>
> Part of the problem with the old "dictatorship of the proleteriat" is that
> once members of the proleteriat stop working in their class capacity and
> begin acting as bureaucrats, they are no longer members of the same class,
> they will have new needs and desires (which may conflict with their former
> fellow proleteriats), etc.

I agree with you, this is the case when only a few (minority) of
the proletariat appropriate the power "in the name" of the rest,
possible scenario when: 1. Commodities/food is scarce
                        2. A layer of leaders with the original
                           democratic ideas lost in war
                        3. There in internal/external threat to
                           the new order

The only way a government could exist without
> creating a new class would be in the case of anarchy or pure democracy
> (non-representative).  The second seems more likely, though it has never
> existed on a large scale.  Perhaps with computer technology it could be
> possible...

If the proletar dictatorship includes ALL PROLETARS actively,
democratically participating, than it is the most democratic
form of a state in history. As past rulers realise that they
can still keep their swimming pool and have 3 holidays per year
in their choice of exotic island and no-one is threatening/jelous
of them anymore (and they choose public transport because it is
more efficient) - they do not need to be "repressed", the state
looses its function of repressing the underclass and starts a
lovely wither. And this is still not utopia, should happen in
20 years or we all had it.
Please describe what has capitalism to offer and what is a PRACTICAL
chance of its turning humane globally -  or just in the US.

> This all seems rather distant from Marx, who I believe favored a violent
> revolution.  It IS cheering to see people moving beyond him...

I think he did not favoured violence. He just assumed - unfortunately
right - that the ruling class will not relinquish it's power willingly,
it never' done it before. All slight improvement of living for the
lower classes was achieved by mostly bloody fights, the realisation
that social peace can be bought came later, and now the funds are running
out to pay for it.

You are right about the media. People who are disenfranchised (??
is there such a word?) from the relavent/important imformation
of society are the ones who know they being cheated out of a large
share of wealth, they will start bloody wars against the percieved
rich people/groups as they will have no information how to achieve
things and to what end with the least violence. The police are ready
with their cameras/computers/arms... If your house is a fortress
already, than you know this is REALITY.



proves what
> Charles said (the Left is dead - rough quote) is wrong.  Several thoughts,
> however.  First:  information (necessary for ANY revolution to occur) is
> controlled and dispersed by people who have a stake in the existing system.
> It costs money to publish, etc, so it is not terribly surprising that those
> who publish usually have money and a natural desire to protect that money.
> Secondly, not only is publishing restricted to the wealthier, but dispersal
> is also restricted.  TV's, newspapers, etc. are not free:  in order to
> receive the information that IS available, it demands money that the people
> most likely to be interested in revolution hardly has to spare.  Another
> example is the Internet.  If not associated with a university, it is rather
> expensive to have access.  In America (where I live), university prices are
> rising while financial aid is becoming more difficult to obtain.
> Secondly, if Marx's dialectic is real (I've yet to be convinced), then
> information should not matter.  If the economic situation detiorates to the
> point where working people are willing to revolt (politically or actually),
> they may express this at the ballot box.  It's an unfortunate human
> characteristic, however, that, when a situatin deteriorates, people vote
> for a conservative party, which promises a return to the "good old days."
> Perhaps the recent election in America could be taken, perversely, as a
> sign that Americans are ready for Socialism (though they don't know it).
> This might be a sign that information available is of PRIME importance
> (which contradicts Marx - but so what?)
>
>
>                         Thomas Breed
>                         
>
>                 "Like Prometheus still chained to that rock
>                         In the midst of a free world"

E1va Durant writes:
> Capital and means of production should be owned collectively
> and democratically to be effective.
I think this is the crux of the matter: everything I've seen in the three
decades I lived under the "existing" proved the opposite, that "ko2zo2s
lo1nak tu1ros a ha1ta". Yugoslavia had a very effective system of collective
ownership, which was certainly democratic at the factory level.  So the
factory fully democratically decided to build a nice vacation facility on
the Adriatic Sea and spent the year's profits fully democratically on some
expensive beachfront property.  Somehow, spending was always put ahead of
accumulation, and the fully democratically established lower rate of
investment led to a lower rate of growth, eventually to stagnation and
decline.

They eliminated the capitalist who would look after the interests of the
capital, so only the interests of labor were looked after. No, they didn't
have the self-discipline to provide for long-term growth by curtailing
short-term spending -- no democratic body ever has.  In fact, the farther
you remove an economic entity from individual control, the more ineffective
it becomes. International bodies are the worst, with state-owned enterprises
following on their heels, these in turn are followed by big corporations
directed by a cadre of paid managers. Efficiency is seldom found in such
places, while family-owned businesses tend to run pretty efficiently, even
if the parents are not fully democratic.

Andra1s Kornai

>=======================================================
>Felado : 
>Temakor: Re: Fatherland ( 19 sor )
>Idopont: Thu Jan 12 23:44:28 EST 1995 HUNGARY #193
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>No, I don't want to add to the already numerous postings on the topic of
>"Fatherland and national pride".  Discussion has already veered far afield of
>the original premise anyway.  I wish to take issue with the usage of the very
>word "fatherland" in this forum.  "Fatherland", as is widely known, is used
>by Germans when referring to their country.
>
>I think using this term may convey the impression of teutonic, almost
>Nazi-like fanatic nationalistic thinking on the part of those who use it
>trying to express patriotic sentiments.  This is unfortunate, since the
>Hungarian language does not have this word, nor anything resembling it.  The
>word used for the land of Hungary is "haza", or "hon" (as in honfoglalas),
>loosely translatable as "home", "homeland"," home country".  In the case of
>Hungarians living outside of Hungary's borders, especially in neighboring
>countries, the term is "anyaorszag", literally "mother country".
>
>As an interesting aside, "anyafold" -- ("mother earth") is a term to fondly
>refer to the soil, especially as a final resting place.
>
>Ferenc

Szervusz Ferenc...

Your point is well taken and 100% correct in my opinion....

Pali


#########################################
         Pal Gyoni  (  )
                 \/\/arm Greetz Everyone.......
*****************************************
            Lost somewhere on the InterNet.......
         If you should find me, tell me....hehe....
#########################################
       _/ _/ _/   _/          _/       _/   _/    _/ _/
      _/      _/ _/_/        _/       _/  _/   _/     _/
    _/ _/ _/   _/  _/      _/       _/_/     _/     _/
. _/           _/_/ _/    _/    _/ _/  _/   _/     _/
_/           _/       _/ _/ _/ _/ _/    _/   _/_/

>
> Now, if someone wants to argue that ethnic/racial identity is of no
> importance, than make that arguement, but please do not deny that
> differences exist.

The point is you started with the importance of keeping your
national/cultural identity. Now you want to keep an ethnic/racial
one. In human history mixing produced progress, isolation
did not, and it is anyway totally inpracticable as dark people
keep going for pale ones and vice-versa if they have the chance.
It is a FACT we are mixed up! Separation especially by
burocratic/military methods is disgusting.  The importance is
to keep the lierature/music/art of all, the individual
 features of ethnicity will surface in a random manner - good!
It is all in the overall gene - pool, what is your problem?

I think you are covering up your real intentions, I don't trust
your integrity, sorry.

On Thu, 12 Jan 1995 10:26:38 -0600 > said:
>>
              It IS cheering to see people moving beyond him...proves what
>Charles said (the Left is dead - rough quote) is wrong.

--What I said was that Marx was dead and the Left is stuck in a time
warp.  I think that a vigorus Left is good for political discourse.  The
trouble is that the Left in America at least, is still talking in the
same terms as it was in the 1920s.  Check out Giroux and McLaren's book
at your local library.  Except that it is written in post-modernist
doublespeak, the ideas are the same as if it were written in the 1960s--
or the 1920s.  Michael Harrington finally made a breakthrough in his
posthumously-published book--I've misplaced the title--but after his
death, little new has been done.  Most of the ideas in your posting--
and this will read as a rude comment in type, but I don't mean it
that way--were the stuff of late-night discussions when I was a student
in the 1940s.  We didn't have the Internet of course, but if you
substitute "communication" in general, the discussion would be similar.

>It costs money to publish, etc, so it is not terribly surprising that those
>who publish usually have money and a natural desire to protect that money.

--Think about this.  Then how come there are all those Left books in print?

>Secondly, not only is publishing restricted to the wealthier, but dispersal
>is also restricted.  TV's, newspapers, etc. are not free:  in order to
>receive the information that IS available, it demands money that the people
>most likely to be interested in revolution hardly has to spare.

--You're serious about this?  You create a picture of the poor revolutionary,
living in his garret, unable to afford a newspaper?

  Another
>example is the Internet.  If not associated with a university, it is rather
>expensive to have access.  In America (where I live), university prices are
>rising while financial aid is becoming more difficult to obtain.

--We had this problem--low levels of financial aid--in the 1940s.  The
remedy was to take a minimum wage job on the night shift or wait tables.
Guess what.  Lots of poor students still do these things and don't whine
about it.

>Perhaps the recent election in America could be taken, perversely, as a
>sign that Americans are ready for Socialism (though they don't know it).

--And Newt Gingrich is a closet Marxist?

Charles

>
> I think this is the crux of the matter: everything I've seen in the three
> decades I lived under the "existing" proved the opposite, that "ko2zo2s
> lo1nak tu1ros a ha1ta". Yugoslavia had a very effective system of collective
> ownership, which was certainly democratic at the factory level.
>

I don't think you're describing anything here being "fully democratic"
In a factory I picture not only the opinions of the workers, but also
the local community and the common needs expressed by a local and
integrated (democratic, using all fruit of our information technology)
plan.

>
> have the self-discipline to provide for long-term growth by curtailing
> short-term spending -- no democratic body ever has.
>

I think some self-discipline still exist in Japan or Germany perhaps
or perhaps it existed 20 years ago, still paying off, more and more
haltingly...but in the UK forexample - short-termism is alive and well
for your individual and collective capitalists...
So, you reckon planning is a good idea?


> following on their heels, these in turn are followed by big corporations
> directed by a cadre of paid managers. Efficiency is seldom found in such
> places, while family-owned businesses tend to run pretty efficiently, even
> if the parents are not fully democratic.
>
> Andra1s Kornai

If an organization is not democratic, it tends to be burocratic.
I suggest family businesses where the parents are not fully democratic
should not be nationalised... I dare to leave them to compete...

>
> --What I said was that Marx was dead and the Left is stuck in a time
> warp.  I think that a vigorus Left is good for political discourse.  The
> trouble is that the Left in America at least, is still talking in the
> same terms as it was in the 1920s.

Be straight Charles, like all conservatives, you are happy with a left,
which has no plans for change, only some cosmetic sloganising.
They are well looked after your media, to prove what a beautiful
thing democracy is. In the moment someone says anything which
would bring serious structural change, you shout loonies and
don't give a lot of coverage.
Quality media is expensive and a lot of people are not aware that
the information-scraps they are provided with on the cheap is
crap. Skeptisism and critical thought is not encouraged.
Why is there  a rebirth in religious fundamentalism, I wonder.
Live in your dream of capitalism - while it lasts. It won't
have a peaceful end to it, if you keep the people ignorant
about alternatives.


>
> --You're serious about this?  You create a picture of the poor revolutionary,
> living in his garret, unable to afford a newspaper?
>


Revolutionaries tend to be well informed, other people' got
the powerful message that politics is a waste of time, and
you will find out, that unimformed and angry people tend to
riot. But your all-powerful state is ready for them.
And if they're too poor to be consumers ... who cares?

Does anyone out there know what would be the English rendering of the
Transylvanian territory Mezo"se'g. My rusty memory brings up the name
Partium. Could someone remind me what it refers to?  Thanks, Robert

On Fri, 13 Jan 1995 12:07:04 +0000 Eva Durant said:
>>
>
>Be straight Charles, like all conservatives, you are happy with a left,
>which has no plans for change, only some cosmetic sloganising.

--Calm down, Eva.  I haven't seen any plan for change that wasn't
known in the 19th century.  There were inklings in Harrington, and
there are a couple of British writers who have expressed some
novelty, but most of the Left stuff IS cosmetic sloganizing.

>They are well looked after your media, to prove what a beautiful
>thing democracy is. In the moment someone says anything which
>would bring serious structural change, you shout loonies and
>don't give a lot of coverage.

--You don't read the same press I do, I guess.  Besides, not
all information comes from the public press.  And I don't
remember anyone shouting "Loonie" as you suggest.

>Quality media is expensive and a lot of people are not aware that
>the information-scraps they are provided with on the cheap is
>crap. Skeptisism and critical thought is not encouraged.

--What is quality media?  And doesn't my skepticism of the Left
count as skepticism?  And, by critical thought, don't you simply
mean anti-market rhetoric?

>Why is there  a rebirth in religious fundamentalism, I wonder.

--I'm not a religious fundamentalist, Eva, but my observation
is that it has more to do with the decline in personal responsibility
for one's actions and the lack of moral beliefs that arose in the
1960s with the so-called "sexual revolution" and the popularity
of the drug culture among the American Left.

>Live in your dream of capitalism - while it lasts. It won't
>have a peaceful end to it, if you keep the people ignorant
>about alternatives.
>
--This just won't wash.  There's no way in hell that Americans
can be kept from finding out about alternatives.
>
>Revolutionaries tend to be well informed, other people' got
>the powerful message that politics is a waste of time, and
>you will find out, that unimformed and angry people tend to
>riot. But your all-powerful state is ready for them.

--You make it sound as if this were Nazi Germany in the 1930s--
or Moscow in the Stalinist era.

>And if they're too poor to be consumers ... who cares?

--Everybody with a product to sell cares.  This is why poverty sucks.

Charles

Oltay writes:

> US COMPANY CANCELS HUNGARIAN HOTEL PURCHASE. A
> multimillion dollar deal fell through on 11 January when
> the Dallas-based American General Hospitality withdrew a
> bid to buy 51% of the shares in 14 Hungarian hotels, MTI
> reports. The State Property Agency accepted the AGH's bid
> last month to buy the chain for $57.5 million, but it
> raised the price to $67 million shortly thereafter, under
> the orders of Prime Minister Gyula Horn. The premier
> intervened because he deemed the price too low. AGH
> representatives said the company's offer was "favorable and
> fair" and would not be modified. The hotel deal was widely
> seen by economists as a litmus test of the Horn
> government's intentions on privatization. It is likely to
> send negative signals to foreign investors at a time when
> Hungary badly needs foreign capital. -- Edith Oltay, OMRI,
> Inc.

and Gregg responds:

> This is great!  The state will gain $9.5 million more when it
> sells the hotels.
>

ARE YOU SERIOUS??  Why not ask for 100 million and gain 42.5 million
more when you sell the hotel.  This is of course ridiculous!!!  You
must set the price according to what the market will accept,
evidently about 57.5 million.

Jim Hilliard

 **********************************************************************
$  Jimmy E. Hilliard      $                    $  Tel: 706-542-3646  $
$  Professor of Finance   $                    $  Fax: 706-542-9434  $
$  University of Georgia  $                    $                     $
$  Athens, GA, 30602 USA  $                    $                     $
$********************************************************************$
$  Internet:        CompuServ 74544,3064  $
$                                                                    $
**********************************************************************

In article >, 
says:

>
>Bad analogy:  first, income has no upper limit, but grades do.  Using the
>American system, you can't earn more than a 4.00.  Yet income can extend
>indefinately upwards.  If it was impossible to earn more than...say...1,000
>USD a year, then your arguement might have some validity.
>        Secondly, it has been well established that Capitalism is not
>meritocratic.  Most of the people who are part of the Upper Class also had
>parents who were also Upper Class.  Sure, there is the rare exception where
>a lucky person or two have managed to build their own fortunes, and there
>is also the occasional bumbling fool who squanders his inheritance, but
>they are EXCEPTIONS.  Businesses tend to remain in family member hands
>generation after generation: long after the initial meritocratic work was
>accomplished.
>        The reasons for this are simple:  access to better education, the
>ability to attend school without the distraction of work, and often
>influential family friends.
>


To EARN that grade (4.0)... what such force of knowledge, such tremendous
effort of will, what great sacrifice
of time, money, and family pours into it. It MUST mean that the job of the
lifetime is almost at hand. No more
sweat, no more <classes>, and no more exceptions (hm..hm..) expectations. This
was no luck. This must be the way.
The way of reward, equality, and happiness.

You know, I have been playing the Lotto for 20 years, every day. Go, figure...

George...

A dog walks in the post office and wants to send a wire to his friend ,so he
writes
BOW..WOW..BOW..WOW..BOW..WOW. The clerk says- "you know we have a special this
week.
It costs the same to send 8 words as 6 words so why don't you add another
BOW..WOW
to it?"..So the dogs thinks for a short time and says: "Yeah, sure...
But don't you think that sounds a little bit ridiculous?"

Eva Durant defines:
> a westernised MacDonald freak.

Eva, I'll take a hamburger anyday rather than mutton with mint sauce.

Jeliko.

Tony writes:

> However the Magyar historian Szekfu in July of 1935 in his lecture given
> at Ostrihom on The State, Nation and Nationality stated that *from 1848*
> Magyar policy stubbornly fought for the denationalization of non-Magyar
> peoples. (Der Ausrottungs Kampf Ungarns gegen seine Nationalen
Minderheiten,
> Muenchen 1968 2nd edition, Z. Paclisanu.)

It is strange that he would have spoken about it in Ostrihom. Why not in
Pozsony or Kolozsvar?
Beside which, as far as his buddy Homan, he succeded in denationalization.
It was a little brutal for my liking, but in the days when throwing folks
across borders became a national policy issue, what is one to expect. Of
course the Kassa program was "democracy in action".

Jeliko

On Fri, 13 Jan 1995 09:17:52 EST Jim Hilliard said:
>
>
>ARE YOU SERIOUS??  Why not ask for 100 million and gain 42.5 million
>more when you sell the hotel.  This is of course ridiculous!!!  You
>must set the price according to what the market will accept,
>evidently about 57.5 million.
>
--Of course he's not serious, Jim!  But be careful.  There are those
on this list who will think that you have made a wonderful suggestion.
Market economics is a closed book to one who believes in an economic
system that makes decisions by committee.

Charles
>

Andra1s Kornai writes:

> PS. On a completely unrelated matter (Turks destroying the land) let me
give
> a faint recollection of what I learned in high school: the idea was that
the
> Turks instilled a system of agricultural production (giving the profit
from
> an area to one person for a strictly limited time, maybe 10 years) that
> encouraged robbing the land (rablo1gazda1lkoda1s) and discouraged the
kind
> of land conservation practices that were advantageous only over a longer
> period, such as rotating crops in a certain manner (vete1sforgo1) and
> leaving the land fallow. If this is true, having a new landholder (be1g?)
in
> every decade for over hundred years might very well have resulted in a
> complete breakdown of infrastructure (in particular wells, ditches, and
> other costly-to-repair technology for irrigation) and pushed large
stretches
> of land, that were only marginally arable in the first place, over the
limit.

Well, that type of land depletion is possible, but a marginally productive
land would have been depeleted fast, abandoned and not be attractive for
near future similar exploitation. The area was (I use the example near
Kiskunhalas area) sandy, mixed with reed fields and spotted with heavy lime
(szikes) containing areas. Even at the WW II there were still many reed
fields in the region. There were much richer soil containing areas around
Bacska which were also abandoned (otherwise there would not have been
extensive resettlement by Schwabians and Serbs after the Turkish rule was
broken). If anything those areas were even longer under Turkish rule than
the regions further north and northeast that even today are not the best
soil regions for agriculture. I can see that, for example, local cattle
raising stopped in some regions because it was easy for any army to take
cattle with them on the march and thus only limited organic fertilizer was
available for soil improvement. But in other areas there were large cattle
raising operations, because when not tied to the locality, the cattle could
be driven away when news of an army arrived. It was a mixed bag, whichever
way you look at it.
Regards,Jeliko

Eva Durant writes:

> You can work out a relationship/rule without knowing all the facts.
Over here we call it "My mind is already made up, don't cofuse me with
facts"

Jeliko

In HUNGARY #192 Thomas Breed writes :

>Chinese and Indians belong to different racial groups, and in this case
>you are right.  Hungarians, however, are not so different, however from
>Caucasians to be a seperate racial group...
 An interesting genetical study should be mentioned done recently
by a German/Hungarian joint group. The goal was to establish the
amount of the genetical difference between the population
of Hungary and other European countries. They used a kind of
"genetical distance" measured in DNA (don't ask me, I'm an
electrical engineer !) and the results were surprising.
The actual population of Budapest is genetically closer to
Germany or Slovakia than to Finland or to other finn-ugor
(how to write it in English ?) tribes still living in
the Ural region.
 This should not be shocking. Let's take a personal example.
I have Austrian/Polish/Ukranian/Slovakian/Serb relatives and still I
am a typical Hungarian. Most French think I am German but my accent
is different. That's for now about racial differences.

Regards : Gabor Paller
PS : I always have to laugh when I read "Caucasian". Have you ever
seen a Caucasian ? Just watch CNN in Chechnia, they are Caucasians.

On Thu, 12 Jan 1995 13:34:52 +0000 Eva Durant said:
>My daughter (18) would like to spend a year from next September
>in Hungary before starting university the year after.
>
--Your daughter sounds charming.  I'll bet that you received
somewhere around 100 messages from young men who proposed
marriage.

Charles

On Wed, 11 Jan 1995 12:00:23 +0000 Eva Durant said:
>Utopian means "good idea, but impracticable" (old dictionary).

--My Consise Oxford says that "Utopia is an imaginary place with
a perfect social and political system."  Nothing about the idea
being particularly good.  It is described, of course, in More's
1516 book of that name.

>So far the theory as a method of analysis and a method of working
>out what is the best practicable way for society to proceed,
>still stands on the ground of logic.

--But one must accept the premise as an article of faith.

>Please show me, what way it is practical to expect capitalism
>to solve the problem of wars/misery/environmental catastrophy.
>You somehow do not tell me, and your philosophy is as far as
>expressed so far is : leave everything as it is, basically
>nothing is wrong with it... I think you are utopian and naive.
>
--Advanced market systems try very hard to avoid war.  War is
bad for business.  Prices get inflated and labor gets scarce.
Advanced market systems rarely start wars, but get dragged into
them when national interests are threatened.  Or when ideologists
get the upper hand politically.  Market systems have reduced misery
compared to the old feudal systems.  An enlighted government that
balanced the market's need to make a profit with human concerns,
in other words a mixed economy, works better than anything else.
Market systems, to paraphrase Churchill's remark about democracy,
are terrible systems--but they are preferable to any known alternative.
And one man's environmental catastrophe is another's business
opportunity.  My nephew Michael makes a good living out of designing
environmental systems that reduce pollution.  Market systems have
reduced pollution far better than centralized governmental planning.

>I am not a true believer in anything, you show me a
>capitalist way out, and I'll sleep well and trouble you no more.

--Nighty night!

>If you are not worried, you are more dangerous than me.
>
--Of course there are worries, but there are people who seek practical
solutions instead of dreaming of a time when everyone sits down and
runs the world in one mass committee.

Charles

On Tue, 10 Jan 1995 09:28:48 +0000 Eva Durant said:
>>
>So why do you claim Marxists to hold Proudhonist views? They did
>split, I agree

--I didn't.  What I said was that YOU sounded more like Proudhon than
you sounded like Marx in that specific posting.

Charles

On Tue, 10 Jan 1995 09:41:43 +0000 Eva Durant said:
>
>In what way your description opposes mine (above)?

Proudhon would never have believed in centralized economic planning
and he sure didn't believe in public ownership of the basic means
of production as socialist governments have done.

>For your interest, more successful multinationals now do
>more planning, than the Stalinist stases did.

--But that is the planning of one company, not centralized planning
in which the government plans FOR everyone.

 Neither is workable
>ofcourse, as the planning is/was not done democratically by the
>wider strata of workers/consumers. (the multinationals can work
>better as they use computer technology for their planning)

--Do you mean that Ford Motor Company is unworkable?  I must
call my broker.  Joke.  I don't have a broker, and don't own any
stock directly.  Eva, this statement is just plain silly.  You
sound like a person who has never served on a planning committee
ever.  Everyone has his or her own agenda, and all suggestions
end up tabled until the next meeting.  Wake up and smell the
coffee.  Can you really visualize 4 billion people sitting down
to make economic decisions?  And you say that you are not a Utopian?

Charles

Date sent:  13-JAN-1995 08:59:06
>
>Thomas Breed writes:
>
>>          Secondly, it has been well established that Capitalism is not
>>  meritocratic.

>Greg writes:
>Whether or not Capitalism is meritocratic, it would be helpful to know
 >if Thomas Breed believes in meritocracy.

Of course, but 25% of 1 million USD still leaves a rather healthy reward
for one's efforts.  If someone wants a more meritocratic system, how about
restricting education to those most capable, yet making it free.  How about
redistributing money for education so that children in less wealthy
neighborhoods could have the same chance at succeeding as those in wealthy
neighborhoods?  Of course, I'm speaking from a US standpoint.  The US,
however, seems more Plutocratic than Meritocratic.
>
>If not, then the lack of it in Capitalism shouldn't bother; if so it's
>hard to see much meritocratic in handing out 25% of GDP on demand to
>everybody with a warm body.
>
I never said people should be supplied with enough to buy a VCR, color TV,
etc without work.  Enough to survive, however, would be nice.  A lot of the
redistribution could be spent on services like infrastructure, etc. so
that oppurtunities are equal.

                        Thomas Breed
                        

                "Like Prometheus still chained to that rock
                        In the midst of a free world"

Date sent:  13-JAN-1995 09:10:50
>
>E1va Durant writes:
>> Capital and means of production should be owned collectively
>> and democratically to be effective.
>I think this is the crux of the matter: everything I've seen in the three
>decades I lived under the "existing" proved the opposite, that "ko2zo2s
>lo1nak tu1ros a ha1ta". Yugoslavia had a very effective system of collective
>ownership, which was certainly democratic at the factory level.  So the
>factory fully democratically decided to build a nice vacation facility on
>the Adriatic Sea and spent the year's profits fully democratically on some
>expensive beachfront property.  Somehow, spending was always put ahead of
>accumulation, and the fully democratically established lower rate of
>investment led to a lower rate of growth, eventually to stagnation and
>decline.
>
>They eliminated the capitalist who would look after the interests of the
>capital, so only the interests of labor were looked after. No, they didn't
>have the self-discipline to provide for long-term growth by curtailing
>short-term spending -- no democratic body ever has.  In fact, the farther
>you remove an economic entity from individual control, the more ineffective
>it becomes. International bodies are the worst, with state-owned enterprises
>following on their heels, these in turn are followed by big corporations
>directed by a cadre of paid managers. Efficiency is seldom found in such
>places, while family-owned businesses tend to run pretty efficiently, even
>if the parents are not fully democratic.

This sounds frighteningly similar to pre-WWII "democracies are weak;
dictatorship will overcome" talk.  Efficency should not be the END of all
human activity.  I can see a world where "owners" controll all the
resources, exploit them using machinery, sell the produce to one another,
and ignore everyone else (who starves to death for lack of work or
available capital to start their own "businesses.")  All in the name of
private property and efficiency.

Of course, I may be interpreting incorrectly.  The above post might just be
a call to return to feudalism and familial control of everything (but only
SOME families).



                        Thomas Breed
                        

                "Like Prometheus still chained to that rock
                        In the midst of a free world"

>
> --Calm down, Eva.  I haven't seen any plan for change that wasn't
> known in the 19th century.
>
That is not an argument against validity: give over your
christianity, as I mentioned, that is even older than capitalism.

>
> --You don't read the same press I do, I guess.  Besides, not
> all information comes from the public press.  And I don't
> remember anyone shouting "Loonie" as you suggest.
>

Tony Benn is a the loony of the press here...
(not my hero exactly, but one of the few politicians I respect)

>
> --What is quality media?  And doesn't my skepticism of the Left
> count as skepticism?  And, by critical thought, don't you simply
> mean anti-market rhetoric?
>

The Guardian is twice as expensive than most tabloids.
The Telegraph, Financial Times etc, all markedly more
expensive. I don't know about tabloids there, but here news are
tucked away to the fifteenth page in two columns between
Princess Di tits and some other media personality's balls.


> --I'm not a religious fundamentalist, Eva, but my observation
> is that it has more to do with the decline in personal responsibility
> for one's actions and the lack of moral beliefs that arose in the
> 1960s with the so-called "sexual revolution" and the popularity
> of the drug culture among the American Left.
>

Balls. People feel totally helpless and hopeless in a chaotic
humaneless world where everything can be justified in the name
of profit.
The 60s did not make a lot of difference - unfortunately.
You are scoffing at hope for "peace and love" - good enough
moral values for me...  If it wasn't for the profit to be
made out of drugs, it wouldn't be a problem.


> >Live in your dream of capitalism - while it lasts. It won't
> >have a peaceful end to it, if you keep the people ignorant
> >about alternatives.
> >
> --This just won't wash.  There's no way in hell that Americans
> can be kept from finding out about alternatives.
> >

They are not exactly motivated, when brainwashed day by day, that
everything is just fine, only nutty intellectual liberals
think that perhaps things could be better.
Put on a smile. Have a nice day. Thank you for shopping.
Don't think, it can hurt.  I don't think, therefore I am happy.

>
> --You make it sound as if this were Nazi Germany in the 1930s--
> or Moscow in the Stalinist era.
>

I am worried, that scenario can happen again if everyone is
as apathetic as they are.


> >And if they're too poor to be consumers ... who cares?
>
> --Everybody with a product to sell cares.  This is why poverty sucks.
>
> Charles

The only reason....?

>
> --But that is the planning of one company, not centralized planning
> in which the government plans FOR everyone.
>

A multinational can be as big as a country in some respect.
Be real, I am not talking about Stalinist centralism, why should anyone
repeat that, if things can be done democratically??


>  Neither is workable
> >ofcourse, as the planning is/was not done democratically by the
> >wider strata of workers/consumers. (the multinationals can work
> >better as they use computer technology for their planning)
>
> --Do you mean that Ford Motor Company is unworkable?

I thoughts for a while it had lots of problems... No it is a bit
recovered due to new markets, but when the gridlock will be solid
everywhere, I envisage more problems.



> coffee.  Can you really visualize 4 billion people sitting down
> to make economic decisions?  And you say that you are not a Utopian?
>
> Charles

So, we shouldn't think about it, should we? I have ideas...

Tom Breed says:

>Why?  Is it important that the Holy Roman Empire did not at all times
>include Rome?  The name "Great Moravian Empire" is used by scholars pretty
>much everywhere, whether a misnomer or not, and arguing against it is just
>plain nitpicky.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. For me every bit a historical
fact should be accurate.

Further, about Imre Boba's book:

>A lot of other books have been published since then by respected Historians
>that have placed it in Slovakia, Moravia, Hungary, etc.

Sure thing. But it doesn't mean that Boba may not be right. He wrote a
revisionist interpretation and any such interpretation will start a
historical debate. Just because some of the answer to his interpretation is
of younger vintage is doesn't necessarily mean that they are better.


About the backwardness of Eastern Europe:

>Of course, this is getting away from the Middle Ages, but you did say
>"always."


Yes, I did and I am sticking by it. (Of course, I don't know about the stone
age, but by the time of the Roman Empire, it was.) What we consider to be
Eastern Europe, with the exception of Transdanubia in Hungary (Pannonia) and
a military outpost in Dacia for a brief period never belonged to the Roman
Empire. And I think you can see the difference even today between the right
and the left bank of the Danube as far as economic development goes. This was
a very nice little observation of Peter Hanak, the well known Hungarian
historian. By the way, I don't include the Czech Republic as a typical part
of the Eastern European development.

>
>And until th5th Century, Southern Europe was far more civilized than the
>North.  That was the whole point.  But if you want to be technical,
>different parts of Eastern and Western Europe were at different cultural
>levels.  Neither East nor West were monolithic.  Paris may have had a
>university earlier than Prague, but Prague had one earlier than Glasgow.
>Of course, this is getting away from the Middle Ages, but you did say
>"always."


Much longer than the 5th century. And of course your example of Glasgow is
quite ridiculous. First of all, you are not talking about the Continent and
second, even on the British Isles you picked the most northerly and backward
part. But of course, you can go north too on the Continent, the Finns, or
the Norwegians were a bit on the backward side.

And as for your parting words:

>But I also don't agree with the attitude that has
>been taken toward examining the issue.  It looks more like battle lines
>than a search for Truth.

Again you are entitled to your opinion.

Eva Balogh

Tobor Benke writes:
> Jeliko wrote on January 10:

> > the first ape
> >that had tools was a "classical capitalist"

> No, no, no!  The first capitalist was the one who got someone else to use
> her/his tool, then took most of the product and paid the tool user a
little
> bit (enough so the poor bugger could be used again a nother day) .  It's
> important to keep our definitions straight, eh?

Let's take this ape, he .while spending time observing and "developing" the
tool, he was not spending his time munching on babanas or hand digging
termites, thus he was somewhat hungrier maybe he was even weaker, maybe he
was a she and due to having babies did not have the time to hand dig
termites. All of you "let's take awy from somebody else" types, assume that
the "capitalist", through some miracle starts out with having enough
capital to start a business. Here, where most new businesses are started
(probably more than in the rest of the world put together) the first person
who is "exploited" is the fellow starting the business. Rather than playing
or entertaining himself (and others!) he spends a lot of extra time working
to build up capital, before he is capable of employing someone else. He has
the same obligations to pay gas bills and mortgages as others. (I never
heard the gas company forgive payments because one is trying to build up
capital to start a business). Earnings from EXTRA work are the most common
ways of building capital.

Jeliko

I do expect people to read each other's postings, but when you say such
things as:

>How about the firm belief that people should be allowed to speak what they
>wish,

I really wonder whether you ever bothered to read my posting on the
nationality law. Who said that Hungary's non-Magyar speaking inhabitants were
not allowed use their mother tongue? For your information, almost 50 percent
of the population was not Hungarian-speaking. Moreover, an overwhelming
majority of these could not utter a word in Hungarian. That was in 1910. But
I do remember of meeting a little German girl in 1945 (maybe 7-8 years old,
from a village somewhere in Baranya County), and you know what, she didn't
speak a word of Hungarian either. She was attending the local German-language
village school!


You said:

>Of course, why would the
>Habsburgs have executed the Hungarian nobles?  They weren't heretics AND
>rebels.


May I suggest that you read a bit more Hungarian history. You don't seem to
be terribly familiar with the Thokoly rebellion, the Bocskai rebellion, the
Rakoczi rebellion, just to mention a few!

>Banning education in anything but German, though, seems
>immoral.


There was a Czech and a German university in Prague.

>This discussion is not formal, so I can state my beliefs to my
>heart's content and STILL be a good historian.


Oh, so you are a historian? What is your field?


>>First of all, I don't think I used the word "linguistic." Second, this is a
>>common place, nothing terribly original with me.
>
>Fine, other people have been in error as well.


I don't think that I am in error or all those thousands who claim the same
are in error.

>There are still people in Brittany who speak Breton.  There are still
>people who speak Langue d'Oc.

Sure thing, but they also speak French, and speak it fluently. And they
received their education in French.


And your observation about France, that

>While people did assimilate, it was through
>natural processes rather than government policy.


is also true about Hungary. The few years of Magyarization policy didn't
achieve much. Most of the assimilation took place as a natural process:
urbanization, demographic movements, and so on and so forth.


And last:

>It's doubtfull whether economic backwardness played a role as long as the
>the initial cultural group was more economically backward.


I think most historians would vehemently disagree with you. Right now I don't
feel like explaining why you are wrong but if you insist I will be glad to
explain it to you sometime later.

Eva Balogh

>  >Whether or not Capitalism is meritocratic, it would be helpful to know
>  >if Thomas Breed believes in meritocracy.
>
>  Of course,

OK, I take it you do believe in meritocracy.

>  If someone wants a more meritocratic system, how about
>  restricting education to those most capable, yet making it free.

And now you've confused me.  AFAIK, a meritocratic system rewards
achievement, not potential.  Making education free for top achievers
is of course, unknown in this country (USA).

>  How about
>  redistributing money for education so that children in less wealthy
>  neighborhoods could have the same chance at succeeding as those in wealthy
>  neighborhoods?

A very good idea, IMHO.  It's unfortunate that in this country 100% of
funding of local schools comes from local parents.  We've never heard
of much less implemented this "redistribution" idea.

--Greg

"A multimillion dollar deal fell through on 11 January when
the Dallas-based American General Hospitality withdrew a
bid to buy 51% of the shares in 14 Hungarian hotels, MTI
reports. The State Property Agency accepted the AGH's bid
last month to buy the chain for $57.5 million, but it
raised the price to $67 million shortly thereafter, under
the orders of Prime Minister Gyula Horn.

This is great!  The state will gain $9.5 million more when it
sells the hotels.

--Greg"


Are you kidding ? First of all, it is not $9.5 million more
since the government 'restructured' the offer; this move
certainly destroyed the credibility (if any) of the State Property Agency,
. I'm giving up on Horn.

Even if the government gets a slightly better deal, long term damage
will be very costly, since foreign capital will exercise more caution
(to say the least...) when investing in Hungary.

Date sent:  13-JAN-1995 12:38:52
>
>Tom Breed says:
>
>>Why?  Is it important that the Holy Roman Empire did not at all times
>>include Rome?  The name "Great Moravian Empire" is used by scholars pretty
>>much everywhere, whether a misnomer or not, and arguing against it is just
>>plain nitpicky.
>
>You are certainly entitled to your opinion. For me every bit a historical
>fact should be accurate.

I suppose the United States of America should change its name because there
are other states in both Americas, and some of them are even united. :)

>
>Further, about Imre Boba's book:
>
>>A lot of other books have been published since then by respected Historians
>>that have placed it in Slovakia, Moravia, Hungary, etc.
>
>Sure thing. But it doesn't mean that Boba may not be right. He wrote a
>revisionist interpretation and any such interpretation will start a
>historical debate. Just because some of the answer to his interpretation is
>of younger vintage is doesn't necessarily mean that they are better.

Correct, but there has also been archaelogical discoveries, etc.
Revisionism is a good thing (I'm in favor of debate), but more recent
discoveries have leaned in favor of the traditional placement.
>
>
>About the backwardness of Eastern Europe:
>
>>Of course, this is getting away from the Middle Ages, but you did say
>>"always."
>
>
>Yes, I did and I am sticking by it. (Of course, I don't know about the stone
>age, but by the time of the Roman Empire, it was.) What we consider to be
>Eastern Europe, with the exception of Transdanubia in Hungary (Pannonia) and
>a military outpost in Dacia for a brief period never belonged to the Roman
>Empire. And I think you can see the difference even today between the right
>and the left bank of the Danube as far as economic development goes. This was
>a very nice little observation of Peter Hanak, the well known Hungarian
>historian. By the way, I don't include the Czech Republic as a typical part
>of the Eastern European development.

What is your definition of "Eastern Europe?"  Does Silesia fall within
Eastern Europe?  How about Poland?  Are they "typical?"  What does Krakow
have in common with Hum?  What is typical about the development of Muscovy?
Eastern Europe is not, and has not been a monolith during all periods of
history (I don't know about the Stone Ages either. :)

>
>>
>>And until th5th Century, Southern Europe was far more civilized than the
>>North.  That was the whole point.  But if you want to be technical,
>>different parts of Eastern and Western Europe were at different cultural
>>levels.  Neither East nor West were monolithic.  Paris may have had a
>>university earlier than Prague, but Prague had one earlier than Glasgow.
>>Of course, this is getting away from the Middle Ages, but you did say
>>"always."
>
>
>Much longer than the 5th century.

my "th5th" was suppossed to be "the 15th."

 And of course your example of Glasgow is
>quite ridiculous. First of all, you are not talking about the Continent and
>second, even on the British Isles you picked the most northerly and backward
>part. But of course, you can go north too on the Continent, the Finns, or
>the Norwegians were a bit on the backward side.

How about Brittany?  Nantes didn't even receive one till later than
Glasgow?  Heck!  What about Bavaria?  Krakow's univeristy predates any
univeristy in Bavaria.


        Respectfully,

                        Thomas Breed
                        

                "Like Prometheus still chained to that rock
                        In the midst of a free world"

Date sent:  13-JAN-1995 13:21:52

>
>>  If someone wants a more meritocratic system, how about
>>  restricting education to those most capable, yet making it free.
>
>And now you've confused me.  AFAIK, a meritocratic system rewards
>achievement, not potential.  Making education free for top achievers
>is of course, unknown in this country (USA).

Sorry:  I'll elaborate.  First, raise university standards.  Second, make
it free.  Higher standards would lower enrollment (over-enrollment is a big
problem in many places).  Higher standards would reward High School
achievement, so it is not a issue of potentiality.
>
>>  How about
>>  redistributing money for education so that children in less wealthy
>>  neighborhoods could have the same chance at succeeding as those in wealthy
>>  neighborhoods?
>
>A very good idea, IMHO.  It's unfortunate that in this country 100% of
>funding of local schools comes from local parents.  We've never heard
>of much less implemented this "redistribution" idea.

In my local area it was in force, but people complained that their property
tax money was being given to other municipalities.  It was revoked.  Some
of the rhetoric against the idea included the idea that money being taken
from wealthier communities was being wasted on the "less capable" children
of poorer communities.



                        Thomas Breed
                        

                "Like Prometheus still chained to that rock
                        In the midst of a free world"

>  Of those families and students still willing to pay the $1000 or more
                                        ^^^^^^^
Sorry, make that able.

Also, lest I fall further off the wagon, that'll have to be my last
post on the subject.

--Greg

>  First, raise university standards.  Second, make
>  it free.  Higher standards would lower enrollment (over-enrollment is a big
>  problem in many places).  Higher standards would reward High School
>  achievement, so it is not a issue of potentiality.

"Making it free" would increase enrollment.  How much this would offset
the decrease brought about by higher standards, I don't know.

How about  1.  Raise standards for high schools  2. eliminate state aid
to higher education/students 3. let the universities (or their private
backers) "make it free" for top students.

Stealing from Frum:
----
Of those families and students still willing to pay the $1000 or more
per course, "the less motivated students, or those students seeking
only...to prove the negative point that they are not so idle and
incompetent as to fail to get a B.A., would drop away."

"With greater sacrifices demanded of the families of those who sought
higher education, the proportion of Americans going to university would
shrink.  That would in turn mean that state governments could no longer
count on higher education to remedy the deficiencies of high school
education.  America turns out students the way General Motors used to
turn out cars:  slovenly and stupid assembly workers bang the doors on
any old way they feel like, counting on a highly paid team of fixers at the
end of the line to redo and repair their bungled work.  If the refinishers
were to go out of business, the high schools would have to be run like a
Toyota line instead: the job would have to be done right the first time."
----

--Greg

An article which appeared in December 1994 issue of The World Today of
the Royal Inst. of Int. Affairs (Vol. 50, #12, 233-237) may be of
general interest to the readership. R. Andorka, in "Hungary:
disenchantment after transition", paints a dark picture of the economic
as well as the social well being of Hungary. It is based on two surveys,
one carried out by the Department of Sociology of the Budapest
University of Economic Sciences and the Social Research Information
Society (TARKI) between April 1992 and April 1993. It encompassed 2000
households in which all adult members aged 16 and above were
interviewed. The second survey, carried out in May 1993, sampled 4200
adults in Hungary, examined the stratification and the change in the
elite in several East European countries.

Some of the salient points from the article:

*"The direct cause of dissatisfaction and disenchantment with the
transition to a market economy in Hungary is the decline in the standard
of living. In the 1980s, the gross domestic product was already
stagnant. What little growth was achieved  was at the expense of the
rapidly growing foreign debt.

*After the transition, the industrial structure has shifted rapidly from
sectors whose product can not be sold on the world market to products
which are competitive in the West. However, these structural changes
have resulted in a decline of gdp between 1989 and 1993 by 20%.

*The average per capita income in real terms has declined by about 12%
since 1989.

*The majority suffered a drop in income. In 1993, 53% of all households
had a lower per capita income than in 1992; about 32% had a higher per
capita income.

*Because of these shifts, income inequality has become more pronounced.
Thw decline in the average real income have led to an increase in
poverty. In the 1980's 1m people lived below the subsistence level.
Their number rose to 2.5m by 1993.

*In 1993 about 25 percent of the members of the households interviewed
lived in the lowest quintile of households, i.e. were defined as poor.

*Ethnic Gypsies were especially hit hard by poverty. In 1993, 81% lived
in households defined as poor.

*Children, especially families with three or more children were hit hard
by poverty.

*Some poverty is only temporary. Only 59 percent of all those classified
as poor in 1992 remained poor in 1993.

*Dissatisfaction with Hungary's economic situation was equally high in
all social groups and is thus not simply concentrated among those who
lost out during the transitional regime.

*Dissatisfaction in Hungary is one of the highest among the former
socialist countries. The dissatisfaction has deep roots. Surveys of
mental health conducted in the second half of the 1980's show that
symptoms of neurosis and depression were widespread. The constantly
growing suicide rate and the rapidly growing alcohol-related problems
could also be seen as signs of a critical stage in the psychological
health of Hungarian society. In the 1993 household panel survey, 61% of
those interviewed complained of frequent exhaustion, 34% of accelerated
heart rate, 31% of constant nervousness, 30% had frequent headaches, 57%
felt generally unhappy and 20% were unable to rid themselves of their
anxieties. It could be argues that these psychological problems have
contributed to the widespread dissatisfaction in Hungarian society. In
sociological theory it is usually assumed that their root is anomie
and/or alienation.

*The conviction that those who want to achieve something in life must
break some norms was more widespread in Hungary than in the former East
Germany.

*The crisis may have several consequences, such as the growing
criminality, the low level of business ethics, the high rate of tax
evasion and the aggressiveness displayed in political debates in
Parliament and the media. One might conclude from all of this that the
"Protestant' business ethics needed in a modern market economy, and
civic culture needed in a democratic political system, are largely
lacking in Hungary.

*Whither Hungary? Lord Dahrendorf was right in saying that in East and
Central European societies the political transition would be easiest
since constitutional reform could be achieved in six months. Economic
transition would be more difficult, since the improvements resulting
from the transition to a market economy were unlikely to make themselves
felt in less than six years. But the social and cultural transition
would prove the most difficult, since 60 years are barely enough to
provide the social and cultural foundations for civil society.
Nevertheless, it would be a mistake if social scientists were to switch
from the euphoria of the 1989-90 period to a mood of desperation. There
are more positive signs predicting continued development toward an
efficient market economy and political democracy than negative signs
giving rise to fear of continuing poverty, backwardness and regression
into an authoritarian system".

_____________________

C.K. ZOLTANI

Yes, Tony, I did sit in on Peter Hanak's graduate seminars because he asked
me to assist him with English (it was unnecessary, his English is excellent).
I don't think that I am saying something dreadfully different from Peter
Hanak. There was a good law (which, let's face it, didn't satisfy the
nationalities) and the Hungarians were not keeping to the letter of the law.
But let's not exaggerate.

Eva Balogh

I agree with Greg 100% concerning the deal on the Hungarian hotel chain. I
was hoping that the American firm would say no to the changed deal. One
cannot conduct business this way. The old Soviet Union used act in such
manner--but what does one expect from a man who studied "finances" in the
Soviet Union in the 1950s.

Eva Balogh

Tibor Benke takes issue with me on East European backwardness:

>I am all for objectivity, but Eva seems to have a definite literacy bias.
>Just who is backward ?   Can backwardness be objectively discerned in the
>present or the past?

Yes. This is what I said, and yes, I have "literacy bias." All sorts of other
biases too. For example, I would have been delighted if Hungary had the kind
of capital accumulation the Netherlands had in the seventeenth century, or
England in the eighteenth century. And, I would have been also delighted if
we had a corresponding culture flowering in Hungary. Just think of all those
wonderful painters we could have had.

This is one of those untenable, (and stupid, I am afraid), politically
correct, pious nonsenses. Yes, Eastern Europe was behind Western Europe in
every which way and we are still paying for it.

Eva Balogh

Eva D. wrote:

>I think you are covering up your real intentions, I don't trust
>your integrity, sorry.

You have no reason to doubt my motivation.  If you have a problem
with something someone else has said or done, you have no business
projecting that onto me.  My motivation is the proomotion of
human diversity, and an appreciation for the different races and
ethnic groups.  Why do you doubt what I have said?  Have I ever
made a statement implying a preference for one groups over another?
No, I have not!  So then, why do you doubt me?

Paul

Charles wrote:

>Within China, there are many ethnic
>differences and I can remember a time when the Han Chinese were
>somewhat disdainful of the Mongols.

As is the case among Europeans, Africans, and others, but each of these groups
have more in common with others of their own group, rather than with someone
from another group.  The point is that we are different, and ain't it great!
Why hide it and ignore it and pretend it isn't there - celebrate it!

>Americans particularly are
>infamous for their inability to distinguish between Chinese and
>Japanese and this has caused a certain amount of annoyance for
>these groups.

I've asked some Chinese students I've met in grad school, and they tell
me they cannot tell the difference between a Chinese and a Japanese
but looking at him, only once he speaks.

>In short, I would respectfully question the use of "racial features"
>as a useful way of discussing either the Chinese or the residents of
>the Indian subcontinent.

Why?  I intend this to be a generalization from ethnic-based identification,
since it has been widely supported on this list that ethnic groups are
hard to identify since they are all mixed - even though the mixing still
allows for rough ethnic classification of peoples (ie French, Germany,
Greek, even though they all are mixed somewhat).  Again, the point is to
preserve some sense of understanding where all people came from, just for
it's own sake, and allow people to appreciate their diversity.  If racial
diversity is deemed to be of little value, then society will not bother
preserving it.  I simply wish to point out that this diversity is in
danger, due to the increasing mobility of people.  Now, I have not said
that any group is 'better' than any other (pay attention Eva D.), just
that we are different, and ain't it cool!

Paul