinal Archbishop
>Vlk of a special commemorative mass in Bavarian Regensburg on the anniversary
>1150 years ago of the conversion of 14 "dukes" of the Czechs to Christianity
>at the court of Ludwig the German.  He had a few things to say about the kind
>of perception of identity and understanding of history that such events
>reflect, that were not entirely irrelevant to what has been going on in this
>thread here...

Care to expand?
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Hugh Agnew




                        Thomas Breed
                        

                "Like Prometheus still chained to that rock
                        In the midst of a free world"
+ - Re: Occupation (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Date sent:  11-JAN-1995 13:52:03

>Eva Balogh quotes and  writes:
>> Tom Breed says:
>
>> >If I understand the gist of Jeliko's "Great as in Moravia" message, he
>is
>> <saying that the name "Great Moravia" is a misnomer.  What is the point?
>
>> Oh, but one cannot be cavalier with historical facts! Of course, it is
>> terribly important to know what "great" in this context meant. Jeliko,
>> instead of an engineer and businessman, should have been a historian
>because
>> there is strong evidence that he is right.

>Sorry, but I am quite happy doing what I am doing. BUT that does not mean
>that a careful review of all past work and the evaluation of circumstances
>as it is generally done in engineering, should not be also applied to the
>"softer" (:-)) sciences like history also.

Didn't you say yourself that arguing over terms 1,000 years old is
ridiculous?  GM. should be examined as carefully as possible, but arguing
over the common name seems to be nitpicky in the extreme.
>
 >
>I have heard about it but never had enough definition to get hold of it.
>Of course, the reference of Porphyrogenitus that Moravia was SOUTH of the
>Turks is an interesting starting point. Nobody should go very far with a
>single reference, whether it is pro or con one's pet theory.
>
Of course, if Moravia was in the Balkans and did not include what is today
Moravia, Slovakia, etc.  Then how was tribute exacted from the Bohemians?
BTW, I agree with your comment about references.
>
>> Tom says,
>
>> >All of Northern Europe, from Kent to Krakow, was pretty damn barbaric
>> >during the 9th century.
>
>> Yes, looking at it from today's point of view. However, there were
>> differences. There was no Hungarian or Slav Boewulf at the end of the
>10th
>> century. The closest, Song of Igor (of Kiev) was late 12th century

Cosmas wrote on Czech "history" during the early 12th century.

>The eastern part of Europe was always more backward then the west.
>
>I beg to disagree with our resident historian, because I do not think that
>the southern part of Europe or specifically the western was that different
>from the rest.

Southern Europe had Roman law still in some places, while Northern Europe
was Customary.  Southern Europe was more urbanized.  It is true that
Western Europe had been Christian longer than the East.  Yet there was a
wide degree of variety within both East and West.  Prior to the Norman
invasion, England had more in common politically and culturally with
Denmark and Norway than with France.

 From Gregory of Tours description of the early days of the
>Frankish domains the turmoils in the three major penninsulas were still
>going on and besides the Hungarians, there were Norman and Danish and
>other tourists combing the region. Just see the treatment meted out
>shortly before to the Saxons by Charlemagne. Some of them, like the
>Byzantines and the Franks even kept record of their own fun and games in
>exterminating each other.

Keeping records, however, is a sign of something somewhat close to
civilization.

 Often, we assume that more stone or brick
>buildings were an indication of higher "civilization" but it was also more
>difficult to run away and hide from a walled city under siege. So if it
>held it was OK, if it failed your goose was cooked and there was always
>more possible loot in a city than in the countryside. The same for some
>infectious disease breaking out, cities were not fun places to be.

Yet they too are considered signs of civilization.

>So maybe there were sagas all over the place, where one could brag, it is
>a typical behavior of all folks to sit around the fire and recite old lies
>with morsels of truth. It is more often by chance that a particurlar
>vellum survived with the written version of the stories than by location
>of higher culture.

Very well thought out.  I agree absolutely.  You've impressed me, Jeliko.

 Sure, the localization of people started earlier in
>some areas than others, but it was probably caused by the loss of freedom
>of the workers building the edifices.

Or working in the fields.  Until the advent of the three field system, soil
fertility pretty regularly decreased in Europe.  Famines were common, and
warfare endemic (which disrupted the fragile agricultural cycle and caused
more famines).

 I think it is enough to say
>that it was the Middle Ages, maybe a nice place to visit, if one can get
>back to the 20th century in a hurry.

Agreed.  Though only IMHO.




                        Thomas Breed
                        

                "Like Prometheus still chained to that rock
                        In the midst of a free world"
+ - Re: Proudhon (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Tibor Benke writes:
> Methinks you are a bit off track.  Wasn't this the man who observed (or
> stated the analytic truism) "Property is theft"?   Proudhon advocated
> "Mutualism", the idea that associations of workers should own the
factories
> they work in and (con-) federate.  Not a half bad idea.  While if he
were
> alive now, he might agree that drugs should be legal (why not, color tv
is)
> he definitely would not endorse the unlimited greed based "Fountainhead"
> style libertarianism of the Libertarian Party.

Well, lets make Proudhon. an abbreviation of "Proud honfoglalas" and then
we will have a Hungarian context.

Jeliko.
+ - Wie sag ich es meinem Kind? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Tony Pace ) on 11 Jan 95 at 11:02 writes:

>I'm afraid that Csaba misinterpreted the text as having been written
>by me, to correct his misinterpretation, the text in question was quoted
>from Deak's article The Slovaks in the Hungarian statistics, which was
>presented at the third Bratislava Symposium on History 12.-15. XI. 1992.

>...rest deleted....


We are still not on the same wavelength. To shed light on past events, I
believe that source citations must adhere to certain norms. These
include, but are not limited to, public accessibility, verifyability,
accuracy, and credibility.

Right off the bat, Tony Pace quotes a certain Mr(?) Deak, but no first
name or affiliation is given. (There are a lot of people whose name is
Deak in this world.) He references a symposium in Pozsony (Bratislava)
but missing are the editor of the proceedings, if one is available, as
well as the publisher.

Same for the inflammatory "Der Ausrottungs Kampf (sic) Ungarns gegen seine
Minderheiten" Author? Publisher? Credibility of the content? (For the
non-German speaking readers, "Ausrottung" means annihilation, i.e.
"Hungary's Annihilation Campaign Against Its Minorities".) The book in
question may be the one by  Zenobius Paclisanu, who also wrote "L'Ordre
Magyar dans l'Europe Centrale." These "works" are of the same genre as the
"Protocol of the Elders of Zion".

Neither is there a response to the query as to the whereabouts of the
"confidential report No. 55" of the Nyitra High Commissioner.

The "certain teacher" is still not identified, it could be someone's
figment of imagination.

References [2] and [12] are not cited, what is their relevance to the
message?

And so on.

Finally, one still would be interested in Tony Pace's opinion on the
minority policy of the successor states to the A-H Monarchy. At least,
under the Hungarians, ethnic cleansing or deportations during the period
under discussion, was not state policy.

C.K. ZOLTANI
+ - Re: Orange blood (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Subject: Re: Orange blood
From: paul, 
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 21:44:35 EST
In article > paul,
 writes:

>My point
>was that it is natural and reasonable to take pride in your
>family/clan heritage,

this blank assertion requires some substantiation.

the fact that something is frequent or usual or customary does
*not* imply that it is natural. or do you think that driving
cars is natural?

it is not clear to me that such a thing as "pride" was a common
feature of societies prior to substantial organisation. i am
reasonably confident that a sense of belonging or a sense of
community is pervasive across most forms of social organisation,
but "pride"?


> and to resist mixing with other ethnic groups
>if you felt strongly that you want to maintain the uniqueness of
>your heritage.

that would make homo sapiens almost unqiue amongst the species
on this planet!


>If a Frenchman wants to marry only another ethnic
>frenchman, since he wants to raise a French family, that it
reasonable
>and proper, and there is nothing prejudist about it.

i venture to guess that iit is the result more of "socialisation"
than nature. i am very symp[athetic to wishing to find a partner with
whom one can communicate, and so a linguistic, a cultural and an
intellectual "common language" can be of great assistance. but to
insist
on one and only one way is certainly a case of bigotry and prejudice,
especially if that french person -- to use your exampe -- knows no
other ways. how can(s)he know whether other ways are better or not.

in any event, such constructs as "frenchman", "hngarian" are quite
recent in human history and each european nation today is an amalgam
of different peoples. certainly the diet of a "fenchman" today ---
and i would claim that diet is of central importance in most
cultures,
but in french culture in particular --- would be unrecognisable to
the
"french" of the 16th century. cultures and ethnic groups change
with the passage of time. that is *not* due to resisting other
groups and/or cultures. of course that does not mean there should be
a
homogenisation, but rather that there be openness to external
influence,
with a selecttion and adaption of these.


>There is a
>great difference between wanting to preserve your heritage,
>and looking down an another ethnic/racial group.

in theory maybe, in practice?  it is interesting to note that
so much of what is taken to be "heritage" is often mere myth.
"heritage' so frequently consists of plastic surgery to the
history of one's "forebears".

what rational reason can you provide for pride in one's forebears?


>This seems to me
>to be the proper implementation of multiculturalism, since it allows
>for a multiculturalism world to continue, rather than the slow
>decay of ethnic/cultural/racial distinctions.
>
>It seems to me that people resist this option since they interpret
it
>to imply some dislike of those not like oneself.  This is completely
>incorrect.  What I propose is to respect and/or appreciate other
>ethnic/cultural groups, while maintaning your own.  If we learn to
>accept and respect others, while maintaining our own heritage, all
>cultures and ethnic groups can thrive.  What I oppose is a
world-wide
>melting pot, to use the American expression, where everything is
mixed
>and everything is lost.  The concept I advocate has the advantage of
>being stable,

society is not stable if by that you mean mor or less constant.
not even language is. look at the socila and political changes in
the usa
over the span of your own lifetime and you will see much change. i
chose
the usa since it is one of the societies i know with the greatest
sense
of continuity and least occurrence of radical changes in the last
half-century or so, yet even there constancy is *not* apparent.

>without the threat of creating one, single, worldwide
>culture and ethnic group.  Do we have to lose our cultural identity
>in order for groups to avoid killing each other?  I hope not.

a loss of "cultural identity" --- or the fear of its loss --- often
contributes to violence.

i cannot and do not presume to speak for others, but i see my
"cultural
heritage" --- or "cultural heritages" since  i was born in hungary
but
left as a schoolboy --- as part of my "ground for being". these have
influenced and shaped my development and so my taste in music,
clothes,
food, etc. have been profoundly marked by them. but part of maturing
is --- and here i speak only for myself --- coming to temrs with
these
influences, seeing how much i can free myself from their clutches.
it is
very different to choose to do soemthing on the basis of personal
choice
that from the (perceived) lack of such choice. while i have been
culturally
influenced, i do not see why i should be culturally bound byb these
influences. i have tried to open up to other cultural influences as
well
and to preserve in myself those apsects of my background i find
admirable and reject those i dislike. i am in a poor position to
judge my
success or lack of it. i often find emotional attachment and rational
deicsions in conflict. i have no patent formula for resolving such
conflict, but take each case as it comes.

it is precisely my abhorrence of violence and the rationalisation
that
patriotism/pride-in-one's-heritage is "natural" that prompted me to
post
that quotation.

d.a.
+ - Capitalism vs communism (Was: Re: Catching up] (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva Durant wrote:
>Dictatorships emerged from capitalism: Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan,
>Chile, Greece, Latin America, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc.

Eva, part of your problem is that you are ignorant of many facts and
base your imprecise and sweeping generalizations on a mish-mash of
facts, factoids and outright incorrect information.

In the above list, Suadi Arabia and Iran are hardly examples of
capitalism as such: to a greater [S.A] or lesser [Iran] extent, they
are feudal.  Private property of the means of production is not
an exclusive characteristic of capitalism: even your reading of
Marx is patchy.

Latin America is not a country, and not all Latin-American countries
turned into dictatorships.

You ignore that all *capitalist* *countries* in your above example
righted themselves within the capitalist system and are parliamentary
democracies now.

You ignore the fact that one could assemble a much longer list of
capitalist countries that did not turn into dictatorships, hence the
demonstrative value of your statement above is more than negated.

As far as your preferred socio-economic system is concerned, however
you may call it, EVERY attempt to introduce it resulted in a dictator-
ship, typically with horrendous human costs, and their righting was not
possible within the established socio-economic framework.

In the case of Marx, you claim that since he was correct in some of
his points, we should accept his theory as having predictive powers.
Given the track record of establishing socio-economic systems that had
the achievement of communism as their goal, YOU must accept that strong
empirical evidence supports the theory that such systems inevitably turn
into dictatorships.

So far, you have completely failed to address this issue.  Apart from
dealing with the examples of the past, you are also expected to prove
to us doubters, convincingly, that your preferred system could be
introduced and sustained without any resort to dictatorship.  Until
this happens, you are not entitled to taking exception over being
called a utopian.

George Antony
+ - Re: nferenc vs ibokor/d.a (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Subject: nferenc vs ibokor/d.a
From: MGEZA
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 23:25:17 -0500
In article > ,  writes:
>to nferenc..... answering ibokor's ... alias d.a's snipings is a
waste of
>valuable time and space. I know from experience that the insistent
barking of
>a lapdog could at times be annoying, but if one ignores the little
pests,
>they eventually go away.

from the contiguity of the sentences, and the usual conventions of
the
english language, it would seem that your canine analogy is intended
to
refer to me and/or my postings.

if so, a slight error seems to have crept in, for as anyone who has
been
reading or merely browsing this group's postings could tell you, i
and my
contributions have not gone away.

by the way, the word is "snippings" or "snippets", not "snipings".

d.a.
+ - Effects of Turkish occupation [Was: Catching up] (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Andras Kornai wrote:
>On a completely unrelated matter (Turks destroying the land) let me give
>a faint recollection of what I learned in high school: the idea was that the
>Turks instilled a system of agricultural production (giving the profit from
>an area to one person for a strictly limited time, maybe 10 years) that
>encouraged robbing the land (rablo1gazda1lkoda1s) and discouraged the kind
>of land conservation practices that were advantageous only over a longer
>period, such as rotating crops in a certain manner (vete1sforgo1) and
>leaving the land fallow. If this is true, having a new landholder (be1g?) in
>every decade for over hundred years might very well have resulted in a
>complete breakdown of infrastructure (in particular wells, ditches, and
>other costly-to-repair technology for irrigation) and pushed large stretches
>of land, that were only marginally arable in the first place, over the limit.

Well, I am sceptical [although I must also admit that I did not read up
on the specifics of this issue].

The Turkish method for extablishing 'local government', as described by
Andras, was unlikely to have resulted in the structural deterioration of
the soil.  It was clearly in the interest of the local Turkish aga turned
bey to rip his administrative district off ASAP, and this may have involved
forcing people to plant certain crops and skip the fallow.  The result that
I can see may be nutrient depletion for the lack of fallow and missing out
on farmyard manure [as most animals would have been confiscated from the
peasants too.]  This has as short-term effect on yields, but no structural
consequences for the soil.   Contemporary agricultural practices were not
sufficiently intensive for even such overtillage to cause structural damage.

As for irrigation, I do not think that it was widespread before the early
1800s [the Reform Age in Hungary] when the regulation of the flow of the
Tisza river allowed such development.

I suspect that the often echoed bit that the Turks have turned the Great
Hungarian Plains into a 'puszta' did not refer to soil degradation.  'Puszta'
in Hungarian has many meanings, barrenness being only one of them.  It also
means a prairie-like vegetation on extensive flat lands, and it may also
indicate lack of human habitation.  The effect of Turkish practices have
led to a documented depopulation of the Great Hungarian Plains, and, hence,
the prairie would have taken over where cropping was abandoned.

George Antony

PS.  If anyone should read political overtones into GREAT Hungarian
Plains, this is to distinguish between them and the SMALL [Hungarian]
Plains. ;-}
:w puszta
+ - Re: Orange blood (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>> your heritage.  If a Frenchman wants to marry only another ethnic
>> frenchman, since he wants to raise a French family, that it reasonable
>> and proper, and there is nothing prejudist about it.

>in this case...) how will he get a proof of the french identity of
>a future partner? Will a black french person do? I think love and

France is not yet a very mixed society.  There has been some immigration,
but most people living there come from families on both sides which have
been there for a thousand years (according to the French students I knew
at my university).  The likelyhood is still overwhelming that two people
who meet in France come from such a long French line.  This seems not to
be true in Central/Eastern Europe, according to what has been posted here
resently on the topic, but it still is on other European countries.  So
much so in fact, that there is some evidence which suggests that there are
ethnic groups which can be genetically identified, such as the Basques.  Now,
if this identity can be maintained without it leading to people killing each
other, then this would be an example of the ideal case.  If it could be
replicated elsewhere, then it would lead to a stable condition of global
diversity based on local homogeneity.  If we can maintain our differences
while respecting each other,  I think we should do it.

Paul
+ - Re: fatherland and national pride (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

ibokor wrote:

>> > my opinion but not my words:
>> > "he who joyfully marches to music in rank and file
>>  >has already earned my contempt. he has been given

>> Who wrote this?
>> Paul

>why does it matter?
>d.a.


No, it doesn't especially.  The saying has some merit, and for that the
author should be recognized.

Paul
+ - Re: *** HUNGARY *** #173; Biological relationship (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Be1la wrote:

>Paul argues that 40% of the world (Chinese and [South Asian?] Indians) can be
>defined by racial features--

>Clealy, Paul and I must inhabit different universes, since neither Chinese nor
>Indians "are each of one racial group."  Indians, to start there, are divided
>linguistically, but also physically, into *at least* two "racial groups"--
>...
>How do you account for the descendants of the Muslim [Mughul] conquerors, who
>clearly came from elsewhere and stemmed from a different "racial" group?
>...
>from Iran?  But why go on?  This is plain silly.
>Be1la

OK, then let's approach this from the other side.  Do to claim that if you
put a randomly selected Indian and a randomly selected Chinese side-by-side
that you would not be able to identify each and overwhelming percent of the
time?  I think the answer is yes, and that the physical distinction is a
valueable attribute of each national group (I tried to aviod using the
term 'ethnic group' to aviod trouble).  For those who value the 'rainbow' in
Jesse Jackson's 'Rainbow Coalition', the difference is something important.
All I propose is, let's value our differences and respect each other.

Paul
+ - Re: Corresponding in Hungarian (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Fri, 6 Jan 1995 13:51:12 -0800 > said:
>Eva Balogh writes:
>
>>  Imi Bokor is a very irritating fellow.
>
>You must train yourself to delete unread messages from such folks.
>Otherwise you may give up on the whole list, or take it out on
>the less deserving, etc.
>
>--Greg


Imi has valid and reasonable opinions on many things, and the only
way to reevaluate your own ideas is to compare them against differing
ideas of others.  If you never reevaluate your own opinions, you never
learn and grow.

Paul
+ - Re: Corresponding in Hungarian (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Paul writes:

>  Imi has valid and reasonable opinions on many things, and the only
>  way to reevaluate your own ideas is to compare them against differing
>  ideas of others.  If you never reevaluate your own opinions, you never
>  learn and grow.

If you get some benefit, more power to the both of you.

But as someone once said (roughly quoting) the purpose of an open mind
is like that of an open mouth: to close down on something solid.

--Greg
+ - Re: Corresponding in Hungarian (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>But as someone once said (roughly quoting) the purpose of an open mind
>is like that of an open mouth: to close down on something solid.

Greg, that's fine, but are you that sure that your opinions contain perfect
wisdom, and cannot benefit from reexamination?  Even after you take a side in
an issue, it's worth looking at it again, just to be sure.

Paul
+ - Re: Corresponding in Hungarian (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Paul writes:

>  Greg, that's fine, but are you that sure that your opinions contain perfect
>  wisdom, and cannot benefit from reexamination?  Even after you take a side i
n
>  an issue, it's worth looking at it again, just to be sure.

Again?  Yes.  Again and again and again and again and again and again andagain
andagainnagainnagainnagin...?  No.

I trust you respect this (possible) difference between us.  :-)

Besides which, as someone else said, why deal with the clowns when the
circus owner is in town?  If I want, say Marx's opinion on something, I
can go to the bookshelf and read Marx.

Besides again, if anything important comes up, it'll be quoted by others
on the list, and I won't miss out.

--Greg
+ - Re: Orange blood (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Date sent:  11-JAN-1995 21:09:21
>
>>> your heritage.  If a Frenchman wants to marry only another ethnic
>>> frenchman, since he wants to raise a French family, that it reasonable
>>> and proper, and there is nothing prejudist about it.
>
>>in this case...) how will he get a proof of the french identity of
>>a future partner? Will a black french person do? I think love and
>
>France is not yet a very mixed society.  There has been some immigration,

Paris has the largest population of Poles outside Poland.

>but most people living there come from families on both sides which have
>been there for a thousand years (according to the French students I knew
>at my university).  The likelyhood is still overwhelming that two people
>who meet in France come from such a long French line.

Which French?  Breton speakers?  German speakers?  While many French
speakers may have families that have dwellt within France for a long time,
that does not mean they are pure ethnic French.  I saw a rather ridicuolous
program about the Hunnic invasion of Europe (or occupation, or immigration
-I couldn't care less).  One of the parts I did find interesting was the
description of a specific birthmark common in Champaigne:  I blue spot at
the base of the spine.  It is also common in East-Central Asia.
Apparently, some Hunnic tribes remained in the French Alps after Atilla's
fall, and came to contribute to the genetic makeup of the population.  Of
course, if you ask a Frenchman with one of those blue spots whether he is
partly of Hunnic descent, I think his response would be "no, my family has
been French for a thousand years."

>This seems not to
>be true in Central/Eastern Europe, according to what has been posted here
>resently on the topic, but it still is on other European countries.

Central/Eastern European countries have a complicated ethnic history.  So
does France, England, and pretty much any European nation.  Spain has seen
Celts, Romans, Greeks, Phoenecians, Visigoths, Moors, and probably more!
France has seen Gauls, Greek colonies, Romans, various Germanic tribes, not
to mention small scale contributions by groups like the Huns.  England has
seen everyone from Romans to Danes.
Linguistically, Western Europe is pretty darn mixed up as well.

  So
>much so in fact, that there is some evidence which suggests that there are
>ethnic groups which can be genetically identified, such as the Basques.  Now,
>if this identity can be maintained without it leading to people killing each
>other, then this would be an example of the ideal case.

Yet the Basques are not exactly peacefull in regards to their ethnic
identity.

  If it could be
>replicated elsewhere, then it would lead to a stable condition of global
>diversity based on local homogeneity.  If we can maintain our differences
>while respecting each other,  I think we should do it.
>
Which would you prefer:  genetic diversity and cultural homogenity or
genetic homogenity and cultural diversity?  Inter-cultural marriage does
not have to result in cultural homogenity, and endogamy does not
necessarily protect cultural heritages.  Liking McDonalds is not an
inheritable trait, last time I checked.
If we are to avoid the tedium and horror of mono-culturalism, I think it
might be wise to forget about "racial" distinctions based mostly upon
ignorance and focus on the preservation of our many diverse cultures.


                        Thomas Breed
                        

                "Like Prometheus still chained to that rock
                        In the midst of a free world"
+ - Re: Corresponding in Hungarian (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Date sent:  11-JAN-1995 21:40:24
>
>On Fri, 6 Jan 1995 13:51:12 -0800 > said:
>>Eva Balogh writes:
>>
>>>  Imi Bokor is a very irritating fellow.
>>
>>You must train yourself to delete unread messages from such folks.
>>Otherwise you may give up on the whole list, or take it out on
>>the less deserving, etc.
>>
>>--Greg
>
>
>Imi has valid and reasonable opinions on many things, and the only
>way to reevaluate your own ideas is to compare them against differing
>ideas of others.  If you never reevaluate your own opinions, you never
>learn and grow.
>
>Paul

I absolutely agree.  I may not agree with everything Imi Bokor writes (I
don't entirely agree with ANYONE on this List), but he usually is at least
reasonable.  I'm also impressed in his restraint in the wake of so many
personal attacks upon him.


                        Thomas Breed
                        

                "Like Prometheus still chained to that rock
                        In the midst of a free world"
+ - Re: Corresponding in Hungarian (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Date sent:  11-JAN-1995 21:52:46
>
>>But as someone once said (roughly quoting) the purpose of an open mind
>>is like that of an open mouth: to close down on something solid.
>
>Greg, that's fine, but are you that sure that your opinions contain perfect
>wisdom, and cannot benefit from reexamination?  Even after you take a side in
>an issue, it's worth looking at it again, just to be sure.
>
>Paul
I don't think what Greg said is fine at all:  three cheers in favor of
closed minds?  It sounds like something from Orwell's 1984 (ie. Ignorance
is Strength). As someone else once said (also roughly quoted):

 The best way to strengthen your faith is to constantly question it.

 He was talking about religion, and though I am not very relgious, I have
found it applies to many other issues.  You don't have to abandon your
convictions; if you don't question them, however, how can you be sure they
are correct?  As another person once said:

        Living is learning; once you stop learning, you are dead.


                        Thomas Breed
                        

                "Like Prometheus still chained to that rock
                        In the midst of a free world"
+ - Re: *** HUNGARY *** #173; Biological relationship (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Date sent:  11-JAN-1995 22:00:39

>OK, then let's approach this from the other side.  Do to claim that if you
>put a randomly selected Indian and a randomly selected Chinese side-by-side
>that you would not be able to identify each and overwhelming percent of the
>time?  I think the answer is yes, and that the physical distinction is a
>valueable attribute of each national group (I tried to aviod using the
>term 'ethnic group' to aviod trouble).  For those who value the 'rainbow' in
>Jesse Jackson's 'Rainbow Coalition', the difference is something important.
>All I propose is, let's value our differences and respect each other.
>
>Paul

Chinese and Indians belong to different racial groups, and in this case
you are right.  Hungarians, however, are not so different, however from
Caucasians to be a seperate racial group.  There are groups within the
Chinese and the Indians who are just as different from the fellow racial
members as the Hungarians are from other Europeans.  One might be able to
tell Asians apart from Africans or Europeans, but within racial groups,
things are more mixed.
 There is no hard fast line between racial groups, either.  A friend from
Honduras told me about certain villages where all peopl h choclatcolate
colored skin, blond hair, and blue eyes.  They are the den  ndents of
slaves brought from Africa and English pirates.  Which racial group do they
fall into?
I don't think your prejudiced.  I admire your intentions, but I think
reality hasn't supported what you have been arguing.


        Best wishes,

                        Thomas Breed
                        

                "Like Prometheus still chained to that rock
                        In the midst of a free world"
+ - Re: Corresponding in Hungarian (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Thomas Breed writes

>  >Imi has valid...
>
>  I absolutely agree.

Fine, fine.  Everyone who enjoys Imi, read him.  Everyone who hits
himself over the head with a hammer because it feels good to stop,
carry on.

Otherwise, life's too short.

--Greg

AGYKONTROLL ALLAT AUTO AZSIA BUDAPEST CODER DOSZ FELVIDEK FILM FILOZOFIA FORUM GURU HANG HIPHOP HIRDETES HIRMONDO HIXDVD HUDOM HUNGARY JATEK KEP KONYHA KONYV KORNYESZ KUKKER KULTURA LINUX MAGELLAN MAHAL MOBIL MOKA MOZAIK NARANCS NARANCS1 NY NYELV OTTHON OTTHONKA PARA RANDI REJTVENY SCM SPORT SZABAD SZALON TANC TIPP TUDOMANY UK UTAZAS UTLEVEL VITA WEBMESTER WINDOWS