Andra1s Kornai writes:

> [1989] Greg Grose writes:
> > > However, there was no Western European process,
> > > attitude, or event, that played a significant role...
> > German, Italian, British cooperation (basing missiles, etc.) with
> > Reagan's arms build-up?

> While the containment process was significant in terms of making the
> standard "solution" to internal problems, namely external agression,
> prohibitively costly for the SU, it did not, by itself, contribute to the
> internal decay of the system.

Are you maintaining that the enormous resources
diverted to arms in the SU didn't have an affect on the system's
resiliancy or longevity?

Was there a correlation between the West's military posture and the
SU's spending?

Perhaps a few sentences on what you mean by "internal decay" would
answer these and other quibbles.  :-)

--Greg

Joe Pannon writes:

[Hatfield & McCoy deleted]
> It's wrong, but don't tell me that these revenge takers were no
> better than the original attackers!

Speaking to motive, sure, you've got a point.  Speaking to results,
and considering innocent victims, who can say?

> Even in Greg's, whose tale was familiar but I failed to
> see its relevance.

Mostly that however much we, after the fact, put together rationales
for lawlessness and butchery, the wolves involved usually aren't,
IMHO, all that concerned about legalisms and pure motives; but rather
with blood lust.

Comparing favorably the butchers on one side, whose arms are only
bloodied to the elbows, with those on the other, whose arms are
stained to the shoulders, is somewhat less than pleasing, and if I may
point out, a little depreciating of those who may actually have tried
to prevent some of that bloodletting.


--Greg

Again, Robeson *was* exploited by the Communists, but after all he
was blacklisted and excoriated by US authorities and was used as a
politically naive artist by the Stalinists.
        On Joe Hill, you have to realize that he was a naive radical romantic
like most Wobblies.  As an anarchist, however, he was as far from a state-
centered autocratic ideology such as Marxism-Leninism as could be imagined.
Why do you think Marx transferred the HQ of his movement to NYC?  To protect
it from a competing anarchist leader, Mikhail Bakunin. Sir Isaiah Berlin
suggests that Marx differed from Bakunin as prose from poetry!  It is no
accident that anarchism has taken root in southern Europe, whereas
Marxism took root in meticulous precise Germany, a country in which the
worst conceivable sin is no order, keine Ordnung ueberhaupt!  After all
"anarchism" means "no
government" in Greek and therefore they were as opposed to Stalinist totali-
tarianism as *capitalists* were!  In Spain the anarchist CNT strongly opposed
the pro-Stalinists during the civil war.
        Your analysis needs to take into account, therefore, the real history
of European radical movements whereas it appears to me to be concerned only
with the Cold War US experience, an important experience but by no means the
only or even the most important one.


--
Glen D. Camp
Professor of Political Science
Bryant College
401-232-6246
>

On Wed, 19 Oct 1994, Joe Pannon wrote:

> Jeliko writes about Joe Hill:
>
> > He probably was not a Russian spy, there are no places named for him
> > in the ex communist paradises, I do not recall major demonstartions to
> > spare him, thus the lack of the nomenclatura's interest in him indicates
> > that Joe Hill was probably acting on his own whatever he was doing.
>
> Well, whatever he was, the commies sure must have taken advantage of
> him.  That occured to me when somebody here mentioned (Glen?) that Paul
> Robeson was singing his songs.
>
> Well, Paul Robeson was sure well promoted in the Communist paradise
> during my formative years!  I'm sure it wasn't just due to his booming
> voice.
>
> Joe
>

Greg is sticking to his gun:

> Comparing favorably the butchers on one side, whose arms are only
> bloodied to the elbows, with those on the other, whose arms are
> stained to the shoulders, is somewhat less than pleasing, and if I may
> point out, a little depreciating of those who may actually have tried
> to prevent some of that bloodletting.

That was not the point, Greg!  The point was that there would not have
been a White Terror without the Red Terror.  On the other hand THERE WAS
a Red Terror without a White Terror.  Capisce?

Joe

Joe Pannon's fanciful rants are most enjoyable when they are completely
devoid of factual material.  That's when Joe's imagination takes off,
and the audience is wowed by Joe's verbal brilliance.  Trouble starts
when Joe occasionally goes off the deep end (medication wearing off,
perhaps?) and starts mixing "facts" with his usual stuff.  One day
it is Bibo the anti-Semite, then it is Jaszi the Bolshevik -- or is it
the other way around?  Today it is the turn of Oscar Jaszi to be
smeared:

> BTW, while at it, to my recollection Oscar Jaszi was also a member
> of the Bela Kun government and he later ended up in the US.

Not even close.  Jaszi was Minister of Nationalities in the Karolyi
government in the Fall of 1918.  He has not taken part in the Commune
of 1919 at all, and in fact he emigrated at the very beginning of May
1919, a few weeks after Bela Kun took power.  He has also been one of
earliest, harshest and most consistent critics of the Bolshevik
movement, decades before Koestler and Orwell.  His articles are easy
to find.  The key articles by Jaszi on the topic are: "On the Moral
Crisis of Bolshevism" (1922); "On the Psychology of the Young Bolshevik
Mindset" [Adalek az ifju bolsevizalo lelek pszichologiajahoz] (1930)
"Marxism or Liberal Socialism" (1919).

Good read.  Highly recommended.  Can be safely skipped by those
(like Joe) who already "know" about Jaszi's Bolshevik leanings.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

Well, at least we know that Fencsik, the Bombastic is still around and
still infatuated with me!

> One day
>it is Bibo the anti-Semite, then it is Jaszi the Bolshevik -- or is it
>the other way around?  Today it is the turn of Oscar Jaszi to be
>smeared:

The trouble is that I've written nothing about Bibo being an
anti-semite; only that something he wrote COULD BE TAKEN today as
antisemitic.  There is a difference!  Then, of course I wrote nothing
about Jaszi being a Bolshevik, either.  Only the following:

>> BTW, while at it, to my recollection Oscar Jaszi was also a member
>> of the Bela Kun government and he later ended up in the US.

Actually, my recollection was that there were some members of the Kun
government who were not Bolsheviks, and Jaszi was one of them, in the
post of Minister of Culture (Kultuszminiszter), or something like that.
But I readily admit that my recollection was not quite accurate and
Jaszi was in the Karolyi government preceding Kun's.  For somebody who
is not in academia this wasn't so far off the ball, I would think.

>  His articles are easy
>to find.  The key articles by Jaszi on the topic are: "On the Moral
>Crisis of Bolshevism" (1922); "On the Psychology of the Young Bolshevik
>Mindset" [Adalek az ifju bolsevizalo lelek pszichologiajahoz] (1930)
>"Marxism or Liberal Socialism" (1919).

After that bragging, you might even let me find out, Gabor, the source
of the Jaszi quote where he allegedly wrote the following stuff that I
have hard time to believe.  I can only give it in Hungarian, but perhaps
you could translate it into English, if you wish.  I read this alleged
quote in a Hungarian paper discussing the 1919 Hungarian Soviet regime:

  "... a mertektelen antiszemitizmusban maga a zsidosag, sot az egesz magyar
  liberalizmus is bunos ...  A zsidosagot nem volt szabad sem biralni, sem
  figyelmeztetni.  Aki pl. megallapitotta a magyar zsidosag szambeli
  tultengeset a szellemi elet vezeto pozicioiban, amely eppen nem felelt meg
  sem orszagos atlagszamanak, sem szellemi erkolcsi fajsulyanak; aki meg-
  jegyezte, hogy a zsidosag tulzott ervenyesulese gyakran nem magasabb
  intelligenciat, csak tekintetnelkulibb konyokot es vastagabb arcbort jelent;
  aki analizalni merte azokat a karos tulajdonsagokat, melyeket az evszazados
  getto fejlesztett ki a zsidosagban;  aki kritizalni mereszelte a budapesti
  metropolisz zsido intellektuel szellemi eletenek szamos izlestelenseget es
  ripok amoralizmusat stb, stb;  az ilyen ember rogton kozveszelyes, durva
  muveletlen antiszemitakent lett beallitva, akit az egesz sajto lehurrogott,
  sot lehetetlenne tett".

Does this sound like something Jaszi could have written?

Thanks,
Joe

Adam,
you wrote:

> So, if you ever get a chance to, walk around in different
>areas of Budapest wearing a well visible Star of David on your necklace.
>Compare the reactions you get with the reactions you get if you do the same
>thing wearing a 3-inch-long cross! I guarantee, that you will notice the
>difference! I call that anti-semitism. Since I've been in Jewish circles quite
>a bit, I also know that a lot of people look down at Jews as inferior
>creatures. That's anti-semitism.

   Is that all?  I'm afraid there is not much there I can grab onto.  It sounds
all too subjective.  I suppose one might also get some stares in Israel
for wearing a 3-inch-long cross in his neck.  On the other hand it might be
the bad breath that caused it.  But you might think it was the Star of David
or the Cross.  So how do you know?

    Your other allegation isn't better either.  It's too subjective and too
intangible again.  I think there are at least as many Jews who think they
are superior as gentiles who consider the Jews inferior.  No, that's hardly
evidence of anti-semitism.  On the other hand, if you could show me that
Jews are somehow discriminated against in good jobs, for instance, then
you would have something more tangible.  But that's the part of my prior
post you ignored.

                                                         Matt

Glen wrote:
>         P.S. I am not against nuclear power at all, I just want it to be
>  safe.  One Chrnobyl and one Three Mile Island is enough for me!

Safe nuclear power?  Is that not an oxymoron, like Military intellegence?

Sorry, I am not trying to start another nuclear power debate, just had to make
a comment!....marc

I forget who it was, but a member of the former parliament (do not know if he
was re-elected) not too long ago called George Soros" a filthy jew, sticking
his nose in other peoples business " after Soros announced he was moved his
Central European University to Budapest.  Imagine someone saying that to a guy
like Soros who has pumped hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars
into Hungary and the rest of Eastern Europe?
Sorry I can not be more precise on the details, but anti-semitism is still
alive and well in Hungary (as it is in most of Eastern Europe, and Russia).
 ...marc

Greg writes responding to Kornai:

> However, there was no Western European process,
> > attitude, or event, that played a significant role...

> German, Italian, British cooperation (basing missiles, etc.) with
> Reagan's arms build-up?

The Reagan sponsored military build-up certainly contributed to the
collapse of the Soviet block, by trying to match the military build-up
without a sound economic infrastructure and lacking the benefits from the
fall out from such military technology build-up; the Soviets exhausted
their economy to a point that it could not support even the basic demands
of the population. However, it was not the build-up itself that threatened
them but their own internal response to it.

Regards,Jeliko.

Eva Balogh writes:

> But my second
> question has not been answered: was it a revolution from above? As it is
well
I would disagree that it was a "revolution from above" it was more likely
action to prevent revolution from below and save as much as possible of
the nomenclatura.

Regards,Jeliko.

Paul writes:
> Anyone hear from Wolverine lately?  I wanted to know if another potluck
> was planned for DC this year.  Does anyone know about it?

You may try <soc.culture.magyar> for Wolverine.

Regards,Jeliko.

I wrote:

. So, if you ever get a chance to, walk around in different
>areas of Budapest wearing a well visible Star of David on your necklace.
>Compare the reactions you get with the reactions you get if you do the same
>thing wearing a 3-inch-long cross! I guarantee, that you will notice the
>difference.

Paul answered:

>To understand how up to date this is, can I ask how recently you lived in
>Budapest?  I ask because I assume you do not live there now since your e-mail
>address is a U.S. address: 
                                                 ^^^

>Does anyone know if this is still the case now, or is this old information?
>If so, I'm surprised, since I was reading in a Hungarian hhistory book that
>before WWII, and possibley before WWI, when American Jews were trying to
>stir up touble among Hungarian Jews, the Hungarian Jews responded that,
>whatever you do in the case of Hungary, do it to help the whole country,
>but do not cause trouble here (more or less).  I can look up the name of the
>book if anyone cares - I think it is a common one everyone would know about
>or own.  My impression from the few pages I read was that religous tension
>was minor.

>Paul



I lived in Budapest till August 1993, since then I spend 3-4 months a year in
Budapest. I would say my information is pretty much up to date. As far as
American Jews trying to stir some trouble in Hungary, I assume - without much
factual knowledge about the subject - that they were trying to tell Hungarian
Jews that they were not being treated good and maybe they should get the hell
out of there (go to Palestine or the US, I suppose). I would imagine that the
reactions of Hungarian Jews were not very positive, since they were quite
assimilated and loyal to Hungary. As far as I'm concerned, I wish those nasty
American Jews had convinced my great-grandparents - they would have saved them
a couple of months of forced labor, or their lives. The extremely optimistic
belief HUngarian Jews had about their country being willing to defend them from
persecution caused them a lot of trouble later on.

                                                        Adam Galambos
                                                  University of Northern Iowa

Greg quotes and writes:

> ...during the first eight months of 1994,
> ...imports at current prices [were]...
> up 35% on the first eight months of 1993.
> Exports [had]...a 30% increase over the same
> period of last year.  -- Alfred Reisch, RFE/RL Inc.


> Can anyone tell us which categories of goods were responsible
> for the increases?

For the export, it must have been compensation coupons.

Regards,Jeliko.

Gentlemen: the word is "bloc" not "block".  And your question is so
complex and interrelated to one's basic political philosophy that the answer
seems largely unrrelated to the facts of US-USSR relations.  Will we be able
to come to a definitive and fair conclusion?  Pehaps Melvyn P. Leffler &
David S. Painter's new book, ORIGINS OF THE COLD WAR, An International
History (Routledge, 1994) or John Lewis Gaddis' work or Gar Alperovitz'
work will help at least frame the problem so that rational discourse without
ideological "flames" will be possible.

--
Glen D. Camp
Professor of Political Science
Bryant College
401-232-6246
>

On Thu, 20 Oct 1994, H. MARC wrote:

> Jeliko wrote:
>
> > The Reagan sponsored military build-up certainly contributed to the
> > collapse of the Soviet block
>
> Perhaps the Reagan military build-up added another worry to the Soviet govt's
> long list of worries, but with or without Reagan the Soviet Union would have
> collapsed under its own weight.  Instead, the Reagan build-up, appeased the
> military-industrial complex and helped to create the temporary economic boom
> that was the 1980s.  The real motives behind Reagan's build-up had very littl
e
> to do with the Soviet Union.  These motives were mostly internal ones...marc
>

That's very controversial because the Soviet Bloc was the only
fully developed "totalitarian" system ever to collapse.  The Nazi state
was destroyed by external military attack.  So the *real* answer to your
question is "we don't know for sure" and our answer tends to be dictated
by our personal political philosophy until other totalitarian systems
rise and fall without Reagan.  I have some theories having to do with
economic decision-making and the tremendous interrelatedness of modern
industrial societies and the totalitarian need to centralize both opera-
tins and decision-making at the top where things just stagnate.  But
no one really knows in my view.

--
Glen D. Camp
Professor of Political Science
Bryant College
401-232-6246
>

On Thu, 20 Oct 1994  wrote:

> Marc writes:
>
> > Perhaps the Reagan military build-up added another worry to the Soviet
 govt's
> > long list of worries, but with or without Reagan the Soviet Union would hav
e
> > collapsed under its own weight.
>
> Sooner or later, right?
>
> --Greg
>

To: Laborfalvi Benke Tibor

You misunderstood the letter. The question is not between right and left,
but between blood for blood revenge, and just plain hate. I certainly
very strongly disliked the previous communist goverment, but not for a
moment would I think killing any of them. There is more likelyhood,
that if someone would kill my family, I would take revenge. (If the
state would not do it in my place).
 I agree with Bela Batkay's response in #110. You probably read it by now.

Udv
Sandor

As usual George Antony put it well:

>in Hungary much of the opposition was
>'internalized' within the ruling party and in influential positions within
>the government bureacracy and research institutes.

And further down:

>>Andra1s mentioned the
>>opening of the border as one of the components of the political change. But
>>wasn't that a decision coming from above?

>Of course it was, being a government decision well within the MSzMP's
>strategy
>to try to transform itself into a party that can survive and win in a
>parliamentary democracy in order to preserve its position.

Thank you. A wonderful summary. Eva Balogh

Andras Kornai wrote:

>[1919] I'd like to repeat my earlier query about the Be1la Kun government:
>were there members who didn't emigrate to the SU, who were they, and where
>did they go?


I am sorry, I must have missed your first request. This is certainly not a
full list but I can come up with a few names: Vilmos Bo2hm (Austria, later
Sweden); Zsigmond Kunfi (Austria); Gyo2rgy Luka1cs (Vienna until 1929,
Germany; after 1933 the Soviet Union); Sa1ndor Garbai (Austria,
Czechoslovakia, France); Jeno3 Landler (Austria); Be1la Sza1nto1 (first in
Austria and Germany, and only afterward the Soviet Union. He survived the
purges.); Zolta1n Ro1nai (Austria, later Belgium); Pe1ter A1goston (first
deported to the Soviet Union as part of the exchange of prisoners) but left
in 1924 and moved to Paris); Antal Guth (Austria, France); Henrik Kalma1r
(Czechoslovakia); Antal Dovcsa1k (part of the exchange of prisoners, but left
the Soviet Union in 1922 and settled in Austria); Gyula Hevesi (Austria,
Germany--only later moved to the Soviet Union).

Next time I will give a list of those who ended up in the Soviet Union and
died in the purges. Eva Balogh

Greg sent a letter: ( )
Subject: Re: Hungarian national day of mourning


>Tibor Asztalos writes:

>>  There was an official celebration in Budapest.
>>
>>  The list of those who did not take part:
>>                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>  Arpad Goncz the President
>>
>>  Gyula Horn the PM
>>
>>  Zoltan Gal the chairman of the parliament


>Did this break tradition?  Either of the post-89 or post-WWI type?

>--Greg

  Now I have a short answer.
  According to the newspapers of 7.th Oct 1993 the following persons
participated in the celebrations:

  In Arad (Romania) the ambassador and Tamas Katona
  In Elemer (YU)    Janos Martonyi

  IN Budapest:

  Peter Boross
      representing the PM  Jozsef Antall who was ill.
       (Treatment in Germany)

  Gyorgy Szabad the chairman of the parliament

  Lajos Fur the minister of defence


  In the name of the state president a colonel
     Goncz was in Budapest and attended a conference (financial)

  In the name of the G. Demszky his deputy.



Tibor