Sam:

You asked some good questions.  However, if my answer to your first question,

>has communism ever been adopted by any nation in this century without a
>concommitant seizure of political power by advocates of communism?

is no, and it is, then your other questions make you look like a dog,
barking up the wrong tree.

Further, your closing remarks,

>I believe the answer lies in the fundamental nature of Marxism-Leninism. We
>are dealing with a religion here. (More on this later)

indicate that you are interested in a theological debate.  As you know, I'm
not a religious person, and theological debates have only a limited appeal.
You have strong negative reactions against totalitarian and dictatorial
political systems.  So do I.  And from some of your earlier posts its clear
that you have a good heart.  If I didn't know this about you, I'd think that
you were intellectually dishonest for muddling a political system with an
economic one.  But unfortunately, it's an all too common mistake.  Of
course, I think that the result of all this confusion is to delay, alter,
stop, oppose, amend, reject, or put on ice, many, or any initiatives, that
may make this a better, more equal, society.

For a moment, imagine how I might view the debate around an issue such as
medicare.  I thing that medicare is a good social programme.  I think that
medicare should be available to all citizens regardless of their ability to
pay.  I know that medicare can work in the US because it works, to a greater
or lesser extent, in most of the industrialized world and it worked in the
'socialist' countries of eastern Europe.  Because I say that it worked in
'socialist' countries, you jump on me and tell me that politicos who call
themselves socialists and communists attain and hold power only by force.
Then, rather than discussing medicare, you would have me defend all the
political excesses of the former 'socialist' governments.  The converse of
your argument would be for me to ask you to defend the political behaviour
of Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier, Idi Amin, Augusto Pinochet and others of
their ilk, because, after all, their regimes were capitalist.

We'd end up having a spirited debate but we wouldn't be helping to get
medicare, or any other good social programme, off the ground.

Joe Szalai





>Joe:
>Interesting post and it ought to stimulate some thoughtful debate. I have
>a question or two for you. First of all, has communism ever been adopted
>by any nation in this century without a concommitant seizure of political
>power by advocates of communism? If communism is, as you claim, an
>economic system, why the necessity for its supporters to always hold the
>reins of political power? After all, it wasn't J.P. Morgan who said power
>comes from the barrel of a gun.
>
>Second, why are Marxist-Leninists living in the west so eager to point out
>the flaws in democratic capitalist societies, but so unwilling to admit
>the flaws exhibited by the regimes they have created throughout the 20th
>Century? They always, a la Durant, fall back on the old canard that
>communism has never "really" been tried in its "pure" form. At one point
>in the 60s and 70s, large swathes of Asia, Africa and Europe were under
>communist regimes. If Marxism-Leninism is such a frail hot-house flower
>that it cannot take root anywhere, might this not offer us some clue as to
>its actual utility in the real world? Besides, nothing is stopping
>Marxist-Leninists like Durant from creating the societies they want. All
>they have to do is actually go out and alleviate suffering. Start a soup
>kitchen, create a homeless shelter, staff and manage a day care center.
>There are undoubtedly Marxist-Leninists who do put their money and time
>where their mouths are and undertake these types of projects. But they are
>far outnumbered by those who are only interested in seizing political
>power and perpetrating themselves in office. For them, actual human
>suffering is an abstraction and their interest in it extends only to the
>degree that it will further their political schemes. In this regard,
>Marxism in particular mirrors the temperament of its creator.
>
>I have already commented on the degree of intellectual control which
>communist regimes feel obligated to exercise over their subjects. If
>Marxism-Leninism is such a rational political economy, with such obvious
>tangible benefits to those who live under it, why is this so? I believe
>the answer lies in the fundamental nature of Marxism-Leninism. We are
>dealing with a religion here. (More on this later)
>Sam Stowe
>
>Hungarian content -- Most Magyars already know from bitter experience that
>Marxism-Leninism isn't all it's cracked up to be.
>
>

Dear George;

At 01:09 AM 1/31/96 GMT, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
>American-Hungarians in San Francisco!
>
>I'm visiting San Francisco from 17th (take-off from London)/18th
>February until the 24th. Does anyone have a spare couch I could crash
>out on? I'll contribute to the domestic side of things (stocking the
>larder, washing up, etc.)
>
>Even if you cannot put me up would you be prepared to show me around
>the city for a day/evening? (It's my first visit to the States.)
>
>Regards,
>
>George
>
>George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
>Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy * Cybernautic address: 
>*********** Interested in s/h chess books? Ask for my list ***********
>

I live in San Jose, about 65 miles from San Francisco, and I'm not sure I'll
be able to drive again by then, but you're welcome to stay with my husband
and me, if you are interested.  We might be able to persuade him to take a
couple of days off for some sightseeing.

San Jose is the "capitol" of Silicon Valley--Intel, IBM, Fry's Electronics
"Supermarket,"  Rosicrucian Park and Museum, Winchester Mystery House and a
few wineries, mostly very good to excellent--one of the oldest in the state,
Mirassou Winery, is actually only 1-1/2 miles from my home literally
straight down the nearest largest street.  At this location, during non-rush
hour traffic, we are about 1 hour to 1-1/4 hour's drive from San Francisco,
about 2 hours from the Napa-Sonoma wine country,and about 1-1/2 hours from
the world-famous Monterey Bay aquarium, and that area's charms.

I do have a political meeting (actually an annual goals and strategies
meeting) for Silicon Valley for Democracy in China, February 17, and I'm
also on the steering committee for the Republican (similar to Tory, but not
exactly--especially in this area) candidate for Congress so I will have a
few commitments.  If you're politically inclined, or interested, you'd be
welcome to tag along, however.  I see you work for the BBC, so some of this
might be interesting to you.

However, if you have your heart set on being inside San Francisco, or at
least being a lot closer, post a message to either or both:

        
        (attn of Zoltan or Steven)

or
        
        (attn, Andy)

and I'm sure that one of them will be able to help you find a place.  Good
luck, and let me know what you decide.

Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA, USA

N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

Dear Andras:

At 07:59 PM 1/30/96 -0800, you wrote:
>Felado :  [Australia]
>> > As of 1995, there is a new setup, one that makes me see red though.
>> > Doctorates are being given in Hungary now, granting a Ph.D in only 1.-2
>> > years after the completion of the diplom. Albeit, everyone claims that
>> > the first un9versity degree is equivalent to teh masters in the US, I
>> > have seen what geography students have to learn and I am quite sorry,
>> > that ain't a Ph.D from any top 20 geography school in the US, or I'll
>> > wager Britain, Australia, or Ireland, Germany, etc.
>>
>> This is my impression also.  It looks like that old 'university doctorate'
>> is being rechristened as Ph.D., and this will not improve the recognition
>> of Hungarian qualifications.  The latter is rather unflattering at the
>> moment, with authoritative international comparisons equating Hungarian
>> 5-year university degrees (complete with dissertation and defence thereof
>> plus a 'state examination' by a panel) with 3-year courses in developed
>> English-speaking countries.  This is just as unfair as is ridiculous the
>> claim of a Ph.D. by holders of Hungarian 'university doctorates'.
>
>Well, I don't know much about geography (sorry, couldn't resist) but the
>value of these degrees depends a great deal on the field of study.  Hungarian
>"okleveles matematikus" was/is routinely accepted as a masters degree, and
>"kisdoktori" was/is often accepted as PhD (each university used to make its
>own determination). As far as I can see, this was overvaluing the kisdoktori
>(especially if you compare it to a Princeton PhD the difference is enormous
>-- compared to the Kalamazoo State PhD the difference is not so striking) but
>undervaluing the okleve1l.
>
>Any reasonable okleveles matematikus could get well into the 95th percentile
>of the standard graduate school math admissions test (the GRE math subject
>test). Back in Hungary as a math student I was maybe in the 85th-90th
>percentile -- on the GRE (this is not the "math" section of the general GRE,
>but the "subject" test) I was in the 99th percentile. It was clear that the
>average Hungarian math student learned considerably more in five years than
>the average US math major learned in four, and two years of graduate study
>(for a total of six) would put the US M.Sc. only barely ahead the Hungarian
>okleveles matematikus (who only had five years). Add another 2-3 years for
>the Hungarian kisdoktori, and the Hungarian knows more (now after a total of
>7 or 8 years) than the US M.Sc (who of course only had six years).
>
>The big gap is really in graduate school -- there is nothing in the leisurly
>process of earning your kisdoktori or kandida1tusi that compares to the
>intensity of a good US graduate program. In many fields, (definitely in math
>and physics, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that in geography too)
>after four years the Hungarian students are way ahead of their college-
>educated US counterparts, but after their fifth year they don't go on and
>study full time, they get a job and devote considerably less of their
>energies to studying.
>
>> As for the Hungarian first degrees being equivalent to a Masters, well,
>> sometimes that may well be, but then it is a coursework-only Masters.
>> Of the latter, there are a few offered by universities in English-speaking
>> countries of the West, and some of these are a one-year course.  Given that
>> the Hungarian five-year 'diplomaed' (approx. = 'certified') agricultural
>> science courses contain all the trappings of a thorough UK/Australian Honour
s
>> degree, plus an extra year of coursework and additional examination by
>> outsiders, this is not unreasonable.
>
>Don't know much about agricultural science (sorry again) and even less about
>the UK/Australian system. I heard that in the UK kisdoktori is generally
>taken to be an M.Phil., which (if my understanding is correct) is a
>coursework only degree, somewhat similar to the US "terminal masters", a
>consolation prize of a degree, generally awarded to those who were deemed
>unfit to go for a full PhD but completed the first two years of a PhD
>program. If this is true, it represents something of an undervaluation of the
>kisdoktori, because kisdoktori requires a thesis which (at least in math)
>must contain results publishable in a refereed journal or conference
>proceedings. But again, all I know about the UK thing is hearsay, feel free
>to correct me.
>
>> > Of course, part of this is related to standardizatio with 'western'
>> > systmes of education so that some leverl of comparability is there.
>> > However, I have read a couple of the 'dissertations' and they are not
>> > quite theoretical enough to pass a Ph.D exam here. I am not saying this
>> > is not a bad idea, but it still needs a little work.
>>
>> Well, being 'theoretical' is not a precondition in Australian technical
>> fields at least.  The requirement is to offer something new in theory or
>> application.
>
>This much seems to be met by the kisdoktori, so in principle the idea of
>unifying it with the kandida1tusi and calling both a PhD is not untenable.
>I think the real problem is the lack of graduate schooling. For some weird
>reason in Hungary graduate study is called "postgraduate" work, perhaps
>because those doing their kisdoktori or kandida1tusi enjoy the same
>flexibility as US postdocs do. But the difference is that the US postdoc
>went through four (actually, often as much as six) years of rigorous
>graduate study to earn the 'doc', and the Hungarian "postgaduate" student or
>"aspira1ns" never did. When I came to the US, having already completed a
>kisdoktori and unofficially defended (munkahelyi ve1de1s) a kandida1tusi in
>a different field, I honestly thought graduate school at Standford will be a
>breeze.  Yeah, sure.  If I had the faintest inkling of how much pain is
>involved in getting a PhD I would have probably decided to sit on my
>kandida1tusi laurels...
>
>Andra1s Kornai
>
>Oh thank you, thank you very much!  I absolutely loved this! What a great
response! :-)

By the way, you know you're not far from where I live.  Do you know where
Capitol Expressway and Aborn Road is, in San Jose?  Give me a call sometime,
and let's get together for lunch or dinner.

Sincerely,

Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker (and Anthony J. Becker)
3273 B Rocky Water Lane
San Jose, CA, USA  95148
tel.& fax: 408-223-6102
e-mail: 


N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

> Felado :  [United States]
> >> matriarchy was the general setup.
> >This, known in Marxist parlance as "o3skommunizmus", is pure hogwash.
[...]
> In Africa, and most of Oceania, yes, but not in so much in the Americas.
Not so much, but still for the most part. I didn't say matriarchy never
existed, I merely said that it is a complete misreading of the record to
take it to be the natural state of affairs in prehistory.

> Again, yes, that is often the case, but not always.
Agreed, not always. But the issue is not whether something can exist
but whether these things (communistic arrangements, females at the top
of the power hierarchy) were typical.

> One of the greatest war-chiefs of the Iroquois in the 1700's was a
> nearly six foot tall woman--and she wasn't the first.
Such things happen, and indeed it is perfectly normal that they should. It
is statistically unquestionable that men are taller than women.  But this
general observation does not mean that every man will be taller than every
woman. Whether men are biologically more agressive and warlike than women
or this is merely a culturally determined fact (if it is indeed a fact --
harder to quantify than body height) I have no idea, but the general
statement will not be falsified by individual counterexamples.

The overall argument was that the present state of civilization, while
still far from providing perfect equality, represents a distinct advance in
the status of women compared either to the "natural" state of things (cf.
the social arrangements of the great apes) or to most of prehistory,
antiquity, or the middle ages. Marx (and E1va Durant) have an essentially
retrograde view of civilization, blinded to the actual advances by the
vision of a nonexistent Golden Age.

Andra1s Kornai

>
> Joe:
> Interesting post and it ought to stimulate some thoughtful debate. I have
> a question or two for you. First of all, has communism ever been adopted
> by any nation in this century without a concommitant seizure of political
> power by advocates of communism? If communism is, as you claim, an
> economic system, why the necessity for its supporters to always hold the
> reins of political power? After all, it wasn't J.P. Morgan who said power
> comes from the barrel of a gun.
>

As I mentioned numerous times without fail all the regimes
you mentioned started from a semi feudal level after
years of devastation of war.  The conditions for a working
glassroot democracy were not allowed to develop, and not
even the capitalist type democracy existed before.
They were doomed BECAUSE they were not able to use the
advantages of democracy.  Funnily enough, this is
the main hinderance in capitalism, too.

You're avoiding 2 of my questions.
1. The existance of totalitarianism in capitalist states, in fact
   working democracies are rare even by "market economy media"
   standards.
2. Giving reason why socialism couldn't thrive in a democratic
   system, with all the controls "from the bottom".


I abhore charities. They exist to prolongue the plight of the
poor - and the system, that keeps them poor.  They are the excuse
of state department for cuts in social expenditure.  They
are the excuse for the rich for not feeling guilty.
They take away the only thing poor people have got - their
dignity.
By the way, they don't actually collect the majority of
their money from the rich. 80+ percent is from nearly-poor people,
like me.   I do my best to find to do something more useful,
thank you very much.



> Second, why are Marxist-Leninists living in the west so eager to point out
> the flaws in democratic capitalist societies, but so unwilling to admit
> the flaws exhibited by the regimes they have created throughout the 20th
> Century?


You are talking rubbish, as per usual.  A lot of Marxist/Leninist
not to mention Trotskiists were killed by  stalinist regimes -
as well as the capitalists ones.

> Marxist-Leninists like Durant from creating the societies they want. All
> they have to do is actually go out and alleviate suffering. Start a soup
> kitchen, create a homeless shelter, staff and manage a day care center.
> There are undoubtedly Marxist-Leninists who do put their money and time
> where their mouths are and undertake these types of projects.

> But they are
> far outnumbered by those who are only interested in seizing political
> power and perpetrating themselves in office. For them, actual human
> suffering is an abstraction and their interest in it extends only to the
> degree that it will further their political schemes. In this regard,
> Marxism in particular mirrors the temperament of its creator.
>

I would be most interested to know, who made a good
career lately out of being communists? Especially in the US?
If there were no actual human suffering everywhere, that
I know it could be stopped NOW, I wouldn't bother, believe
me, I know of more enjoyable and less frustrating passtimes.
What is real easy is unthinkingly parroting the phrases
you've heard from the press-magnates controlled media.


> I have already commented on the degree of intellectual control which
> communist regimes feel obligated to exercise over their subjects.

Well, I wonder.  Under this "intellectual control" people
still thought in 1989-90, that capitalism was better.
In my village there were 3 religious denominational
masses per week, and religious classes after school.
How parents  manage in a little village
in the US, if they want their children to grow up
without religion?  Just one example, hopefully
to start you to think through other points of views.


But they had first hand experience now, and more and
more realises, that socialism with democratic control
is the best solution.


> If
> Marxism-Leninism is such a rational political economy, with such obvious
> tangible benefits to those who live under it, why is this so? I believe
> the answer lies in the fundamental nature of Marxism-Leninism. We are
> dealing with a religion here.
>

If an economy's main objective is to make enouhg that is,
always more, money for people, who already have money
(shareholders, etc), you end up with surplus of things
most of them socially useless, such as arms on one end
and people who cannot get the bare necessities at the
other.  (Even in the US. Here the bare necessity
is a decent education and a decent job and a decent peaceful
home). The idea is so simple, that it can be understood,
instantly by millions...   But it is not a religion.
Religious people cannot be "proved wrong", they do not
"reavaluate" their dogma, or very rarely.  The problem
with marxism, that besides pointing at the first
historical failures, you have no argument.
All new historical structures were failures first,
when the conditions were not yet ready. Even
bourgois democracy//market economy took a long time
to prove to be better that what was before.
It played progreessive role in history, for a good while.
But now it's just frighteningly inapt.  Please,
convince me otherwise.  C. Linda says it can be done
by changing companies more democratic and profit-sharing,
one by one.    Could be. But it seems to be a very
slow process, that didn't reverse so far any of the
negative tendencies.
Eva Durant

In article >,
Janos Zsargo > writes:

>I think the origin of US involvement was very simple. By that time (1917)
>it was predictable who will win the war. For an upcoming superpower
>like the US at that time to be a winer at the peace-treaty was a good
>debutation.
>
>Janos

Dear Mr. Zsargo:
Curious thing about your theory is that at the point the U.S. entered the
war, many people were predicting that the Germans were going to win it.
The Russians had been thoroughly beaten by early 1917 and their armies
began to dissolve by the time Tsar Nicholas abdicated in March, a month
before the U.S. entered the war. It was very obvious to most observers at
the time that the Germans would shortly be able to switch large numbers of
troops and materiel for redeployment on the Western Front. It was publicly
recognized in France and England alike that because of the failures of the
Nivelle offensive and the battles around Verdun and the Somme in 1916,
both nations could do little throughout 1917 but stand on the defensive
and try to stave off the Germans. Manpower shortages had also begun to
affect both armies, as had a mutiny in the French army following the
collapse of the Nivelle offensive. At sea, unrestricted submarine warfare
had a major effect on trans-Atlantic shipping in early 1917. The actual
military collapse of Germany in August, 1918, came as a shock to the
Allies and, indeed, to the German people themselves. That's why so many of
them later bought Hitler's line that the Germans had somehow been cheated
out of winning the war.
Sam Stowe

P.S. -- What is a debutation?
Hungarian content -- How long will it take this particular thread to
degenerate into another rant and rave session about Trianon?

In article >, Tony and Celia
Becker > writes:

>(Sam, start watching the news between March 5 and through the
>national conventions. Lay in a large supply of popcorn.   You'll _really_
>enjoy this one--if the troops don't desert, that is.  Watch for the items
>about "party reform." --and watch for a middle aged imp somewhere in the
>crowd in San Diego, waving and yelling "hi, Sam" ;-) )

Dear Mrs. Fa'bos-Becker:
I'm setting the VCR to record it. Could you please wave one of those signs
like they do outside the Today Show when Willard Scott is doing the
weather? "Hi, Sam. We love San Diego" or something like that will do just
fine. Enjoy yourself.
Sam Stowe

P.S. -- When is your operation? I hope everything goes very smoothly.

>
> When I read that book again a few months ago, at one point I remembered
> something the late President John Kennedy once said, and it suddenly made a
> lot more sense.  He said, "if his superiors at the American newspaper had
> had the sense to treat Karl Marx better, we wouldn't have to worry about
> communism at all."
>

I thought Marx was exiled from Germany for his revolutionary
activities.  He could have been a rich academic
member of the establishment without much effort,
if he'd only stopped rocking the boat.
I think - as usual, his probably sarcastic
note was taken out of context. He was aware for a long
time, that his work would earn him less, than journalism.
He lived in hardship most of his writing life, if I
remember correctly.  But even if he'd have made a fortune,
that wouldn't make any difference in the rightness or
wrongness of his findings.


>
> Other books specifically noted that Emile Durkheim in particular
> deliberately developed his methodologies of study just to answer the
> question of whether Marxism was humanly viable.  According to Service, this
> was not answered as late as the early 20th century.  There was no consensus
> that it was viable, at that time, and since then the consensus has developed
> that Marxism is not viable--according to the latest knowledge and
> methodologies which may not yet be the final examination.  Who knows what
> scientists will discover in another 100 years?  Regretfully, Eva, and
> others, however, the present body of knowledge says "no."
>

"The present body of knowledge" can be wrong, it often happened.
Could you please give me the  gist of the arguments as short
as you can...

Eva Durant

>
> According to my Encyclopedia's (I'll just cite mostly the _Concise Columbia
> Encyclopedia_ for a little brevity) Marx worked as a ordinary journalist for
> an American newspaper, "The New York Tribune" while in London.  His mentors,
> that is, those he was "influenced by"--using Columbia's words, were first
> Ludwig Feuerbach and Moses Hess, then Friedrich Engels. Engels was the son
> of a manufacturer and managed a factory.  The "Communist Manifesto" is
> considered to be more his work than Marx's while "Das Kapital" is considered
> more Marx's.  What caused both Engels and Marx to do the research they did
> was their own personal experiences--and the desire to know if they were
> unique, rare, or common.  Then when they thought they'd done enough
> research--and scientific methodology wasn't very far along for social
> sciences at the time--most of the social sciences in any form did not exist
> in any universities--they decided to come up with some ideas for change.
>

An encyclopedia is not able to list all the sources, I am amazed,
that Hegel wasn't mentioned, as his dialectics was the first step
for Marx I believe.  I'm sure he tried all sorts of jobs to earn
money to finance his research and writings. Without the financial
assistance of Engels, he couldn't have done it, someone else would
have come up with the same logical conclusions drawn from
German classical philosophy, English political economy and
French utopist socialism.



> These were theories and ideas, and not all parts were well substantiated.
> Since real historical research and archeology were still in their infancy,
> there was little they could use to search for precedents of parts of their
> theories.  I do think they would have looked for them, had they known how,
> and what and where.  I think they tried with the tools and knowledge they
> had, but those were limited and they didn't always recognize that.

Between them they accumulated impressive widths of information.
Both were well versed in the natural sciences well enough to
be able to appreciate  calculus, Darwin, etc. They were perfectly
aware of progress, they did not claim that their "recept" was
an absolute truth. They rightly denied the existance of an
absolute truth.


> also did not set up human trials of small communities that operated solely
> on these principals similar to medical trials, and they themselves lived on
> salaries and proceeds from factory ownership and did not pool their
> resources in any common community, as the first Christian apostles tried to
> do--and failed to maintain.

In social science/history you cannot have double blind trials.
Would this mean, that we shouldn't aim to consciously/
democratically control/use knowledge of economic/social
laws?  Why should we stay slave to them, like we used to
be slaves to nature in pre/early history?  The progress
of economics/sociology is towards control, but not yet in
the interest of the majority, not yet democratic.


> >I have personal opinions that are formed basing my outlook on
> >this philosophy. However, if it wasn't logical and fact-based,
> >I would discard it, regardless of any emotional attachment to
> >it, if any.
>
> Yes, but can you, or I or anyone else claim omniscient knowledge of all
> reality and facts.
-wise lecture cut-

Who did? I certainly haven't, neither did any marxist who actially
knew what marxism meant.

>
> We look back on Marx, Engels and other philosophers and economists and say,
> "ah yes, here's where they were wrong because we now know this and that, and
> have all these new tools to measure and analyse."  Isn't it likely though
> that 100 years from now, our descendants will be able to say the same things
> about us?
>

Well, the idea/practice of market economy/capitalism is even older
than marxism. Not to mention even older ideas that are taken on
without ANY criticism... I don't mean you Cecilia...



>  Also, I am still waiting to hear a similarily
> >factual explanation, based on current trends,
> >why the capitalist (market economy) world system is a
> >practical way to the future.
>
> According to numerous anthropologists, capitalism is more practical because
> it concerns itself with individuals and personal ownership of things, or
> efforts, and personal reward.  There is quite a lot of scientific research
> using human trials in many countries, that shows one uncomfortable fact of
> human nature.  The most basic instinct, the first instinct of all human
> beings is selfishness, because that is what is needed to just survive.
> Self--one individual, one person.


Well, my personal finding is - I have the feeling,
that some research must be in my favour - that humans
cannot exist as humans without the society in which they
live.  I dare to say, that in fact society had a major
role to play in the success (so far) of the species.
It is in the interest of the selfish individual, that makes
imperative that society functions better and better.
In a better society we all live better, so we all want that.
It is a myth, that there is so much to loose for the rich,
or for the middle-class. They would only loose their
fears/guilt and consequently their prosac.
People will have to work much harder to gain
recognition.  You won't be identified with what you
have, but what useful/interesting/creative things you have
done for yourself and the same time for everybody else.

You are more selfish, than others if you are frightened
from such an alternative. But change in attitudes can
be fast sometimes.



>  Communism made two basic assumptions
> that the knowledge and research of the times just simply did not exist for
> Marx and Engels to really know were off.  First that man's basic nature was
> "good," altruistic and cooperative,

I do not recall any such suggestion. Cooperative, yes, "good", never.
The idea was, that economic needs form society. In this respect
there is no value assessment.  Socialism is practicable, because it
satisfies economic needs better if and only if it is organised
on a democratic basis with the current advanced technology.
No goodness necessary.
The consequence hopefully is a "goodness" option, no crime and
a new era of cooperation.  But that is only a wishful though
reasonable outcome.


> and second, that even if later education
> from parents, schools, etc. turned man away from this, changes in education
> could bring man back to the original "better" nature.  They also believed
> that once the habits and knowledge of the better nature were established
> they would be voluntarily maintained, all, or almost all the time,
> especially as everyone around was all behaving in the same way.  People just
> don't behave that way, even when living in small isolated rural communes in
> the wilds of America, or England (such as Lindisfarne) and deliberately
> trying to live that way.  It's simply never been able to be maintained.
>

Evidence for this?  Living in an isolated community stifles
those, who want to be different. They are called "bad".
Especially if that community is not a democratic one.

I cannot possibly spend this much time on this Cecilia,
thank you for your kind words. Any jobs going in your
beautiful company, when I get the sack for doing
too much not-work-related interneting here?

Eva Durant

At 04:43 PM 1/30/96 -0500, Czifra Jancsi wrote:

>It's an endless cycle offingerpointing, which you do very well, I should
>add, whether you fall on the
>left or right politically. That's turns me off to politics all together.
>Instead of worrying about who's "politically correct" or not, you should be
>concerned if there's a soul in that particular person. Of course, if that
>person falls short of "political correctness" according to Comrade Szalai
>then that person has no soul, how silly of me to think that Comrade Szalai
>can go beyond "political correctness". Like I've said,"It takes 2 to
>tango.", Jozsi.

Fine.  But lets make this our last dance.  Your use of the diminutive
'Jozsi', is as endearing as your excessive use of cliches.  Your inability
to figure out if I'm on the political left or right, is matched only by your
witless comment that you're 'turned off to politics all together', while
regularly engaging in political tirades.

Joe Szalai

On 29 Jan 96 Andrei Danes >, OSF Research Institute,
writes, re: Minority Rights:

>Switzerland has only 3 official languages (that is: German, French and
>Italian).
>Although it is true that Reto-Romansch is used to label banknotes (and
>possibly
>passports)....

Wrong. Since this is a readily accessible source, let me quote The New
Encyclopedia Brittanica, 15th Ed. 1974, vol. 17, p. 875:

        ..."In 1938, a federal popular vote indicative of Swiss
        sentiment recognized Romansch as a fourth official
        national language, which was tantamount to a political
        declaration in favour of federalist diversity and in
        opposition to centralized power."


CSABA K ZOLTANI

In article >, Joe Szalai
> writes:

>You've done it now Sam!  You've hurt me so bad that I'm going to have to
>dust off my Patsy Cline albums.
>
>Hungarian content -- Just the tears in my eyes.
>
>Joe Szalai
>
>P.S. -- Are you happy now, Sam?
>
>
>

Geez, Joe, I wouldn't want you walking the floor after midnight thinking
of me. Besides, listening to Patsy is good for the soul.
Sam Stowe

Hungarian content -- Contrary to what he says, Joe's not falling to
pieces.

At 06:06 AM 1/31/96 -0500, you wrote:
>In article >,
>Janos Zsargo > writes:
>
>>I think the origin of US involvement was very simple. By that time (1917)
>>it was predictable who will win the war. For an upcoming superpower
>>like the US at that time to be a winer at the peace-treaty was a good
>>debutation.
>>
>>Janos

>Dear Mr. Zsargo:
>Curious thing about your theory is that at the point the U.S. entered the
>war, many people were predicting that the Germans were going to win it.
>The Russians had been thoroughly beaten by early 1917 and their armies
>began to dissolve by the time Tsar Nicholas abdicated in March, a month
>before the U.S. entered the war. It was very obvious to most observers at
>the time that the Germans would shortly be able to switch large numbers of
>troops and materiel for redeployment on the Western Front.

As someone whose main field of interest is World War I and the Peace
Conference, I must say that Sam Stowe is entirely right. I would just like
to comment that a little knowledge is very dangerous and nothing is "very
simple." I would also like to tell Janos that reading history backward is
not recommended for a fledgling historian. I am referring here to your
comment on the United States as "an upcoming superpower." In 1917 it was
impossible to predict that the United States of America is going to become a
superpower thirty years later.

Eva Balogh >

But Joe, I want to spin you around the floor some more.

How 'bout a Csardas, this time.

First off, you, not I, started off the whole PC thing. I just merely
added the point that your argument was very one sided, but
you passionately deny that the Soviet Bloc imposed their form
of "political correctness". You call it "opression", they considered
it "correct". On the other hand, what you call "correct" maybe
considered "opression" by those with a different view. It's an
endless cycle. About where you stand, politically, I could care
less. I just think your one-sided PC bantering has about as much
buoyancy as crap filled with buckshot.

Secondly. Are you offended that I call you Jozsi?? Oh, yeah.........
It's not PC to call Joe Szalai: Jozsi, folks. The politically correct
way to address Joe Szalai is "The person formerly known as Jozsi.".


Cheers,
Czifra Jancsi

On 29 Jan 96 Dan Rako > writes:

>>Any possibility of Transylvania being given
>>autonomous status or anything similar?

>All in good time, my friend... All in good time.

>Pro Libertate!

>Dan Rako

It may be worthwhile to recall that there was a Hungarian Autonomous
Region in Erdely (Transylvania). To quote from the excellent book,

        Borsody, S. (Ed.), The Hungarians, A Divided Nation,
        Yale Center for International and Area Studies,
        New Haven, 1988.

"..The general trend of Romanian policy toward the Hungarians is perhaps
best illustrated by the fate of the Hungarian Autonomous Region.
Comprising the Szekely population of Transylvania, it was established on
Soviet prodding in 1952. In 1960, its area was reorganized in such a way
that, while its Hungarian-speaking population fell, its
Romanian-speaking population rose. At the end of 1967 the region was
abolished altogether."

The book, now available in paperback, can be highly recommended to
anyone interested in the second largest minority in Europe, the
Hungarians living outside of their own country.

CSABA K ZOLTANI

At 07:59 PM 1/30/96 -0800, Andras Kornai wrote:


>The big gap is really in graduate school -- there is nothing in the leisurly
>process of earning your kisdoktori or kandida1tusi that compares to the
>intensity of a good US graduate program.

I would like to pick up here on "a good US graduate program." Many people
not familiar enough with the American academic scene have simplified notions
about American higher education. Just the other day, someone was comparing
the English system with the American. The fact is that there are
universities and universities--thousands of them--and there are vast
differences in standards. A good American university--Harvard, Yale,
Stanford, University of Chicago, Berkeley, and many others--can be the best
in the world.


>I heard that in the UK kisdoktori is generally
>taken to be an M.Phil., which (if my understanding is correct) is a
>coursework only degree, somewhat similar to the US "terminal masters", a
>consolation prize of a degree, generally awarded to those who were deemed
>unfit to go for a full PhD but completed the first two years of a PhD
>program.

At the best American universities graduate students can't enter for an M.A.
or an M.S.--they are immediately enrolled in a Ph.D. program and if it turns
out that the student "is not Ph.D. material" he/she is let go with a
terminal M.A./M.S. That situation is not rare: I knew several people who
ended up with a master's degree in this manner.

> But the difference is that the US postdoc
>went through four (actually, often as much as six) years of rigorous
>graduate study to earn the 'doc', and the Hungarian "postgaduate" student or
>"aspira1ns" never did. When I came to the US, having already completed a
>kisdoktori and unofficially defended (munkahelyi ve1de1s) a kandida1tusi in
>a different field, I honestly thought graduate school at Standford will be a
>breeze.  Yeah, sure.  If I had the faintest inkling of how much pain is
>involved in getting a PhD I would have probably decided to sit on my
>kandida1tusi laurels...


Quite! One more thing. Depending on the field, different universities are
better than others, although they all may have comparable reputations. For
example, in my own field--history--I am happy to say that Yale is still the
leading department. When it comes to East European history Columbia
University is very good. But I read Ph.D. dissertations on Hungarian history
from some other universities and I must say that if I had been one of the
official readers I wouldn't have given them a degree based on that
particular effort.

In any case, the American academic scene can be pretty complicated and any
attempt at generalization--especially from abroad--will most likely go wrong.

Eva Balogh >

dunfords > wrote:
>Tony and Celia Becker > wrote:
>>Wow! I finally made it into this list and what a group of first messages!
>Dear Cecilia:
>
>This is a very uplifting posting!
>
>Being in a similar situation; would you kindly share with me, the message
>of how and who may subscribe? As for your posting, I am tryin to
>download it, so that I can better digest.
>
>Regards
>Aniko Dunford

>
>
>
>>
>>
>
>

In article >, Tony and Celia Becker
> says:
>
>Dear George;
>
>I live in San Jose, about 65 miles from San Francisco, and I'm not sure I'll
>be able to drive again by then, but you're welcome to stay with my husband
>and me, if you are interested.  We might be able to persuade him to take a
>couple of days off for some sightseeing.

That'd be terrific!

>San Jose is the "capitol" of Silicon Valley--Intel, IBM, Fry's Electronics
>"Supermarket,"  Rosicrucian Park and Museum, Winchester Mystery House and a
>few wineries, mostly very good to excellent--one of the oldest in the state,
>Mirassou Winery, is actually only 1-1/2 miles from my home literally
>straight down the nearest largest street.  At this location, during non-rush
>hour traffic, we are about 1 hour to 1-1/4 hour's drive from San Francisco,
>about 2 hours from the Napa-Sonoma wine country,and about 1-1/2 hours from
>the world-famous Monterey Bay aquarium, and that area's charms.

Even better. I'm very keen to visit Silicon Valley and perhaps buy some
gear (prices in the UK can often be double that in the States for computer
bits and pieces.) I'm also a great wine drinker: I ran my own bar-cum-cafe
business in Belgium some years ago. I once trod wine in Greece, too. At 45
years of age I am still young in spirit, though much better behaved than I
used to be :-)  I have to be respectable nowadays.

>I do have a political meeting (actually an annual goals and strategies
>meeting) for Silicon Valley for Democracy in China, February 17, and I'm
>also on the steering committee for the Republican (similar to Tory, but not
>exactly--especially in this area) candidate for Congress so I will have a
>few commitments.  If you're politically inclined, or interested, you'd be
>welcome to tag along, however.

I'd be delighted to tag along. I'm no stranger to political meetings
and seeing how Americans work at it would be fascinating.

>I see you work for the BBC, so some of this might be interesting to you.

Actually, I don't work for the BBC (they temporarily provided Internet
connection to *educate* the British public, schools, etc, about the 'net,
but this has now stopped. Pipex, who leased lines to the BBC have taken
over the BBC accounts, but the BBC address is still good for the rest of
1996.) I work (daily) part-time in the scholastic department of Dulwich
College Preparatory School, primarily as a chess coach and attend one or
two other (independent) schools once a week in similar capacity. I've
been busy in the last few years organizing exchange trips for chess
playing juniors abroad (Anglo-Dutch and Anglo-Magyar, the latter primarily
in Szombathely in the last four years or so) and look forward to extending
these contacts to the US.

>However, if you have your heart set on being inside San Francisco,

That's not necessary, so long as I can make it to SF for a couple of
days of sightseeing, etc. I'll keep in touch by email.

Thanks a million!

George

George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy * Cybernautic address: 
*********** Interested in s/h chess books? Ask for my list ***********

To E.Balogh and S.Stowe,

as I am not an expert in History and my knowledge on WWI is limited,
I have to except what Eva (and Sam) wrote.

Janos

Dear Eva D. and Joe G. -

At 13:07 31/01/96 +0100, Eva Durant wrote:
...
>As I mentioned numerous times without fail all the regimes
>you mentioned started from a semi feudal level after
>years of devastation of war.  The conditions for a working
>glassroot democracy were not allowed to develop, and not
>even the capitalist type democracy existed before.
>They were doomed BECAUSE they were not able to use the
>advantages of democracy.  Funnily enough, this is
>the main hinderance in capitalism, too.
>
>You're avoiding 2 of my questions.
>1. The existance of totalitarianism in capitalist states, in fact
>   working democracies are rare even by "market economy media"
>   standards.
>2. Giving reason why socialism couldn't thrive in a democratic
>   system, with all the controls "from the bottom".

Okay, it is time for me to put in my two cents in the Communism/Socialism
vs. Capitalism debate. I have absolutely no academic credentials in this
area since the era of my undergraduate studies many moons ago, but I have
given a lot of thought to the issues you all have raised, and, as usual, I
probably disagree somewhat with everybody in this debate.

I agree with Celia that people are by nature selfish, one of the prime
survival instincts. Yes, as Eva D. suggested, it is in everybody's interest
to have a better society. But the problem lies in a determination of what is
a better society. Probably every one of us has his or her own individual
ideas as to what would constitute an improvement in our society. So, people
with very different world views find it virtually impossible to agree on
just what changes are desirable.

Joe has said that socialism would give people more choice and greater
fairness. He says communism as defined by Marx is an economic system, not a
political one. Now, I am going back a few centuries to my undergraduate
studies, but if I remember my Marx correctly, it was he who developed the
concept of socialism as well as communism. Socialism, the dictatorship of
the proletariat, was the first step in the process, and socialism meant the
ownership of the chief means of production by the state. It was after the
dictatorship of the proletariat had been firmly established that at some
point the state would "wither away," leaving the people in a state of
communism - "from each according to his ability; to each according to his
needs." The Russians in particular never claimed that they had established a
communist system. That was what they were working for, and they always held
that what they had was a "dictatorship of the proletariat." The problem with
that system was that the term was simply a euphemistic name for a system
that was far more repressive than what they had had before. The system was
successful in the short term because the Russians had established an empire,
similar to the Roman empire, and the functionaries in that empire were
indoctrinated sufficiently that they were willing to sacrifice their own
personal happiness and well-being in order to help to build socialism. The
system failed, because the hypocrisy of the system became obvious, the
system also became less able to provide the necessities of life to the
citizens of the country, Russia was involved in a disastrous and
debilitating war abroad (Afghanistan) which resulted in the decay of morale
in the country, the citizens lost their idealistic dedication to Communism
when they became aware of the hypocrisies of the leaders, and they decided
they wanted those material goodies for themselves, and, finally, Russia's
last leaders did not have the total ruthlessness necessary to maintain
themselves and the system.

Okay, Joe, please tell me how socialism, which involves the ownership of the
means of production by the State, can be considered an economic and not a
political system? If it is not political, then why does every single western
democracy have a socialist party? And if you say, I was talking about
communism, not socialism, well, communism may be an economic theory and not
a political theory, but it has never existed in practice for any length of
time on any scale in practice, so you can say whatever you like about it in
theory, that doesn't mean it will be valid in the real world.

To be continued....

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

(P.S. Joe, are you a librarian? Did you know that Mao Tse Tung (old
spelling, I apologize, I have never learned the new system) was a librarian?
I am sorry I don't know any Patsy Cline songs other than the ones Sam has
already quoted)

(P.P.S. Hungarian content - Eva D. had said that things were much better in
Somogy back in the bad old 80's when all the school kids had transportation
to school, people looked out for one another, etc. However, it is essential
to note that although Westerners instinctively decry the Soviet domination
of Eastern Europe, the fact is that it cost Russia lots of rubles to
maintain her empire, and, as I noted above, Russian citizens sacrificed
their own happiness to keep the system going. The Hungarian government now
has lost its monetary supports from Russia, and is cast adrift in a world of
hard, cold economic realities.  I am convinced that part of Hungary's
problems now are a result of the same trends that are occurring in countries
around the world. Canada, as Joe and Barna should be able to attest, is not
as rich a country as it was when I came here 18 years ago, and the same
concerns about the willingness of international investors to lend which are
so prominent in Hungary right now are driving the provincial and federal
governments here to slash government spending in all the areas in which
Canadians had previously congratulated themselves for maintaining - medicare
and all the other social programs which Canadians had previously taken for
granted. Now we are left with higher than ever levels of taxes and fewer and
fewer benefits to show for the taxes we're paying. I am a lawyer, and I feel
like I am being exploited! The ones that seem to benefit most from the
system right now are the politicians, with their great salaries, cushy
perks, and pension benefits that can't be beat.)

So long for now,

Jo

Stowewrite ) wrote:
: In article >,  (John
: P. Pagano) writes:

: >And now, after all the insane, ping-ponging attacks and peripheral
: >discussions about the subtexts in "The Usual Suspects" -- sincere thanks
: >yous to Doug and Sam for contributing to both these threads -- I have
: >finally been told by a "real" Turk (the father of a friend) that "Soze"
: >is the Turkish word for "word" in the dative case.
: >
: >Just thought I should round off the discussion.

"Real Turk" was a tongue-in-cheek decription of a friend's father who is
not only ethnically Turkish, but grew up there, spent many adult years
there and natively speaks the language.  It was not meant to offset you
in a derogatory light at all.  I was appreciative of your response, as I
tried to indicate in my "sincere" *thanks*, which is reproduced above.
The reason why I forgot your answer regarding the word "soz" is most
likely because it got buried under reams of the overwritten bombast you seem
fond of ejaculating onto people you paranoiacally perceive to be
challenging you.  An example of the latter is reproduced below.


: Let me help you "round" it off with some direct evidence not adduced from
: an unattributed "real" Turk. (What would constitute a pseudo-Turk, I
: wonder?) Let's start off with:

: "It (The Usual Suspects) involves figures as wildly mysterious as Keyser
: Soze, the fierce, off-camera Hungarian who is referred to as `the devil
: himself' and whose very name seems to give the film makers a noirish
: thrill. Soze is as fabulously improbable as Pete Postlethwaite's
: Kobayashi, whose dark makeup and Pakistani accent just dare the viewer to
: call his bluff." -- Janet Maslin; "Putting Guys Like That in a Room
: Together;" New York Times; August 16, 1995.

: "He's working for Keyser Soze, a Hungarian crime lord whose homicidal
: ferocity has made him a figure of terrifying legend." -- Jack Kroll;
: "Crooks, Creeps and Cons;" Newsweek; August 28, 1995.

: "`Keyser Soze,' rasps the burn victim in the hospital, and the cops around
: him don't understand what he's saying. Slowly, the words begin to make
: sense: other people have heard of Soze -- the Hungarian warlord who
: murdered his own children, who came to America, who murders anyone who
: displeases him, or anyone he pleases." -- Anthony Lake; "The Big Roundup;"
: New Yorker; August 14, 1995.

: How could such major film critics make such a terrible error of fact
: independently of one another? My inclination would be to blame the press
: flacks at Gramercy Pictures. They obviously didn't check with the film's
: director or script writer to ascertain that Keyser Soze is Turkish.
: Confusing a Hungarian for a Turk is on the same order of magnitude as,
: say, confusing an Iowa corn farmer with a Guatemalan campesino. My error
: in this regard was three-fold: 1) Actually going to see the movie; 2)
: Paying close attention to it while I was in the theater; 3) Not seeking
: out a "real" Turk afterwards to enlighten me about Soze's nationality.

: And to think that I actually dared responding to your second post with a
: reply that pointed out: 1) That I couldn't find "Soze" among the several
: Hungarian-English dictionaries I own and 2) That I did find "soz" in
: several of the Turkish-English dictionaries I own. Apparently it took a
: "real" Turk to drill Point #2 into your skull several weeks after I handed
: it to you. Do you depend on this man for stock market tips, clothing
: suggestions, etc.?

: As for Ibokor's observation, there wasn't enough reprinted in your post
: for me to determine whether or not he has actually seen "The Usual
: Suspects" in the cut shown in theaters in the United States. If he did, he
: would have seen the critical scene where FBI agents and local police rush
: to the burn center at the hospital in San Pedro and, through an
: interpreter speaking an obscure dialect of Turkish that would be 100%
: intelligible to your average Janos on the street in Budapest without any
: prior study, learn about Keyser Soze from the sole survivor of the ship
: fire. A glaring continuity error haunts this particular scene -- in the
: scene directly before it, one of the FBI agents tells another FBI agent to
: get an interpreter who speaks Hungarian and go to the hospital and talk to
: this survivor. He obviously meant for the agent to procure the services of
: a Turkish translator. The film-makers obviously could have benefitted from
: the services of a "real" Turk consultant. Oh, and one other continuity
: error from the burn unit scene -- the toasty schmuck in the bed pronounces
: "Soze" as "Sher-zey." (One of the transliteration systems from Hungarian
: I've seen used here wo

LOOKING FOR EVA FARKAS, LAST CONTACT IN LOS ANGELES CALIF CIRC 1985.
SEND EMAIL TO 

THANKS


--