E. Durant:
At 11:41 PM 19/01/97 +0000, you wrote:
>There is no individual freedom for the people who do not own private
>property, and there is no chance of owning private property for the
>majority of the people, however much right they have.
>(I hope you are aware, that by private property I don't mean
>personal property.)

No, I, at least, I am not aware of your innuendo as above.  What "do" you
mean by "private property"?

Regards,
Aniko


>

E. Balogh:  At 04:54 PM 19/01/97 -0500, you wrote:
[snip]

>        I just wanted to say. Gailbraith? Criticism of capitalism? And what
>is new in this. He has been saying the same thing for about sixty-six years.
>
>        Eva Balogh
I
I've not been around for 66 years, so I ought not to feel too stupid for
asking ... but criticism?  I must have lost something in Andy's quote from
the Toronto Star.  I rather thought it to be on the complimentary side of
capitalism, when weighing the options put forth?  Care to enlighten me?

Best Regards,
Aniko

I heard from one of the passengers that the Sunday flight from Budapest to
New York was returned to Budapest after about 90 minutes of flight time.
Apparently there was some bomb scare. The plane arrived to New York about
7.5 hours late.

Gabor D. Farkas

G. Farkas wrote:

>I heard from one of the passengers that the Sunday flight from Budapest to
>New York was returned to Budapest after about 90 minutes of flight time.
>Apparently there was some bomb scare. The plane arrived to New York about
>7.5 hours late.

After 90 minute fligth it would be over Germany or the Netherlands. Why didn't
it simple land at the closest airport ?!?

J.Zs

At 01:46 AM 1/20/97 -0500, Janos Zsargo wrote:

>>I heard from one of the passengers that the Sunday flight from Budapest to
>>New York was returned to Budapest after about 90 minutes of flight time.
>>Apparently there was some bomb scare. The plane arrived to New York about
>>7.5 hours late.
>
>After 90 minute fligth it would be over Germany or the Netherlands. Why didn't
>it simple land at the closest airport ?!?

I asked the same question, the passenger did not know, neither do I. maybe
it wasn't a bomb, just the pilot forgot his handkerchief at the airport:-).

Gabor D. Farkas

At 19:25 18/01/97 -0500, you wrote:
>At 10:54 AM 1/18/97 -0400, Johanne L. Tournier wrote:
>
><snip>
>>You may be right, but, if true, doesn't it seem just a teeny-weeny bit
>>hypocritical that he waits till he has made his billion out of that bad old
>>capitalist system, and then denounce it?
>
>Hypocritical, perhaps.  However when was the last time you, or government,
>or anyone for that matter, listen to, and believe, someone who's poor?

But what does that have to do with the question of what impels Soros to make
such a blanket criticism of a system which he would seem to have the
greatest stake in defending?
>
>>I suspect, however, that since
>>Soros appears to be an intelligent man, there may be more to his comments
>>than we've got. It is safe to assume that these comments are taken out of
>>context.
>
>And what if they're not?

Well, from what Eva D. quoted, it appears that he was speaking with
particular reference to the gangsterism which is prevalent in Russia. Well,
I don't happen to think that lawlessness is implicit in a system of
laissez-faire capitalism. One can allow free enterprise and still have an
effective police force.

 How eager are you to change your mind?

About what? Do you mean my otherwise high opinion of Soros or my faith in
free enterprise?
>
><snip>
>>What I would criticize in the West is not the capitalist system per se (as
>>you know, I am a dyed-in-the-wool believer in capitalism - you know, me and
>>my good buddies Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater) but the fact that there seems
>>to be a failure of leadership in both the West and the East.
>
>Leadership is neither here nor there.  It offers nothing in and of itself,
>per se.  Many, all too many, people have been "led" into incredible
>disasters by "leaders".

You're referring to demagogues, aren't you? Real leadership is not a matter
of running helter-skelter off a cliff to disaster and having a million or so
equally blind followers behind you. It is a matter of having one's beliefs
grounded in principles and then being willing to take some potentially
*unpopular* decisions because circumstances necessitate them and then being
willing to stick with them, instead of Bill *Blowing with the Wind* Clinton,
who changes his views with the daily polls.

  If I had to wager my money, I'd put it into
>education and not "leadership".  An educated, smart, intelligent people
>don't need leaders.  They don't need to be followers.

Agreed, to a point. We still have elected representatives. A better educated
populace will hopefully elect more intelligent and able leaders than a
poorly educated populace would.
>
>You've expressed your love for Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater before.  With
>such heros did you manage to get dates when you were younger?

Joe, I had to wait till I came to Canada to find guys who didn't feel
threatened around me! ;-))

 (I should make it clear that although I do admire Ayn Rand, I wouldn't want
to live in a society which was actually run in accordance with her ideals.
However, I will give her credit for being a daring and original thinker and
a great writer).
>
>Joe Szalai

Viszlat,

Johanne/Janka
Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

Hi, Denise!

At 00:17 18/01/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Did he ever rule Transylvania or part of it?

Ah, finally! Something in my field! ;-)

No, Vlad the Impaler ruled in Wallachia, site of the present-day capital of
Romania, Bucuresti, which he is credited with founding. The ruler in
Transylvania, I believe, during roughly the same time period as Vlad ruled
in Wallachia, was Janos Hunyadi. Vlad did have fairly close connections with
Transylvania, however, including the fact that he was born there.
>
>Thank you.

I hope this helps.

Yours,

Johanne/Janka

Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

Janka:
>
> Well, from what Eva D. quoted, it appears that he was speaking with
> particular reference to the gangsterism which is prevalent in Russia. Well,
> I don't happen to think that lawlessness is implicit in a system of
> laissez-faire capitalism. One can allow free enterprise and still have an
> effective police force.
>

I only quoted a tiny proportion of the article. Western
laissez-faire attempts are attacked mainly, as a threat to
"open society". Sorry if I did not make this clear.

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

Priority:
   URGENT

Background:
    The start of the Danube lawsuit  at the International Court in
The Hague has been delayed to March 1997. This lawsuit will
adjudicate on the dispute between Hungary and Slovakia concerning the
rerouting of the Danube onto Slovak territory.
    It is essential that we gain publicity to the lawsuit and the
support of world public opinion.

What to do:
  Please help to convince vice president Al Gore to make a statement
in favour for the Danube. Feel free to use the attached form letters. Al
Gore will only take notice if he receives thousands of letters.
  Therfore please send at least one letter every day and make a chain
letter of this call for action. Send the it to at least 5 of your
friends. PLEASE ACT!!

e-mail address of Al Gore:


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

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letter #1 (written by B. Liptak):
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The Honorable Al Gore
Vice President of the United States
(e-mail: )

RE: Please Help Save the Blue Danube

Dear Mr. Vice President,

  Mankind is approaching an important precedent: The first international
environmental lawsuit is coming up in a few weeks at the International
Court of Justice in The Hague.

  The Court will decide on a case involving the Danube and the
destruction of its ancient wetland region, the Szigetkoz. (Szigetkoz
means "Thousand Islands," but today there is not a single island left,
as the water is gone.) Still, the implications of this case go beyond
the future of just one river or just one wetland ecosystem. This
lawsuit will set a precedent for the whole planet and will decide on a
much more basic question, which is: "Do national governments have the
right to do as they please with the ecosystem of this planet, or does
mankind have the right to protect the natural treasures of the
planet?"

  In 1995, nine international environmental NGOs have submitted a
"Memorial" to the Court, which its president, the Honorable Mohammed
Bedjaoui has accepted. Also submitted to the ICJ was a Compromise
Plan, which would guarantee the restoration of this ancient wetland
region tougether with fulfilling the water supply, energy and
shipping needs of the region. For details of this plan and for other
aspects of the lawsuit, please visit the web-site at:
http://www.goodpoint.com/duna.htm

  Dear Mr. Vice President. It is important that the first international
environmental lawsuit be given the attention it deserves. A statement
by you, can guarantee that attention. Please make that statement.

Respectfully yours,

Your name, title, address


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letter #2 (written by A. Vadasz):
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The Honorable Al Gore
Vice President of the United States
(e-mail: )

RE: Please Help Save the Blue Danube

Dear Mr. Vice President,

  The first international environmental lawsuit is before the
International Court of Justice in The Hague.

  The Court will decide on a case involving the Danube and the
destruction of its valuable wetlands along th Hungarian-Slovak border.
Due to diversion of the river, a large area honeycombed with natural
canals is on its way to extinction as a haven to valuable fauna.The
watertable has plummeted and vegetation is on its way to irreparable
harm. Since Nature tends to be "international", it seems that
ecological preservation efforts should reflect this. This lawsuit will
set a precedent in answering the question,"do individual governments
have the right to harm another country's environment ?"

  International environmental organizations have submitted a "memorial"
to the Court, accepted by its President.

  I would like to ask you to lend your voice to the importance of this
case and to suggest that the affected jurisdictions respect the
judgment of the Court.

Respectfully yours,

Your name, title, address

<<I hope this helps.>> It does. Thanks.

Best wishes,
Denise

Dear Colleagues,

Forty-five Hungarian public figures have issued an appeal condemning
government
efforts to reach an out-of-court settlement in the Gabcikovo dam
dispute, which will soon go before the International Court of Justice in
The Hague. They included film director Miklos Jancso and historian Gyorgy
Litvan. The appeal calls on the cabinet to reveal details of the secret
talks it has been holding with Slovakia. The appeal follows Prime
Minister Gyula Horn's 17 January denial of any secret agreement and the
opposition Young Democrats' demand that the secret negotiations stop.
Opponents of an out-of-court settlement fear that a consensus between the
construction  lobbies of Bratislava and Budapest will only produce an
environmentally damaging solution for the Szigetkoz.

If you want to add your voice to the 45, fax your endorsement to the retired
director of the Historical Instutute of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, Gyorgy
Litvan at:

011-361-322-3084

Best regards: Bela Liptak

 on Jan 18 19:36:46 EST 1997 in HUNGARY #888:

>>>Istvan Tisza,
>>>the prime minister of Hungary, knew what the stakes were if that war was
>>>lost. The very likely disintegration of the country.
>>
>>Is there any documentation to support this or is this just your opinion?
>
>        Yes, there is. Tisza held out for two weeks, but at the end he gave
>in under pressure. It is a well known and often repeated fact. And by the
>way, you didn't have to be a genius to figure that one out. Hungarians
>consisted barely 50 percent of the population. And while we are at Tisza. He
>was also the one who in parliament in the last days of the war openly
>admitted that "we had lost the war." He was an extremely bright man.
>
>        Eva Balogh

I meant *real* proof.  To say that Tisza was an "extremely bright man" is not
enough.  Besides, how bright did one have to be to openly admit defeat in the
last days of the war?

Ferenc

Dear Friends,

   Somebody has recentky called our  attention (perhaps Barna) to the
fact that the book "Retaliation" has been published in English and it
can be bought from Canada.  The book  was written  by Marton Matuska.
It is a thin  (131 pp) paperback  book about the  Serbian retaliation
after WWII in Vojvodina against the ethnic Hungarians.Since my family
comes from there  and most of them  still live there,  I am very much
interested in the topic.  One of my relatives was also summarily exe-
executed in 1945.  The topic is still hush-hush  in Yugoslavia and, I
assume,  the author's goal was to inform the public abroad.  The book
was translated by Eva Turucz and the translation was revized by Julia
Chasar. The biggest shock was that the book was published by Puski in
Hungary. And Puski should know better.
   One of the problem with the book is its atrocious English.  Let me
give you a few quotes:

      "Irma Eszes was our form-mistress from the start. She has
       formed a very intimate relationship with us." (p.15)

      "... he was lying at home and healing his wounds ..." (p.16)

      "... I consider necessary to remark that ..." (p.21)

      "How do you guarantee for them?" (p.37)

      "... were executed by the revengers after savage tortures."
      (p.44)

      "It had maybe no such house where from that day on they
       would not have mourned someone." (p.55)

I could pick several  of these  gems from  every page.  What is form-
mistress? I still can't figure it out.
   But it is even  a bigger problem  that a good  number of the cases
are hearsay. It is the kind of presentation that he/she "has heard it
said'. Not the best way to establish credibility with people who need
to be convinced about an "injustice" against ethnic Hungarians.
   Did anybody else read the book?  I would be interested to know how
others reacted to the book.
                              Amos

 on Jan 18 15:16:59 EST 1997 in HUNGARY #888:

>Wasn't there a guy named Ban Jelacic who organized the South Serbs in 1848
>and unceremoniously chased the Hungarian rebels out of the crownlands south
>of the Danube?

No Sam, there wasn't.  Sorry to disappoint.  Perhaps you ought to ask for
your tuition back.  Or do some research on the subject before joining (let
alone initiating) a discussion on a subject you know so little about.

Ferenc

P.S. Jelacic was Croatian and he led an army, at Austria's instigation,
against the young Hungarian independent state.  He was badly beaten by a
hastily organized Hungarian army at Pakozd in the summer of 1848.  Had won
there, that would probably have been the end of the independence movement for
a time.

Dear Colleagues,

Forty-five Hungarian public figures have issued an appeal condemning
government
efforts to reach an out-of-court settlement in the Gabcikovo dam
dispute, which will soon go before the International Court of Justice in
The Hague. They included film director Miklos Jancso and historian Gyorgy
Litvan. The appeal calls on the cabinet to reveal details of the secret
talks it has been holding with Slovakia. The appeal follows Prime
Minister Gyula Horn's 17 January denial of any secret agreement and the
opposition Young Democrats' demand that the secret negotiations stop.
Opponents of an out-of-court settlement fear that a consensus between the
construction  lobbies of Bratislava and Budapest will only produce an
environmentally damaging solution for the Szigetkoz.

If you want to add your voice to the 45, fax your endorsement to the retired
director of the Historical Instutute of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, Gyorgy
Litvan at:

011-361-322-3084

Best regards: Bela Liptak

Dear Friends;

There is an other book about the  Titoist retaliation, besides the one
Amos (Danube)is complaining about:

Cseres, Tibor: Titoist Atrocities in Vojvodina, 1944. ISBN 92-76218

About 1600 copies were distributed, free of charge, to university
libraries, profs, grad students, etc. in 1995.  You  could possibly find a
copy  in your local university library (in the US).

Mr. Cseres was the naiv idealist, who wrot a book about the Ujvidek
massacre, (Hideg napok)  in the wain hope, that there will be an honest
Serb writer, who will make the same gesture about the Titoist's 10-to 1
retaliation. Little did he know about the Serbs...


As far as the  "hearsay evidence" is concerned, it is no problem at all. To
clear up the  mystery, all the Yugoslav government has to do is, allow a
group of international experts and  the International Red Cross open up the
massgraves, to establish the absolute truth. They  would not even talk
about it.
So far even the Yugoslav Academy refused to discus the case.

By the way; if grammar is the key to  credibility in a case like this, we
are in real trouble...

Szabolcs Magyarody

At 03:28 PM 1/20/97 -0500, Ferenc Novak wrote, quoting me:

>>        Yes, there is. Tisza held out for two weeks, but at the end he gave
>>in under pressure. It is a well known and often repeated fact.

>I meant *real* proof.  To say that Tisza was an "extremely bright man" is not
>enough.

        It is such a well known fact that I didn't think it was necessary to
quote sources. But if you feel like looking at the published documents,
please, go ahead:

        O:sterreich-Ungarns Aussenpolitik von der bosnischen Krise 1908 bis
zum Kriegsausbruch 1914, vol. 8, pp. 344ff.

        He was especially worried about Romania, on paper an ally, but Tisza
didn't trust Bucharest. He feared a Romanian attack given the size and
antagonistism of the Romanian minority. Moreover, he was in the middle of
negotiatons with the Romanian minority leaders and therefore feared that an
attack on Serbia would find Hungary unprepared as far as the nationality
question was concerned.

        Eva Balogh

> Status:  O
>
> E. Durant:
> At 11:41 PM 19/01/97 +0000, you wrote:
> >There is no individual freedom for the people who do not own private
> >property, and there is no chance of owning private property for the
> >majority of the people, however much right they have.
> >(I hope you are aware, that by private property I don't mean
> >personal property.)
>
> No, I, at least, I am not aware of your innuendo as above.  What "do" you
> mean by "private property"?
>
> Regards,
> Aniko
>
>
>

I mean private property that is the type that can employ - and
thereby use other people. Your house and swimming pool is no such,
but your factory or your shares are.  You could  have personal
property even in the ex-soc countries. You are free to own
private property in capitalism, but only a minority is able to live
with this freedom. If you have a freedom that is meaningless for the
majority, than it is a worthless one. Just like the so called
"freedom of choice", that usually works only for those who can afford
it, again, a minority.

At 8:25 PM -0500 1/14/97, Ferenc Novak wrote:

>Gladly.  I appreciate the fact that 19th century Hungarian history is not
>your field of specialization.  But I am still puzzled how someone, who claims
>to have been educated in Hungary, can be so uninformed about the 1948-49 war
>of independence.
>
>First of all, as every elementary school student in Hungary knows, it was NOT
>a civil war.

Transylvania was part of Hungary in 1848/49; civil war raged there.
Romanians burnt Hungarian villages, Hungarians executed more than 7,000
Romanians (citizens of the the Kingdom of Hungary). Serbs, Croats and
Slovaks, also citizens of Hungary, took up arms against Kossuth's
government. There were many Hungarian officers in the Austrian armies of
Windisch-Gratz and Haynau. 1848/49 was a revolution, war of independence
and civil war combined.

Peter I. Hidas (Montreal)
historian

>
> My name's Ted Fisher, an American in Kaposvar (didn't Gershwin write
> that?). But I'm not with IFOR, I'm with the MBA Enterprise Corps, a US
> volunteer organization for MBAs that somehow missed the class where they
> teach you it's not a good idea to work for free. I'm new to the list,
> having signed up over the holidays when the server didn't work.
>

Welcome to the list, I hope you are having a good time in Kaposvar,
I used to live about 25 miles from there in the 80s, on the way to
Tab/Siofok.

You are a real idealist - in the positive sense, demonstrated by your
volunteering (probably teaching Hungarians how to build
capitalism...) you believe, that liberal capitalism sometimes in the
future would function much more satisfactorily, than it is now.
However, the only argument you had to prove your point, that it is
functioning at the moment to your satisfaction.

You failed to mention that many very "successful" capitalist states are
dictatorships, and that even in the "democratic" countries there
is a tendency for the poor to get poorer - and the rich to get
richer, to list just a few of the too numerous shortcomings.
 I emphasise - the tendency doesn't show any movement to
Soros's "open society", and Soros was brave enough to point this out
- for the sake of  a more interventionist/redistributative (liberal?) policy fo
r
the survival of capitalism.

Sorry, that I will have no time to answer in detail to your long
contribution, I'll try next weekend, and -(relax list!) - I will do it
privately.

Eva D




> The whole Soros - capitalism debate really got to me, and I feel
> compelled to jump in. Eva D., please don't take this as a personal lunge
> at your argument -- you simply summed up in a very poignant
> couple of sentences a lot of the undercurrent of the debate. As a
> confirmed non-billionaire, I'd like to come out in defence of capitalism.
>
> Eva Durant's very important statement was:
>
> > People are looking forward to
> > have a positive idea for the future. Capitalism cannot provide it.
>
> The context was in people looking outside the money culture and finding
> their meaning in lots of things, some of them wacko cults (my word, not
> Eva's), new age-ry, fundamentalist movements, etc.
>
> Capitalism does not work in a vacuum, despite the contrary efforts of
> such countries as China and Vietnam, who will soon enough discover the
> genie will not go back in the bottle. (Although that "soon" might be a
> generation or more...) Capitalism only makes sense within the framework
> of "liberalism", in the proper old-fashioned sense of the word. A respect
> for the individual, the rights of the individual, and some form of
> democratic rule are necessary co-requisites for capitalism to work
> properly, and the nature of capitalism is to constantly seek to work
> properly.
>
> The desire to make money automatically leads to the pursuit of customers,
> which means the customers must be offered what they want. If they are not
> given what they want -- if their demand is not respected -- no money is
> made, and the capitalist system can be said not to be working properly.
> With a working capitalist system, people learn they don't have to "take
> what they get" anymore. This lesson moves rapidly into other areas of
> life, especially the political. Once this basic instinct takes hold, no
> authoritarian regime will last once people realize they have power, and
> an important part of that power is their power on the marketplace.
>
> The above is of course VASTLY oversimplified, so no nit-picking around
> the admittedly rough edges, please. You don't want me to write a book, do
> you? So don't attack unless you're willing to go straight to the jugular
> of the above, and I think very few people today would be. I also think
> that's a really good thing that we can all be happy about. We are free to
> knock the system, and we have the liberal-capitalist-democratic "iron
> triangle," if I may so call it, to thank for that right. So, far from
> being morally empty, there is some very deep moral content in capitalism
> that we often forget because we have the INCREDIBLE LUXURY (!) to take it
> for granted. This is, or at least can and should be if done properly, an
> uplifting and inspiring ideology. It is human nature to look at the bad
> side, but the good side of the capitalist system and the political system
> it must create in the long run to support itself are very impressive
> indeed.
>
> Within the capitalist tent, there is a lot of room for differences in
> implementation, such as in taxation and social spending. But as long as
> the demand of individuals (and free associations of individuals, such as
> companies) is what drives the decisions for resource allocation, the
> resulting system will probably be relatively free and democratic, and
> will offer the most people the best chance to become all they care to
> aspire to. The values of the liberal-capitalist-democratic system are
> goals to strive for, rather than perfect states of being. The system will
> never be perfect, and to expect it to be is silly. But capitalism and the
> ways of thinking that go with it have not only done well, they have done
> good. There's some morally powerful stuff in there.
>
> End of homily! Amen <G>.
>
> Thanks, and take care
>
> Ted Fisher
> Kaposvar
>

At 01:59 AM 12/12/96 GMT, Sam Stowe, in "Re: To everybody", wrote:

<snip>
>Negatory, my good north o' the border buddy. The fundamental difference
>between you and I is our stance on the nature and necessity of certainty
>of belief. I am skeptical, as you well know, when it comes to any grand
>scheme that will uplift the human race, erase all its collective ills and
>make all of us better for it in the long run. I am impartial in this
>regard, making it clear that I hold the right wing version of utopia as
>suspect as the left wing. And it's for the same reason -- they exalt
>theory at the expense of experience. And experience clearly demonstrates
>that tangible gains in the human condition are hard-won, unevenly
>distributed and caused by complex interactions of human psychology,
>historical events, sociological context and, to some extent, sheer luck.
>
>You, on the other hand, seem to have put your money on a particular
>ideology and aren't willing to slow down long enough to consider the
>practical implications of that ideology. Your recent paean to the Serb
>"student democrats" is a case in point. You assumed they were young,
>intellectual and committed to same vision of democratic pluralism you have
>developed since your own youth. You made your claim of solidarity based on
>aesthetic considerations -- the pictures of these kids on your nightly
>news obviously reminded you of your own radical heyday in the late 60s.
>But the ugly truth is that they're young and radical in a way that makes
>both of our skins crawl. The complex nature of humanity is bound to
>frustrate anyone's idealism and a frustrated idealist is a man who, if he
>has the power, is eventually bound to take the dangerous shortcut of
>implementing his schema for a brave, new world at gunpoint. Human beings
>are not perfectable. Any sociopolitical system which starts with the
>premise that they are and can attain that perfection if the environment
>they live in is perfected is a system which is already taking a huge step
>down the road to oppression and murder.
>
>I'm not in favor of political quietism. But improving the human lot in
>life requires patience, wisdom and cautious experimentation to determine
>whether those attempts at improvement are helping or hurting. It also
>requires the boldness to admit it when social experimentation isn't
>working. And it means backing off and letting people do what they can to
>help themselves and respecting their freedom to live their own lives
>unmolested by someone else's good intentions.
>
>This is a discussion which needs to take place at large in Hungarian
>society and it goes back to a theme I've sound here before. Given the
>great degree of pessimism and frustration with the political and economic
>situation in Hungary right now, the country is fertile territory for
>charlatans pushing all kinds of questionable nostroms.

Paralysis by analysis.

Joe Szalai

P.S.  Sorry for the late response but I always find it difficult to
criticize nice, but empty, words and phrases.

At 11:38 PM 1/20/97 +0000, Eva Durant wrote:

>I mean private property that is the type that can employ - and
>thereby use other people.

Those of us, who were forced to study the so called "political economy"
(politikai gazdasagtan), those still remember the Marxist theory of "means
of production" (termeloeszkozok). I assume that is what you mean?

>You are free to own
>private property in capitalism, but only a minority is able to live
>with this freedom. If you have a freedom that is meaningless for the
>majority, than it is a worthless one.

I disagree with this statement. Owning private property is not a freedom, it
is a right. Rights are not abolished because the majority does not take
advantage of them. Just imagine on Martin Luther King-day that someone would
suggest that the rights of the black minority should be abolished because
they are meaningless to the white majority.

Gabor D. Farkas

Remove

Welcome to the list, Ted.

At 08:09 PM 1/20/97 -0800, Theodore Fisher wrote:

<snip>
>The above is of course VASTLY oversimplified, so no nit-picking around
>the admittedly rough edges, please. You don't want me to write a book, do
>you? So don't attack unless you're willing to go straight to the jugular
>of the above, and I think very few people today would be. I also think
>that's a really good thing that we can all be happy about. We are free to
>knock the system, and we have the liberal-capitalist-democratic "iron
>triangle," if I may so call it, to thank for that right. So, far from
>being morally empty, there is some very deep moral content in capitalism
>that we often forget because we have the INCREDIBLE LUXURY (!) to take it
>for granted. This is, or at least can and should be if done properly, an
>uplifting and inspiring ideology. It is human nature to look at the bad
>side, but the good side of the capitalist system and the political system
>it must create in the long run to support itself are very impressive
>indeed.

"Our prosperity is doubtless very great.  Invention, machinery,
labor-economizing devices, keep developing so vigorously that, despite those
who believe the machines will soon overwhelm and enslave us, both our output
and our leisure time keep increasing.  The worker, the artisan, as well as
the housewife in the kitchen, have more leisure today than was dreamed of a
generation ago."

        McCalls Magazine, November 1929, 18.  "What's Right with America?"

By the time the magazine hit the news stands, businessmen were throwing
themselves out of windows and the great depression had started.  So much for
the grasp of reality that the promoters of capitalism and free enterprise
have.  Enough said.

Joe Szalai

>
>Transylvania was part of Hungary in 1848/49; civil war raged there.
>Romanians burnt Hungarian villages, Hungarians executed more than 7,000
>Romanians (citizens of the the Kingdom of Hungary). Serbs, Croats and
>Slovaks, also citizens of Hungary, took up arms against Kossuth's
>government. There were many Hungarian officers in the Austrian armies of
>Windisch-Gratz and Haynau. 1848/49 was a revolution, war of independence
>and civil war combined.
>
>Peter I. Hidas (Montreal)
>historian


Thanks for telling us, that so many  Romanians have been executed by the
Hungarians. Now, for the sake of balancing the scale, and to alleviate our
feelings of guilt, would you mind  telling  us, how many Hungarians were
executed by the Rumanians (the citizens of the  Kingdom of Hungary)? The
names of communities like Kisenyed, Zalatna, the villages of Also-Feher
county, to mention a few,  must be known to you.
By the way: Where did you find the 7000 figure? In the works of Pascu or
Lanctranjan?  An even number should alwais carry a caveat; "approximately
or estimated".

S.J. Magyarody

>G. Farkas wrote:
>
>>I heard from one of the passengers that the Sunday flight from Budapest to
>>New York was returned to Budapest after about 90 minutes of flight time.
>>Apparently there was some bomb scare. The plane arrived to New York about
>>7.5 hours late.
>
>After 90 minute fligth it would be over Germany or the Netherlands. Why didn't
>it simple land at the closest airport ?!?
>
>J.Zs
>
Such bomb scares are almost every day: schools, jurys, railway stations,
etc. In this case somebody told the information on Ferihegy, that there is a
bomb on a plane heading to New York. Transcontinental flights have a serious
secirity check before take-off, practically everybody knew there is no bomb.
But the captain decided to go back. Why not landid at the closest airport?
As you wrote, the plane was over Germany or the Netherlands: the most
crowded area over Europe. Maybe it would take longer to get permission to
descend and approach an airport there (controllers have to sweep out all
flights in the area) than return to Budapest. And probably there was an
other cause: to land on a foreing airport costs a lot of money (in Szeged
there is just a grass airfield, landing here costs about 100 USD for a
Cessna, in Ferihegy for a Hungarian Cessna it is about 200 USD). If checking
of the plane takes for example a whole day, MALEV has to take passangers to
a hotel. And MALEV has to get there his own security people. And all of this
trouble for a bomb scare, which is 99.99% just a bad joke.

And a new info: aboard the plane was a man, whose night club was attacked by
a Stinger-like rocket in the first minutes of 1997 in Budapest.

Lajos Monoki

******************************
*       Lajos Monoki         *
*  NCR Hungary - CSS Szeged  *
* e-mail: *
*  Tel/Fax: +36-62-434101    *
*    Mobil: +36-30-584523    *
******************************
        Homepage:
http://www.tiszanet.hu/~lmonoki

Thanks to automatic teller machines, we no longer have to tell children
money doesn't grow on trees. They now think it comes out of a wall.

Hi all,

My name's Ted Fisher, an American in Kaposvar (didn't Gershwin write
that?). But I'm not with IFOR, I'm with the MBA Enterprise Corps, a US
volunteer organization for MBAs that somehow missed the class where they
teach you it's not a good idea to work for free. I'm new to the list,
having signed up over the holidays when the server didn't work.

The whole Soros - capitalism debate really got to me, and I feel
compelled to jump in. Eva D., please don't take this as a personal lunge
at your argument -- you simply summed up in a very poignant
couple of sentences a lot of the undercurrent of the debate. As a
confirmed non-billionaire, I'd like to come out in defence of capitalism.

Eva Durant's very important statement was:

> People are looking forward to
> have a positive idea for the future. Capitalism cannot provide it.

The context was in people looking outside the money culture and finding
their meaning in lots of things, some of them wacko cults (my word, not
Eva's), new age-ry, fundamentalist movements, etc.

Capitalism does not work in a vacuum, despite the contrary efforts of
such countries as China and Vietnam, who will soon enough discover the
genie will not go back in the bottle. (Although that "soon" might be a
generation or more...) Capitalism only makes sense within the framework
of "liberalism", in the proper old-fashioned sense of the word. A respect
for the individual, the rights of the individual, and some form of
democratic rule are necessary co-requisites for capitalism to work
properly, and the nature of capitalism is to constantly seek to work
properly.

The desire to make money automatically leads to the pursuit of customers,
which means the customers must be offered what they want. If they are not
given what they want -- if their demand is not respected -- no money is
made, and the capitalist system can be said not to be working properly.
With a working capitalist system, people learn they don't have to "take
what they get" anymore. This lesson moves rapidly into other areas of
life, especially the political. Once this basic instinct takes hold, no
authoritarian regime will last once people realize they have power, and
an important part of that power is their power on the marketplace.

The above is of course VASTLY oversimplified, so no nit-picking around
the admittedly rough edges, please. You don't want me to write a book, do
you? So don't attack unless you're willing to go straight to the jugular
of the above, and I think very few people today would be. I also think
that's a really good thing that we can all be happy about. We are free to
knock the system, and we have the liberal-capitalist-democratic "iron
triangle," if I may so call it, to thank for that right. So, far from
being morally empty, there is some very deep moral content in capitalism
that we often forget because we have the INCREDIBLE LUXURY (!) to take it
for granted. This is, or at least can and should be if done properly, an
uplifting and inspiring ideology. It is human nature to look at the bad
side, but the good side of the capitalist system and the political system
it must create in the long run to support itself are very impressive
indeed.

Within the capitalist tent, there is a lot of room for differences in
implementation, such as in taxation and social spending. But as long as
the demand of individuals (and free associations of individuals, such as
companies) is what drives the decisions for resource allocation, the
resulting system will probably be relatively free and democratic, and
will offer the most people the best chance to become all they care to
aspire to. The values of the liberal-capitalist-democratic system are
goals to strive for, rather than perfect states of being. The system will
never be perfect, and to expect it to be is silly. But capitalism and the
ways of thinking that go with it have not only done well, they have done
good. There's some morally powerful stuff in there.

End of homily! Amen <G>.

Thanks, and take care

Ted Fisher
Kaposvar