J.Tournier wrote:

>system which has yet been devised. Fascism and Nazism in fact had much in
>common with Communism. All of those systems depended on authoritarian or
>totalitarian government mechanisms. Capitalism, on the other hand,
>functions best in a more laissez-faire democracy. I have not worked this

What is the definition of fascism and nazism, after all? I have not really
seen any reasonable, compact definition, yet. The only one I know is the
'fasizmus az imperialismus legszelsosegesebb formaja' by Dimitrov ('The
fascism is the most cruel form of imperialism' in free translation).
There are several features to describe a 'fascist/nazi' system, like
dictatorship, antisemitism, racism. But the only two features seem to be common
 for all  (Germany, Italy, Japan in the mid-XX) are the capitalist economical
system and the dictatorship (maybe,Japan was not even a full-fledged
dictatorship, I don't know).

J.Zs

Joe Szalai comments on G. Lovink's discussion of Soros and his works:

> The scepter that is haunting Europe, America, and Asia is a known force.
> It is called corporatism.  And it is an insidious force.  [...]
> Corporatism was tried in Italy and it was called fascism.  [...]

And so forth.  You could avoid howlers like this if you would look
up words in a dictionary when you are unsure of their meaning.  The
word "corporatism", as used by Mussolini and his followers, has nothing
to do with the concept of the modern corporation.  It was used to refer
to a form of political representation based on membership in social
groups such as unions, chambers of commerce, the clergy, etc., in contrast
to the principle of territorial representation we are all familiar with.
What Mussolini was aiming for was a return to the medieval principle of
corporations running city states, as opposed to legislatures elected
along territorial lines.  So the word in Mussolini's usage is related to
the medieval concepts of guilds and corporations, not the modern legal
entity coincidentally called a corporation.  Back to the drawing board
on that one.

Whether you use "corporatism" to refer to the former or the latter,
or use it in a completely idiosyncratic way to mean whatever you want it
to mean, you will still have a hard time pinning the corporatist label
on Soros.  He is something else altogether: a radical subversive
with money.  He gets a kick out of outsmarting the stuffed shirts of
the Bank of England, and spend his winnings on the kind of one-man
Marshall program he thinks the British should be running in Eastern
Europe if they had the brains and imagination to do so.

No, Soros is not a "corporatist", whatever that might mean.  He does
not work for corporations, does not run them, and is in fact completely
uninterested in controlling any of the assets underlying the financial
instruments he trades.  If you read his Atlantic article carefully, and
get past some of the unfocused rambling about his "open society", you
will see he is equally intent on subverting free-market capitalism
in the West, and subverting authoritarian dictatorships in the East.
Anyone who is intensely hated by folks like Lukashenko, Milosevic,
Meciar, Csurka, Lovas, Forbes, and the Washington Times, is bound
to have something going for him.

The part of the Lovink article that made the most sense was the one
about accountability.  Greenpeace, Planned Parenthood, Common Cause,
the National Rifle Association, and any of the other NGOs active in
the public sphere are each accountable in some sense, if only to their
membership.  If they deviate from what their membership wants, they
will have trouble raising money, and soon go bankrupt.  As a businessman,
Soros is accountable to his investors who can pull their money out of
his funds at any time.  But as the head of his foundation Soros is
not accountable to anyone, even though in some spheres of national
life his organization's role is larger than that of the elected
government.  There is something disquieting about that, even for those
who agree with most of his goals and methods.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

Dear friends,

I am still collecting signatures for the attached declaration.

PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU WISH TO SIGN THE DECLARATION
AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!!

You may do that by sending a message/reply to this document with
Your name, and address (city,state,country) to Peter Orban:



The names and addresses will be totalized under a letter-document and
forwarded to the Diaspora Romana by Friday,June 6,1997.

HELP THE HUNGARIAN MINORITY IN ERDELY BY SUPPORTING
THE ROMANIAN NATO INTEGRATION!

Best wishes
Peter Orban

*************************************************************
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
send reply to:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To:                                         June 6th,1997
     Diaspora Romana,
     806 E.Carson Street#118-109
     Carson,CA 90745
     Phone:(310)549-0547
     Fax:  (310)549-6231

   Members of the Hungarian Lobby are deeply interested in the
future of East-Central Europe, and recognize the need for simultaneous
integration of the countries of the region into NATO. This would
stabilize the whole region and assure the orderly transition toward
democracy and market economy, without the turmoil seen in the former
Yugoslavia.

Romania, a country of 23 milion people, with affinity toward western
culture, at the same time represents the best potential base of
stability in the Balkans.

Romania's ongoing political democratization and reorganization of all
central and local governmental institutions, the inclusion of the
large Hungarian minority in the government, and the expected
subsequent satisfaction of legitimate minority claims are -- and may
become -- positive examples for the countries of the region.

A look at the map of Europe shows Romania to be the gateway to the
East. Only through this gateway will it be possible to access the
heart of Europe, and the key that will allow this gateway to stay open
-- and to defend it effectively at the same time -- is NATO membership
for Romania.

With an important economic potential due to a large and fertile
agricultural area, her metallurgical and defense industries ready to
produce for her allies, possessing the biggest maritime port in
Eastern Europe, with a multiethnic population and large urban
comunities, Romania is just as much an important future partner and
ally of the European Community and of NATO as are Poland, the Czech
Republic, and Hungary.

For all the above considerations, members of the Hungarian Lobby,who
during the last six months learned, along the the members of Diaspora
Romana, to cooperate in promoting the cause of democratic
transformation oin Eastern-Central Europe,support  the inclusion of
Romania, along with Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland, among the
first group of countries to be integrated into NATO.

   Members of the Hungarian Lobby :
   List with name, title, address

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

Priority:
 normal

Background:
  In spite of several requests of the Csangos (the Hungarian minority
in Moldova, Romania) the Roman Catholic Curch is still not offering
them the Holy Masses in their native tongue. The responsible bishop
Gherghel does
  Since neither the e-mail address nor the fax # of the Pope is
available we should send our protest to Radio Vatican, l'Osservatore
Romano (a Vatican weekly) and the Vatican Information Service. It is
important to act NOW, as the Pope will probably visit Romania around
June 15.

What to do:
  Please write a letter to the editors of Radio Vatican,
l'Osservatore Romano and the Vatican Information service and protest
against the current situation. Feel free to use the attached form
letters. Please do even inform the local media about the problems of
the Csangos.
  PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO SEND A LETTER EVERY DAY!!

E-mail of Radio Vatican:


E-mail of l'Osservatore Romano:


Fax # of Vatican Information Service:
+39-6-69883053

**************************************************************

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letter to Radio Vatican:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


The Vatican Radio
00120 Cittŕ del Vaticano
(e-mail: )

RE: Please help the most neglected Catholics of the World: the Csangos


Dear Editor:

I would like to turn your attention to the cultural survival of the
Csangos, the only Catholics east of the Carpathians, living in the
Northeastern part of Romania.

The Csangos are of Hungarian descent. They settled their villages in
today's Moldova, in the 13th century, when they were invited there by
the local ruler, the Kuman king Barsz.

These simple farmers are the most devout Catholics. They have kept
their faith, their ancient language (based on an archaic form of
Hungarian), and maintained their folk customs,  dresses and music.

For many years, the Csango congregations of Cleja, Pustina and Lazped
have been asking, that the Holy Mass be offered in their archaic
native language. Up to now their bishop, Petru Gherghel has refused
this request. This denial is contrary to the teachings of the Roman
Catholic Church besides being is a denial of their most basic human
rights. Furthermore it promotes the deculturization of  a unique
people.

You could do a great service by calling on the Church and on the
Catholic community to assist the cultural survival of the Csangos by
permitting the use of their native thongue.

Respectfully yours,

<Your name, address, title.>


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letter to l'Osservatore Romano:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


l'Osservatore Romano
00120 Cittŕ del Vaticano
(e-mail )

RE: Please help the most neglected Catholics of the World: the Csangos


Dear Editor:

I would like to turn your attention to the cultural survival of the
Csangos, the only Catholics east of the Carpathians, living in the
Northeastern part of Romania.

The Csangos are of Hungarian descent. They settled their villages in
today's Moldova, in the 13th century, when they were invited there by
the local ruler, the Kuman king Barsz.

These simple farmers are the most devout Catholics. They have kept
their faith, their ancient language (based on an archaic form of
Hungarian), and maintained their folk customs,  dresses and music.

For many years, the Csango congregations of Cleja, Pustina and Lazped
have been asking, that the Holy Mass be offered in their archaic
native language. Up to now their bishop, Petru Gherghel has refused
this request. This denial is contrary to the teachings of the Roman
Catholic Church besides being is a denial of their most basic human
rights. Furthermore it promotes the deculturization of  a unique
people.

You could do a great service by calling on the Church and on the
Catholic community to assist the cultural survival of the Csangos by
permitting the use of their native thongue.

Respectfully yours,

<Your name, address, title.>


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letter to Vatican Information Service:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Vatican Information Service
00120 Vatican City
Fax : +39-6-69883053

RE: Please help the most neglected Catholics of the World: the Csangos


Dear Editor:

I would like to turn your attention to the cultural survival of the
Csangos, the only Catholics east of the Carpathians, living in the
Northeastern part of Romania.

The Csangos are of Hungarian descent. They settled their villages in
today's Moldova, in the 13th century, when they were invited there by
the local ruler, the Kuman king Barsz.

These simple farmers are the most devout Catholics. They have kept
their faith, their ancient language (based on an archaic form of
Hungarian), and maintained their folk customs,  dresses and music.

For many years, the Csango congregations of Cleja, Pustina and Lazped
have been asking, that the Holy Mass be offered in their archaic
native language. Up to now their bishop, Petru Gherghel has refused
this request. This denial is contrary to the teachings of the Roman
Catholic Church besides being is a denial of their most basic human
rights. Furthermore it promotes the deculturization of  a unique
people.

You could do a great service by calling on the Church and on the
Catholic community to assist the cultural survival of the Csangos by
permitting the use of their native thongue.

Respectfully yours,

<Your name, address, title.>

Dear Colleagues,

It seems that the return of the Bolyai University  to the Hungarian minority
is not at all certain. It also seems that we should do our part in trying to
influence the outcome. Therefore, I think it is time for a specific Bolyai
action directed at both the Romanian and the RMDSZ leadership, specifically
on this issue.

If at all possible, we should make this a joint action with our friends in
the Romanian Lobby (RL). I do think that  joint action would be more
effective and I also think that the members of RL realize, that the
foundation of a long lasting friendship must be justice and the willingness
of rising above self-interest. Therefore I am copying them and others in
Romania.

Please read the attached (if you can read Hungarian) and please make your
suggestions on the HL-list on how to approach this action.

Best regards: Bela Liptak

PS: President Constantinescu can be reached on the following E-Mail
addresses: ,


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
From:    (Sándor István)
To:     
CC:     , , ,
 (Hamos Laszlo),  (Hamos
Laszlo), 

Esélyleső társaság 

Sütő András a Magyarság — 2000 néven Budapesten megrendezett
világtalálkozó egyik tévés reflexiójában többször is aggodalmainak adva
hangot esélyleső társaságnak nevezte a romániai magyarságot. A frappáns
minősítésre külön is érdemes odafigyelnünk, mert osztoznunk kell
véleményében, miszerint az RMDSZ kormánykoalíciós partnerségéből
fakadó lehetőségeket nem használjuk ki, többnyire szóbéli garanciákat
kapunk arra nézvést, hogy kisebbségi ügyeink milyen remekül
rendeződnek, de amikor ezek a politikai, jogi és társadalmi
„gyakorlótérre" kerülnének, abban sem lehetünk bizonyosak, hogy ezt
még partnereink is valóban akarják-e? 

Erre örökzöld, illetve haragos zöld példánk a Babeş—Bolyai Egyetem
visszaállítási esélyeinek elsorvasztása. Amint tudjuk, Ciorbea államfő
határozott és nem partneri kérdésre mondott budapesti egyetemi
visszaállítási „igen"-je előbb egyenjogú státusú tagozattá testvériesült
(nagy-nagy magyar segédlettel, de ezt most ne részletezzük), majd az
egyetemi autonómia kebelére szállt pihegve, ami tulajdonképpen azt
jelenti, hogy a nyolcvanszázalékos román többségű szenátus torkát metszi
a magyar egyetemi autonómia ügyének. Hacsak kemény nyugati rekcum
nem emlékezteti a kormányzatot adott szavára. A Bolyai Egyetem
visszaállításának nemzetiségi fátyolfelhővé légiesülése most tetőzik: a
módosított tanügyi törvény lehetővé teszi új, önálló egyetem indítását. 
Ez
egykori vagyonát, jogi státusát örökre elveszítve majd légvárban
működik, s az új egyetem létesítésének román törvényi rigolyái a jövő
évezredre vagy azon túlra tolják a létrehozását. Közben egyre inkább
felerősödnek kormányzati szinten is azok a hangok, hogy a törvény úgy
jó, ahogy van. És primitív, alávaló nacionalista vircsaft tombol egyetem,
magyar iskolák, a székely megyékből „száműzendő" földrajz és
történelem szakos román tanárok sorsa, az állam nemzeti egységének
nyelvi megbontása miatt. Hiába nyilatkozza hivatalosan maga a román
tanügyminiszter, hogy ebből egy szó sem igaz. A katedrák egy része
szabad, java részükön magyar anyanyelvű vagy a magyar nyelvet ismerő
pedagógusok tanítanak, egyetlen román pedagógusnak sem kell a
térségből távoznia. Ezek a tények viszont nem fogják le a háromszéki és
csíki memorandisták petíciózó kezét, magukkal és a világgal akarják
elhitetni, hogy veszélyes magyarsugárzású politikai ózonlyuk tágul
szegény fejük s az ősi föld fölött. 

Ez az elindázó kitérő Sütő aggályainak csupán egyik pillére a
megszámlálhatatlanul sok közül. A magyar világtalálkozó summázása
kapcsán is lehetnek aggályaink. Tabajdi Csaba, a minisztérium politikai
államtitkára a diplomata taktikai érzékével áramvonalasítja az
anyaország, a határokon kívüli magyar nemzetrészek és a szórványban
élők sorskérdéseit. Gondunk csak azzal van, hogy az „autonómia" és a
„kisebbség" fogalmak (és szavak) használata helyett hiába építünk rá a
kárpát-medencei kisebbségi magyarság sorsára egy walesi karosszériát,
ahol ezek a szavak nem használatosak, de „minden joguk" megvan, a
gyakorlat és nem a szavak a fontosak. Igen. Csak éppen ez a hiánycikk.
A gyakorlat, amely esetleges, ingatag, húzd meg, ereszd meg jellegű.
Alkotmányos, jogi garanciák szükségeltetnek tehát, amelyeket az európai
integráció is feltételez. Sütő, akiről ne is higgyük, hogy hetvenéves,
bűbájos, de komolyan évődő játékossággal „az utolsó (televíziós) szó
jogán" poénként mondta el, hogy az autonómiáról álmunkban
megfeledkezhetünk ugyan, de az autonómia követelmény, s ezt mindenki,
mindenhol hangoztassa. 

Sylvester Lajos

At 09:43 AM 6/1/97 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:

>The scepter that is haunting Europe, America, and Asia is a known force.
>It is called corporatism.

        That was quite a boo-boo. ESB

At 07:13 PM 6/2/97 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:
>A couple of weeks ago the Labour party was elected in Great Britain and
>yesterday the Socialists were elected in France.  Hungary is moving toward
>the political right and integration with Europe, while Western Europe
>appears to be moving to the political left.

        I don't know how good a Hungarian spin I can give you, but off the
bat, I wouldn't equate the British results with the French. Tony Blair's
Labour Party is not terribly socialist. It bears a suspicious resemblance to
Clinton's policies. Just in today's paper I saw that Blair is initiating a
"welfare reform" much more radical than in this country. The French
socialists are, on the other hand, believers in state enterprise. When it
comes to the European Union, the new English government is pro-Europe while
the new French government might not be so. In any case, their attitude
toward the reduction of the budget deficit is somewhat worrisome. ESB

There is a field report in todays' Magyar Hirlap: in a conference Romanian
President Constantinescu is quoted as saying that, while Romania is on a
market-oriented track, it has not yet reached a threshold qualifying it for
NATO membership.  How will this reverberate ?      Andy.
A.J. Vadasz
5743 Pignut Mtn. Dr.
Warrenton VA 20187
USA T:540 349 1408

At 10:35 PM 6/2/97 -0700, Gabor Fencsik wrote:

>Joe Szalai comments on G. Lovink's discussion of Soros and his works:
>
>> The scepter that is haunting Europe, America, and Asia is a known force.
>> It is called corporatism.  And it is an insidious force.  [...]
>> Corporatism was tried in Italy and it was called fascism.  [...]
>
>And so forth.  You could avoid howlers like this if you would look
>up words in a dictionary when you are unsure of their meaning.  The
>word "corporatism", as used by Mussolini and his followers, has nothing
>to do with the concept of the modern corporation.

I tend to use the word "corporatism" the same way that John Ralston Saul
uses it.  In "The Unconscious Civilization", Saul writes:

"First, corporatists from the 1870s on began laying in the idea that
liberalism was guilty of a great sin because it had "...granted political
and economic equality to individuals who were ... manifestly unequal."
(Peter Williamson, "Corporatism in Perspective")  In other words, the
corporatists were reviving the medieval hierarchical order.

"Late in the century, the German, Max Weber, and the Frenchman, Emile
Durkheim, gave corporatism a sophisticated intellectual shape.  There were
arguments over whether such a system should be state centred or economics
centred or society centred.  But the only important point is that it was
group centred and interest centred.  The value of disinterest -- that is,
the disinterested act or the public good -- was denied and ignored.  The
very idea of the public good was therefore vaporized.

"In 1891, a papal encyclical -- Retrum Novarum -- came out against class
struggle and proposed a modern version of the medieval Scholastic dream of
the perfect social order.  This appeared to be a rejection of Marxist
conflict in favour of social harmony.  In reality, it was a rejection of
humanism, democracy and responsible individualism in favour of
administrative power-sharing by interest groups.

"After the First World War, men like Mihail Manoilesco and Alfredo Rocco
took these ideas further and prepared the anti-parliamentarian atmosphere
which led to a series of coup d'etats and dictatorships in the 1920s and
30s.  With the arrival of Mussolini and a bevy of other dictators,
corporatism found itself at the centre of modern power for the first time.

"The underlying messages of Mussolini's system were efficiency,
professionalism, management by experts, social order through ongoing group
negotiations or what the neo-corporatists now call interest mediation.  And
all of this was to take place in a society balanced by heroic leadership
and market forces.

"Contemporary corporatism has a more professional approach, and yet it is
focused in an eerily familiar manner on training, meritocracy and
organizational structures, which are inevitably pyramidal.  In other words,
the intent is exactly the same.  This message is put out in a rhetorical,
ideological manner through corporatism's mouthpieces -- the disciples of
market forces, the courtiers of neo-conservatism and , of particular
importance, the authoritative voice of many social science academics.

"Second, the denigration of such democratic, individualistic concepts as
equality and justice has required from the very beginnings of corporatism a
new set of social headings to put up over every doorway.  This new approach
was best evoked by Marechal Petain, the leader of collaborationist,
corporatist France during World War Two.  His slogan replaced 'Liberte,
Egalite, Fraternite' with 'Patrie, Famille, Travail': Nation (or rather,
Fatherland), Family, Work.  Other fascist, corporatist governments produced
similar slogans.

"Now, if you take a look at Newt Gingrich's list of "seven essential
personal strengths for Americans", you will discover that 'work' is at the
top of the list.  'Family' takes up four self-righteous variations on that
theme in the middle.  And at the bottom is an even more self-righteous
version of 'nation'.  Six out of seven comes pretty close.  For that
matter, three of his 'Five Principles of American Civilization' deal with
business, technology and organization -- all characteristics of work.
There is no mention of liberty or equality or, for that matter, of
democracy.  And that is because Gingrich is a fairly typical example of a
corporatist who is disguised -- at least in part unconsciously -- behind
the rethoric of crude -- that is to say false -- individualism and false
modernism."

>It was used to refer
>to a form of political representation based on membership in social
>groups such as unions, chambers of commerce, the clergy, etc., in contrast
>to the principle of territorial representation we are all familiar with.
>What Mussolini was aiming for was a return to the medieval principle of
>corporations running city states, as opposed to legislatures elected
>along territorial lines.  So the word in Mussolini's usage is related to
>the medieval concepts of guilds and corporations, not the modern legal
>entity coincidentally called a corporation.  Back to the drawing board
>on that one.

You can go back to the drawing board any time you wish.  I never stated
that corporations equals corporatism.  Corporations are just one of the
many groups competing for power in a corporatist society.

>Whether you use "corporatism" to refer to the former or the latter,
>or use it in a completely idiosyncratic way to mean whatever you want it
>to mean, you will still have a hard time pinning the corporatist label
>on Soros.

His organization is just one of many *groups* competing for power in a
corporatist society.

>He is something else altogether: a radical subversive
>with money.

He's different from me in that I don't have the money.

>He gets a kick out of outsmarting the stuffed shirts of
>the Bank of England, and spend his winnings on the kind of one-man
>Marshall program he thinks the British should be running in Eastern
>Europe if they had the brains and imagination to do so.

Do you assume they have the money?  Is it time for another Marshall Plan?

<snip>
>The part of the Lovink article that made the most sense was the one
>about accountability.  Greenpeace, Planned Parenthood, Common Cause,
>the National Rifle Association, and any of the other NGOs active in
>the public sphere are each accountable in some sense, if only to their
>membership.

Yes!  And that's the problem with groups.  They're not accountable to the
common good or to individuals, as such.

>If they deviate from what their membership wants, they
>will have trouble raising money, and soon go bankrupt.

And are soon replaced by another group.

>As a businessman,
>Soros is accountable to his investors who can pull their money out of
>his funds at any time.  But as the head of his foundation Soros is
>not accountable to anyone, even though in some spheres of national
>life his organization's role is larger than that of the elected
>government.  There is something disquieting about that, even for those
>who agree with most of his goals and methods.

Yes.  The disquiet comes from the fact that governments are elected
democratically.  Soros is not.

Joe Szalai

At 06:23 PM 6/3/97 -0400, Eva Balogh wrote:

>At 09:43 AM 6/1/97 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:
>
>>The scepter that is haunting Europe, America, and Asia is a known force.
>>It is called corporatism.
>
>        That was quite a boo-boo. ESB

Why?  Does it remind you of something?

Joe Szalai

At 06:47 AM 6/3/97 -0400, Johanne Tournier wrote:

<snip>
>I have not worked this
>theory out in detail - but I am toying with the idea that the huge,
>inflated multi-national dinosaurs are fostered at least partly by
>government regulatory policies which are inimical to true free enterprise.
>That is, the governmental establishment prefers and fosters large, easily
>regulated businesses (which are run by large political contributors?)
>rather than the chaos of multiple small enterprises.

You've almost got it, Johanne.  Just switch your players around and we
might agree.  It's not the government that regulates large multi-nationals.
 It's the large multi-nationals that regulate governments.

>BTW, some election in Canada, eh, Joe? (Joe's happy - the NDP led by his
>*man*, Alexa McDonough, ended up with 21 seats across the country - more
>seats than the federal conservative party - and the NDP, for the first time
>*ever* - won 6 out of 11 seats in Atlantic Canada. Amazing!)

Happy?  I was ecstatic!

But don't worry.  You won't have to learn the words to, "The East is Red".

Joe Szalai

At 09:43 AM 6/1/97 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:
<snip Gabor's quote and first part of Joe's msg>
>Corporatism was tried in Italy and it was called fascism.  Fascism offered
>Italians the same 'benefits' that many people seem to want today -
>security, increased productivity, and managerialism.  Perhaps Scott Adams
>in "The Dilbert future : thriving on stupidity in the twenty-first century"
>(1997), is right after all.
>
>When I was in Hungary in the mid-eighties, I saw graffiti that said
>"Communism = Nazism".  I wonder how long it will be before I see graffiti
>that says "Capitalism = Fascism"?
>
>Joe Szalai

Since Gabor commented on the first part of Joe's message, I will limit my
comment to the last part.

Joe and I are probably equally opposed to *corporatism.* Me, because I am
opposed to anything in which individuals' identities and needs are
submerged in mass organizations. Joe, because he sees corporatism as a
right-wing threat, to which he is opposed in an instinctive fashion.

However, Joe, you're wrong when you equate capitalism and fascism.
Capitalism is not a system of government; it is simply a system for
production and distribution of goods and services - the most efficient
system which has yet been devised. Fascism and Nazism in fact had much in
common with Communism. All of those systems depended on authoritarian or
totalitarian government mechanisms. Capitalism, on the other hand,
functions best in a more laissez-faire democracy. I have not worked this
theory out in detail - but I am toying with the idea that the huge,
inflated multi-national dinosaurs are fostered at least partly by
government regulatory policies which are inimical to true free enterprise.
That is, the governmental establishment prefers and fosters large, easily
regulated businesses (which are run by large political contributors?)
rather than the chaos of multiple small enterprises.

BTW, some election in Canada, eh, Joe? (Joe's happy - the NDP led by his
*man*, Alexa McDonough, ended up with 21 seats across the country - more
seats than the federal conservative party - and the NDP, for the first time
*ever* - won 6 out of 11 seats in Atlantic Canada. Amazing!)

Tisztelettel,

Johanne/Janka

Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

Kedves E'va!

At 12:22 PM 6/3/97 +0100,  Eva Durant wrote:

>You say, capitalism is just an economical setup.
>In your reasoning, I cannot find the link that would
>make it impossible to work for a fascist system,
>and frequently it did. Private capital was intact and
>supported fascist regims - including Hitler's and Mussolini's.

I think that was primarily because those regimes were, at the time, seen as
the only effective counter to the Communist threat, under which private
capital was not allowed. But, those regimes were essentially socialist,
don't forget. Mussolini was a leading figure in the Socialist Party in
Italy prior to Italy's entry into WWI. He was kicked out of the Party
precisely because he came to support Italy's entry into the War, which was
opposed by the Socialists. He was a man of the working class, however, and
his ideas represented a Socialist heresy. The Fascists and Nazis did not
really foster free market capitalism. That idea has never found strong
roots in Europe, with its tradition of government interventionism. That is
a system, along with the idea of limited, representative government, which
was fostered primarily in America in the 18th. and 19th. centuries. The
idea of creeping government control is not the result of a rational belief,
but it is irresistibly attractive to politicians who have their fingers on
the public purse. That doesn't mean that such a system is better for us all
in the long run. It has to be coupled with voluntary restraint on spending
and realization that the people are actually sovereign - something that has
become obsolete in today's era of political expediency.
>
>Your ideal of independent small capitalist
>enterprises is more utopistic, than anything I
>could come up with. Integration is a way of life for
>well-developed capitalism,

Whatever that means, it sounds like you are a proponent of "well-developed
capitalism."

 the early "free-market" model is
>not viable after a given amount of development,

Why not? I am saying that we delude ourselves that governmental
administration of most of the systems which affect our welfare (let's say,
education) is actually going to result in a better system. It appears to me
that what you end up with in the US with national standards is the lowest
common denominator, not the fostering of what is best in all of us. And
that, I think, is the great failure of socialism.

  that's why
>it was done away with; remember this is a random structure,

And I am saying that it is not random; that I think perhaps the
inordinately large insitutions - which do not serve the interests of
individuals - is at least partly the result of artificially large
government structures, which encourage the maintenance of the status quo. I
am also saying that a certain amount of chaos is inevitable, and if we try
to postpone the inevitable, the eventual suffering will be much greater
than if we accept some suffering to be a part of our lives. (Does this
relate to the throes that Hungary is in right now, as it tries to come to
terms with economic reality?)

>nothing to do with "evilness" and conspiracies.

What about the system in Hong Kong? I understand that is the most
capitalist of economies.
>
>The urbanised and universally fairly
>sophisticated, an aspiring to stay/become such millions
>can be supported only with a democratically globally
>controlled, integrated, structured and first time consciouly
>planned economy.

Sounds like you want Deep Blue to be IN CONTROL. I think such a system
would be incredibly stifling to individuals and would self-destruct in no
time, if it ever did happen to come about.

 Such a basis would support individual humans
>to be free to develop their potential much more than any
>capitalist mode ever did.
>If you have collective power over
>an organisation, an interactive  on-line check of it's operation
>and it's aims and results, it's environmental effects
>and usefulness, it is a totally different entity, than today's
>multinational corporations, that tend to produce socially
>useless products, forcefeed these products globally and pack up/
>setup operations without obligation to anyone but the shareholder.

Sounds like gobbledygook to me. :-))
>


TTFN,

Johanne/Janka

Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

The HVG had on the opinions page an article by Reti Pal
saying that the new left
is "postmodern" socialdemocracy, that is, they are
basically the same as what he considers to be the
succesful thatcher-reagan "anglosaxon" trend.
His worry is, that the hungarians would somehow misinterpret
this event and turn left instead following the monetarist
line.
I've written a letter - and I was told it would be printed -
pointing out the reasons of the popular failure of these
"pro-market" and anti-people policies.

The main problem in his (Reti's) reasoning is, that he believes the
propaganda of both the official left and right;
Labour didn't win because they presented themselves
more conservative than the conservatives. They won because
the real ones are economically and morally bancrupt.
There are expectations of the 60s economical/social/cultural
upswing, whatever new labour (haven't) promised.
The french are actually saying things - such as 35 hours
working week without loss of pay. That makes sense in the
high unemployment scenario - but I cannot see it being
implemented in the present capitalist framework.

I am pleased that hungarians will have a chance to see the
bankrupcy of monetarist ideas.




>
> A couple of weeks ago the Labour party was elected in Great Britain and
> yesterday the Socialists were elected in France.  Hungary is moving toward
> the political right and integration with Europe, while Western Europe
> appears to be moving to the political left.
>
> Is there a Hungarian 'spin' on these developments?
>
> Joe Szalai

You say, capitalism is just an economical setup.
In your reasoning, I cannot find the link that would
make it impossible to work for a fascist system,
and frequently it did. Private capital was intact and
supported fascist regims - including Hitler's and Mussolini's.

Your ideal of independent small capitalist
enterprises is more utopistic, than anything I
could come up with. Integration is a way of life for
well-developed capitalism, the early "free-market" model is
not viable after a given amount of development,  that's why
it was done away with; remember this is a random structure,
nothing to do with "evilness" and conspiracies.

The urbanised and universally fairly
sophisticated, an aspiring to stay/become such millions
can be supported only with a democratically globally
controlled, integrated, structured and first time consciouly
planned economy.  Such a basis would support individual humans
to be free to develop their potential much more than any
capitalist mode ever did.
If you have collective power over
an organisation, an interactive  on-line check of it's operation
and it's aims and results, it's environmental effects
and usefulness, it is a totally different entity, than today's
multinational corporations, that tend to produce socially
useless products, forcefeed these products globally and pack up/
setup operations without obligation to anyone but the shareholder.



>
> However, Joe, you're wrong when you equate capitalism and fascism.
> Capitalism is not a system of government; it is simply a system for
> production and distribution of goods and services - the most efficient
> system which has yet been devised. Fascism and Nazism in fact had much in
> common with Communism. All of those systems depended on authoritarian or
> totalitarian government mechanisms. Capitalism, on the other hand,
> functions best in a more laissez-faire democracy. I have not worked this
> theory out in detail - but I am toying with the idea that the huge,
> inflated multi-national dinosaurs are fostered at least partly by
> government regulatory policies which are inimical to true free enterprise.
> That is, the governmental establishment prefers and fosters large, easily
> regulated businesses (which are run by large political contributors?)
> rather than the chaos of multiple small enterprises.
>
> BTW, some election in Canada, eh, Joe? (Joe's happy - the NDP led by his
> *man*, Alexa McDonough, ended up with 21 seats across the country - more
> seats than the federal conservative party - and the NDP, for the first time
> *ever* - won 6 out of 11 seats in Atlantic Canada. Amazing!)
>
> Tisztelettel,
>
> Johanne/Janka
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
> e-mail - 

> Status:
>
> Kedves E'va!
>
> At 12:22 PM 6/3/97 +0100,  Eva Durant wrote:
>
> >You say, capitalism is just an economical setup.
> >In your reasoning, I cannot find the link that would

> I think that was primarily because those regimes were, at the time, seen as
> the only effective counter to the Communist threat, under which private
> capital was not allowed. But, those regimes were essentially
> socialist

yes, the fascist wouldn't have succeeded in getting into power
without the tacit approval of the anti-communist setup - in Germany
and elsewhere - even at the time of the twenties, when the
totalitarian nature of the USSR was not even formed or known - the
constant harassment from the West had oart to play in its formation.

They called themselves socialist - it was part of the demagogy, it had
no basis in facts. They did as much as any post-war govt to prolong
capitalism by taking over transport/energy/communication and
probably steel industry to provide it cheap to private industry.
It has nothing to do the with socialism as defined by Marx,
but is the favorit lumping together done by conservatives.
USSR was a deformed type of socialism, they actually got rid off
private capital. However as it was done in a progressively
undemocratic way in a wartorn, backward and illiterate place, with
nasty foreign environment, it had no chance to succeed.

Yes both nasty and totalitarian - but fascism no way socialist, as
capitalist as any totalitarian regimes of similar economic base, such
as Indonesia or Saudi Arabia - those lovely allies and customers of
those democratic frredom-loving market-economies...


> >Your ideal of independent small capitalist
> >enterprises is more utopistic, than anything I
> >could come up with. Integration is a way of life for
> >well-developed capitalism,
>
> Whatever that means, it sounds like you are a proponent of "well-developed
> capitalism."
>

I am the proponent of a well-developed world for all who want it and
can look after it.

> Why not? I am saying that we delude ourselves that governmental
> administration of most of the systems which affect our welfare (let's say,
> education) is actually going to result in a better system. It appears to me
> that what you end up with in the US with national standards is the lowest
> common denominator, not the fostering of what is best in all of us. And
> that, I think, is the great failure of socialism.
>

As it is done on the cheap.  With a democratic structure of
decisionmaking about methods and curriculum
and decent class sizes, there is no problem with
integrated education. Even the Hungarian one - with not much of
either - was quite well respected internationally.


> >nothing to do with "evilness" and conspiracies.
>
> What about the system in Hong Kong? I understand that is the most
> capitalist of economies.
> >

So? What's the point?

> >The urbanised and universally fairly
> >sophisticated, an aspiring to stay/become such millions
> >can be supported only with a democratically globally
> >controlled, integrated, structured and first time consciouly
> >planned economy.
>
> Sounds like you want Deep Blue to be IN CONTROL. I think such a system
> would be incredibly stifling to individuals and would self-destruct in no
> time, if it ever did happen to come about.
>

Give one reason for your statement. Who controls the Internet?
Or the international rail/post service? The structure is there to be
used and controlled  by the people democratically. You are too bogged down
in your corner to think clearly.


>  Such a basis would support individual humans
> >to be free to develop their potential much more than any
> >capitalist mode ever did.
> >If you have collective power over
> >an organisation, an interactive  on-line check of it's operation
> >and it's aims and results, it's environmental effects
> >and usefulness, it is a totally different entity, than today's
> >multinational corporations, that tend to produce socially
> >useless products, forcefeed these products globally and pack up/
> >setup operations without obligation to anyone but the shareholder.
>
> Sounds like gobbledygook to me. :-))
> >

Well, I tried to make sense of your stuff... I am by nature polite...


> 
>
> TTFN,
>
> Johanne/Janka
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
> e-mail - 
>

In article >, >
writes:

>Subject:       i'm back..................
>From:  >
>Date:  3 Jun 1997 07:33:50 GMT
>
>hello , i'm back... e-mail me let us know how your doing
>
>

It's almost as if you never left.
Sam Stowe

"We judge ourselves by our
best intentions; we are judged
by our last, worst act."
-- Michael Josephson