Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
Copyright (C) HIX
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Re: bit.listserv.hungary group (mind)  3 sor     (cikkei)
2 Warehousing the underclass (mind)  69 sor     (cikkei)
3 Re: bit.listserv.hungary group (mind)  37 sor     (cikkei)
4 Horn and Balogh (mind)  62 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: Warehousing the underclass (mind)  22 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: The German question (mind)  19 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: On media and on Horn (mind)  24 sor     (cikkei)
8 Re: liberalism, what is it? (mind)  27 sor     (cikkei)
9 Wermaht (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
10 Re: The German question (mind)  28 sor     (cikkei)
11 Paper tiger or straw man (mind)  24 sor     (cikkei)
12 Re: Horn and Balogh (mind)  13 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Re: bit.listserv.hungary group (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Please place my "mail" on vacation hold until August 5th.  Thank you.

Richard Parsons
+ - Warehousing the underclass (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Greg Grose writes:
> > No. The socialists don't want to do that, you are mistaking them for the
> > communists.
> Are we drifting into murky semantic waters?  The Republican party may one day
> support the King of Siam, does that mean they're no longer republicans?
> The last time I looked, a standard tenet of socialism was the public ownershi
> of the means of production.  Whether a particular party with the word
> in its name states this as a goal or not is a relatively minor point, don't
> think?  Or maybe I'm wrong, has the definition of socialism changed?
I think not. Communists used to talk about two systems: communism (an ideal
to be achieved, with all the means of production nationalized, in fact with
no property at all, just a big community thing) and socialism, which was an
imperfect realization of this ideal, with some people retaining some
property, even the means of small-scale production. The plan was that this
should be abolished, as the existing system gets closer to the ideal...

So the communists didn't want socialism, they wanted communism. In Hungary
they were called the Hungarian Socialist Workers Party, which around 1989
split in two, a Hungarian Socialt Party (MSZP) and a Workers Party (MP).  MP
contains the people who still have these great plans about communism, MSZP
contains the reform-communists, who renamed themselves socialists and
adopted a socialist platform which tries to be similar to socialist and
social-democratic parties in Western Europe. Nationalization is not on their
agenda, and they have quite explicitely given up on communism. So the murky
semantic waters for me would be to distinguish the socialists from the
social democrats -- the socialists and the communists are quite easy to

It should be added that a great deal of this terminological problem is due
to communist obfuscation. Communist parties liked to call themselves
"socialist" and they called the actual system they imposed "socialism".
Outside the communist world the communist parties (and their system of
government) was called communist, and the term socialist was not
particularly used (except as an abbreviation of social democratic). Now we
have post-communist parties that have given up the central communist tenets
and are eager to return to the social democratic fold. We also have
hard-line post-communist parties that have not given up the central
communist tenets, but in Hungary they don't amount to much.

> > >the fourth generation welfare recepients are maintained in their lifestyle
> > I guess this is at the heart of the matter: if you'd rather have them
> > die of hunger, you should vote that way.
> Rather fatalistic, if you'll pardon the pun.  I think the point was that
> money should go towards promoting productive lives, not warehousing--
> generation after generation--a permanent underclass.
The whole expression "warehousing" is arrogant, inasmuch as we are talking
about people, not objects. If you or Jeliko have suggestions how to promote
productive lives on the same amount of money or less, I'm interested.

> > >[complaints of how regulations and taxes kill business deleted]
> > ...Never has the US seen so radically business-friendly tax code as we
> > have now.
> And how about the regulations?
I think the regulations are pretty bad overall. I'm in favor of some
(in particular, environmental) regulations that increase the cost of
business, but in general I don't like the prevailing regulatory environment.
I have a vague hope that some of this will have a technological solution
but let's leave that for another day.

> No, you miss the point.  This is a call for the re-introduction of property
> qualifications for voters. ;-)
My thinking is that public employees should be disenfranchised:-)

Andra1s Kornai
+ - Re: bit.listserv.hungary group (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Gotthard Saghi-Szabo ) wrote:

: Hi,
:   I was just wondering whatever happened to the bit.listserv.hungary
: newsgroup. I see, one can find the collection of the daily mails
: under the "*** HUNGARY *** ##" subject in the soc.culture.magyar group,
: though , for us, who actually does not want to be on the mailing list
: (to avoid being flooded by mails ) but want to get the information at
: its best (freshest) , this resolution certainly a big backstep from where
: we were at before.

:   Postings might loose their actuality ,also, browsing through the
: information in the long string of text of "*** HUNGARY *** ##" can be
: quite annoying, while most of the news reading programs pine, tin, xrn
: etc., has plenty of advanced tools to make the reading of the news fast ,
: comfortable and personalized - e.g. subject string following,
: filtering out users, etc.

:   My oppinion is , the "*** HUNGARY *** ##" postings in soc.culture.magyar
: would be unnecessary, if the more convenient bit.listserv.hungary were
: though ,the "*** HUNGARY *** ##" could be sent to those HIX subscribers, who
: reach computers w/USENET access .

:   I am not sure who the administrator of the bit.listserv.hungary is, but
: if you read it, take the revival of the group into consideration or, up for a

: Thanks,
: Gotthard, I have read you note in the bit.listserv.hungary group,
which proves the group still functions as usual.
I thing the ***HUNGARY*** postings in soc.culture.magyar is just a cross-
posting, an extra service.  Happy reading!
Peter Varga
+ - Horn and Balogh (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I don't like people putting words into my mouth and Zoli's latest on the Horn
case is a perfect example of such practice. I searched through the files to
see whether there was anything in my postings which would indicate that I

>scorned the electorate
>and the media for not chewing more on this [meaning the fact that Horn had
been a >member of a paramilitary unit in 1956-57], that's why I am pointing
>out that there are justifiable other ways of looking at it.

I scorned nobody and wrote nothing which would lead you or anyone else to
believe that I want the electorate and the media to dwell more on that than
they have. Nothing!

So, let's go over it briefly:

Jeliko began the discussion by saying,

>>armchair discussions are not a substitute for those responsibilites.
>>Several people on the newsgroup are ridiculing that others are not happy
>>with an ex-pufajkas as a PM in Hungary, because he was not really doing
>>what the rest of the Pufajkas were doing.

For which I answered:

>Horn was twenty-six years old in 1956; so he was not a
>child who didn't know what he was doing. He was an adult. To me, who lived
>through the revolutionary events at an extremely exposed spot (corner of
>Rakoczi ut and Kiskorut) it is unimaginable that a decent person could be on
>the other side. Unless of course he was so brainwashed that he actually
>believed that all those on the other side (that is practically the whole
>Hungarian nation) were fascist counterrevolutionaries.

Greg answered this posting by saying:

>But the fact remains that the electorate have spoken.  Until the
>next campaign, let's examine his policies and programs, not his
>qualification for office.  That, IMHO, is how the game is best played.

To which I answered:

>And now I come to the question of emotion. Both Greg and George [Antony,
whose >contribution is not quoted here] felt that we should just bury the
hatchet and
>go on. Yes, intellectually I know that that is what we should do. However,
>is very, very difficult to do so as a former participant. Just as I get
>eyed talking about those days I am sure Horn does too, but from another
>perspective, mourning for his dead brother, who, I assume, fought on the
>other side.

Without going into the (to my mind) ridiculous discussion about "other side"
and "barricades," let me reiterate again. I don't scorn the Hungarian
electorate or anyone else who is not bothered by the fact that Horn was a
member of the paramilitary militia. But I (me! underlined!) emotionally find
it difficult to overlook his role because I was a participant in those
events. He and I were on different sides. I was with the vast majority of the
Hungarian people, he was on the side of an intervening foreign power. Sure,
he today most likely holds very different views, but I still agree with
Jeliko who didn't approve the ridicule piled upon those people who are not
happy "with an ex-pufajkas as a PM in Hungary." Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Warehousing the underclass (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In reply to your message of "Sat, 09 Jul 94 00: 34:43 PDT."
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 94 11:31:26 -0700

Andra1s Kornai writes:
> > ...public
> > money should go towards promoting productive lives, not warehousing--
> > generation after generation--a permanent underclass.
> The whole expression "warehousing" is arrogant, inasmuch as we are talking
> about people, not objects. If you or Jeliko have suggestions how to promote
> productive lives on the same amount of money or less, I'm interested.

You mind pointing that thing at the enemy, and not at me?  I criticize the
current system because I think it warehouses people, which I think is a Bad

If you want some ideas, check out the President's plan.  I do believe
that it claims to save money in the long term.

+ - Re: The German question (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Zoli Fekete writes: (parts deleted)

>  By the spring of '41 the Germans already lost the battle of Britain;
> but my point was specifically made with respect to the waging of war
> against Russia as well, ie. the summer of '41 - and how the HU
> government did, could and should've looked at the situation then.
>  I even found some German high command general stating shortly after
> the war that attacking the SU was a fatal mistake (will quote it, if

> dug up that book)...

> -- Zoli
Zoli, the older I get the more I have trouble  even with hindsight.
Particularly with others'. Why don't you move this discussion to alt.

+ - Re: On media and on Horn (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Zoli Fekete writes:

>  Dear Eva, just a quick note before you make up more premises:

> >What I meant was that if his October days were on the other side of
> >the  barricades, and if his brother died in defense of that old
> >order [...]
>  But he was not on the barricades, not even according to his accusers...

> -- Zoli

Here, I have to go along with Zoli. None of these yoyos were on the
barricades. The initial resistance to the revolution came from the AVH and
some high ranking military staff, the Koztarsasag ter issue started as an
assertion of power by persons in the building, before they were attacked.
It was possibly the only civilian controlled and participated resistance.
After the Russians pulled out the chestnuts for our recent friends, then
all sorts of civilians appeared to take revange. They have as much
connection to barricades as Pronay and Hejja did in 1919. Of course some of
the members of the Pronay, Hejja groups could have become PMs later and
highly praised if they stated that they were only 26 and did not really
beat or kill anybody personally, or could they?

+ - Re: liberalism, what is it? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Bill Walsh writes:

> Part of the problem in this thread (I think) is that there are two
> conflicting definitions of liberalism flying around--one the traditional
> (European) usage, like the Freie Demokratische Partei in Germany (laissez
> faire economics, somewhat libertarian on social issues); and the American
> usage, which is basically social-democratic to socialist, in European
> (i.e., interventionist economics and social programs).

> bill

 Bill, there is also a nagging problem of having studied the History of the
Russian Communist Party, and the prescribed strategy of the communist
movement. That related to pushing the cart of the non-communist fellow
travelers until the time comes to kick them also into the camps, prisons or
backing them up to the Nagans or Makarovs. The fellow travelers in all
places behaved according to the script and never seemed to have learned
from what happened to the previous groups. Of course those groups also
always knew everything better then the rest of the society. Or maybe not?!
These groups were called in various shades of socialist, liberal,
progressive, center left, anti-fascist, nepfront, etc. etc.
I do not know if you had the privilage to study these tomes, but they do
leave a nagging thought behind in those who learned from them. Maybe not
what was intended either.

+ - Wermaht (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I don't know why is Zoli so intent on proving the Wermaht to have
been a paper tiger. It wasn't, the Wermaht was a _very_ potent force.

   But what is wring with his assertion is this:

      He expects Gombos and his cohorts to have seen the future as
clearly as Zoli sees the past from the perspective of 50+ years. He
can be blamed for many things, but this is pushing it.

      (wring=wrong) (He=Gombos)

+ - Re: The German question (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Greg writes:

> In reply to your message of "Thu, 07 Jul 94 18: 45:13 EDT."
>              >
> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 94 18:07:56 -0700
> From: 

> Zoli Fekete writes:
> > ...the good Admiral wrote that "[t]he severe check
> > [Hitler] received before Moscow shook the general faith in the
> > invincibility of the German arms."

> Let's play a game, shall we?  Let's pretend that evidence introduced by
> one party can be used by the other side in a dispute with authority
> equal to that claimed by the first party.  Sounds bizarre, doesn't it?

> In other words, if we accept the "severe check" bit, why can't we accept
> general faith bit?  And please don't tell us, in so many other words,
> Horthy is only right when he agrees with you.  :-)

> --Greg

I don't know Greg. It would sound interesting. Fekete and Horthy claim....

+ - Paper tiger or straw man (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear Amos,

 I said nothing about the Wehrmacht being weak - the issue is that
Germany had very long odds against overcoming both Britain and
 I did not use hindsight either, just what was known at the time. In
particular I did not deal with Gombos. Although I think his policy was
flawed and put the country straigh onto the slippery slope ending up
with ceding sovereignity to the Germans, he may not have been able to
foresee what's coming - and he started way before Hitler.
 I was specifically talking about the fatal decision of entering the
war by Bardossy (sanctioned by Horthy). By that time they knew that
USA-supported Britain stood firm against Germany. They should've
considered the possibility that huge Russia would not be an easy pick
either. A little prudency did not even required to doubt much the
German invincibility just question how certain a quick big victory was.
But the PM yielded to the pressure that apparently did not even came
from the Germans but the Hungarian army staff, and the Regent let it
go. The deadly irony is that the Horthy-government did have serious
reservations shortly before, and doubts shortly thereafter - but at the
critical moment went along with Hitler's headfirst jump into the pit
without much thinking altogether.

-- Zoli
+ - Re: Horn and Balogh (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva, I just returned from a month in Hungary, looking around the countryside
and in Budapest, and except for a few obsessive Csurka-philes who think that
the end of the world is at hand, most people to whom I spoke were surprisingly
optimistic about the future. Those few exceptions seem to be the only ones
who care much about Horn's past. I can absolutely sympathize with your personal
response to Horn and those he may represent, but remember, some of your co-
revolutionists are active members of the SZDSZ, some of whom are in parliament
and, I suppose, in the cabinet (not sure about the latter). And again, except
for the "sour grapes" contingent (MDF voters), most people seemed genuinely
satisfied with the outcome. If the MSZP & SZDSZ don't deliver, they'll be
booted out as fast as the MDF were. That's democracy, which may have to be
revenge enough.
               -Marc Nasdor (a/k/a Csigaposta)