In article <l03010d00af0d9b5606ab@[198.168.48.45]>, "Peter I. Hidas"
> writes:

>To call the Hungarian units "rebels" is a condemnation of their
activities.
>You are using a highly subjective term that was used by the imperial
forces
>at the time. Americans use the term "rebs" with  hostility and contempt.
>The Honved Army and the Kossuth government represented more than just a
>rebellious group. If you do not wish to use the terms "revolutionaries"
or
>"freedom fighters" you should apply the more neutral term "insurgents".

For your information, doc, I happen to be descended from "rebs." There are
large parts of the U.S. where the word "rebel" is not quite the pejorative
term you deem it. Just for that, if you ever set foot in North Carolina,
I'm going to insist on taking you out and feeding you some of the best
barbecue, fried chicken, hush puppies, cole slaw and Brunswick stew you'll
ever have the great fortune to wrap your lips around.

And your insistence on which terms to use smacks of the old "shall we call
it it a forradalom or szabadsagharc?" I fail to see how calling them
revolutionaries somehow lends more of an air of nobility to their efforts
than calling them rebels. Too bad I don't have a copy of the "Handy-Dandy
Habsburg/Hungarian History and Romance Writer's Handbook." ("Erzebet's
bodice heaved with barely-concealed desire as the proud, fiery Petofi
stroked her hair, his muscles rippling under his linen shirt. 'Tell me
again, what are you rebelling against?' The words leaped from her mouth in
passionate bursts. Petofi's chiseled Sumerian features darkened, a red
flush tinging his cheeks. 'Darling, how many times must I tell you?' he
murmurred. 'I'm not rebelling. I'm simply revolting.'")
Sam Stowe



"Those who serve the revolution
plow the sea..."
-- Simon Bolivar

At 02:37 AM 1/24/97 -0500, Ferenc Novak wrote:

<snip>
>What is this about "you all"?  Speaking for me personally, I have no
>feelings of guilt, fear or shame or hatred, for that matter.  I just find
>homosexuality disgusting.  Please don't take it personally.  I believe we
>should still be able to maintain a civilized discourse on other, more
>important topics.
>
>Can't we just practice "don't ask, don't tell" as in the (US) army?

No, we can't, Ferenc.

You've got a nice political philosophy there, mister.  Besides
homosexuality, what else would you like to suppress?

Joe Szalai

"Absolute justice is achieved by the suppression of all contradiction:
therefore it destroys freedom."
                 Albert Camus

Dear Listers:

If someone is going to offer a model letter to be used by many others
care should be taken that it NOT contain glaring grammatical errors.
"The alternative to cultural autonomy ARE mass graves and cultural
genocides" should have read "The alternative to cultural autonomy
IS mass graves and cultural genocide." The antecedent of IS is
"alternative," which is singular. In other words "[t]he alternative . . . IS"
not ARE! And the very next sentence contains a comma splice. The
phrase "the United States was forced three times" is NOT parenthetic
so it shouldn't be enclosed with commas. The sentence in question
should have read: "In this century the United States was forced to
intervene three times in Europe . . . "

Now I know that netiquette dictates that we not correct each other's
grammar, but surely a case such as this is an exception to the rule.
If someone is going to ask others to use a text such as this, that
person should really have the text in question double-checked to make
sure it doesn't contain embarrassing errors . . . I happen to be a
professor of English with 25 years teaching experience and a Ph.D.
in English from the Johns Hopkins University, so please don't try to
defend the errors I have pointed out. I know whereof I speak. And
don't flame me, either. I really and truly mean well. If we are going to
create representative texts, we should make sure that the texts in
question are correct in every way . . .

Thanks for listening,
Steven C. Scheer

At 02:19 AM 1/24/97 -0500, Janos Zsargo wrote:
>E.Balogh wrote:
>
>>by Hungarians. Therefore there was no "nationality issue" to exploit. The
>>court, by and large, accepted the Hungarian demands for a representative
>>government.
>
>So if Kossuth had presented those demands during the fall of 1847 just before
>the turmoil all over Europe (spring of 1848), then the court, by and large,
>would have accepted them? And with cooler head they would have worked out the
>differences. 'Hogy ez miert nem jutott Kossuth eszebe!'

        I really don't understand how your mind works. Very strangely. Why
are you picking dates like "fall of 1847" out of the bag. No one was talking
about the fall of 1847, before the turmoil all over Europe. But may I remind
you that the Hungarian revolution was bloodless, by and large, and yes,
under the gun or not, Vienna accepted the April Laws with all its faults. In
my humble opinion the April Laws as they stood were unworkable. You cannot
have even a personal union without some cohesion of finances, army, and
foreign policy. (And before you jump on me: there was no foreign minister in
the cabinet but the Hungarian government was sending its own representatives
to foreign powers.)

        In brief, the Hungarian government may have exploited that
particular gun under which the Crown labored. And that gun later backfired.

        Eva Balogh

At 01:19 PM 1/24/97 +0100, Miklos Hoffmann wrote:

>Hey! someebody used the term "civilized discourse", for a change. Please
>do not lynch him ( nor me for this remark ).
>Miklos

Welcome to the list, Miklos.

No one's getting lynched here but, you may have noticed, the debates
sometimes get overheated.  And there's nothing wrong with that, per se.
However, it helps if you have a thick skin and a quick wit.  Unfortunately,
some, like Ferenc ("I just find homosexuality disgusting") Novak, are just
thick, and dim-witted.  But that's their problem.

Joe Szalai

"The queers of the sixties, like those since, have connived with their
repression under a veneer of respectability. Good mannered city queens in
suits and pinstripes, so busy establishing themselves, were useless at
changing anything."
             Derek Jarman

In my previous reply to Eva Balogh's attack (regarding a Hungarian-language
 article I had sent to Hungary by mistake) I vented my frustration over Eva's
behavior and neglected to explain the issue to those who don't read
Hungarian.  Since Eva didn't explain it either, some of you may be puzzled
over what it is about.

In the article -- intended for FORUM (now SZABAD) -- I responded to one of
Eva's posts in which she related how she had translated an offensive post
into English and showed her friends as  a typical example of what appears in
the Hungarian language lists (and, by implication, how Hungarians debate).

In my post I asked her why she would libel a community (FORUM in this case)
when she only had problems with a certain individual and raised the question
whether she thought it fair, proper, even intelligent to level vile
accusations at an entire group of which she herself is a member.

Ferenc

> So you were a peon and you still carry water for this bunch. Hey, whaddaya
> know? I've met my first Hungarian masochist. I guess we can assume that
> you're not going to answer my questions.
>

Beeing a worker inthe 80s is Hungary was not a lot different, that
being a worker in the UK in the 70s or in the 90s. Remember, we
went to live in Hungary due to redundancy. If you like, I send - just
for you - a comparative  essay on working conditions - also as far
as freedom to criticise the boss, freedom to just leave and get
another job.
WHICH DOESN'T MEAN, THAT I WANT ANYTHING LIKE
THE UNDEMOCRATIC SYSTEM BEFORE.  I just point out,
that capitalism doesn't provide the FREEDOM for WORKERS
NEITHER, that you are keep lecturing me about. Voting for the
opposition still means the same conditions, for the last 30 years,
the "more socially conscious" opposition, even when calls itself
socialist, doesn't change the economical structure, and CANNOT
offer the better social conditions, because at this stage the
"market system" cannot afford them, as it could in the 60s.
>
> Hey, imitating me! That's the first concrete step I've seen you take
> toward thinking for yourself. Keep this up and I may have to send you
> roses. And it is official, gentles -- Eva D. won't answer my questions!
>

But you didn't get the idea - capitalism is not immune from
undemocratic deformations, fascism, apartheid, Somoza,
Papa Doc, just to list some of the most obvious ones.

You seem to think that democratic capitalism is great.
I think, that democratic socialism has a good chance to be greater.
Your point, that all the structures of socialism were so far undemocratic,
doesn't mean that there couldn't be a different version put in
practice.   Your argument would have meant, that liberal versions
of capitalism  should not exist, because before  there were
only non-liberal types of capitalism. Socialism is still to evolve to
its most practical form.


> >
> >I AGREE, THAT TOTALITARIAN SOCIALISM IS AND WAS
> >BAD.  When did I last dispute this?  However,  totalitarian capitalism is
> >bad.
>
> Totalitarianism means the political system is structured to admit no
> opposition. That's a far cry from the position of most Western European
> and North American nations, although the influence of money on politics is
> a worrisome factor in those nations. Your statement shows absolute
> ignorance: a) of the political system you live in and b) why you can't get
> many people to take your political views seriously.
>

Have you any guarantee against a deformation into totalitarianism?
It happend in Spain, Greece not so long ago, not to mention Hitler,
and these just in Europe.
UK wasn't far from it a few times. And as I described earlier,
having an opposition that doesn't pose an alternative in any way
is nearly as democratic, as not having an opposition at all.
All of these "democratic" states have a few nasty episodes of shooting
at democratically/peacefully protesting citizens on the rare occasion
when these were anti-status-quo.
Labour/liberal in the UK won't change an iota the way the country is
run, same in the US, Clinton couldn't even deliver the
health-reforms, on which platform he was elected originally.
Having an inadequate government, that hasn't even got the power to
govern and has been elected by a minority is not my idea of
democracy, I think we could do much better.
>
>                                   A democratic version of socialism? Doesn't
> "democratic" imply a political system where decision-making is devolved as
> much as possible to the individual level?

Well, yes! Shaw me any sign of this in a capitalist country.
What political decisions are you allowed - besides the meaningless
election exercise?  Even personal freedom is conditional on your
material standing, less money, less freedom - even to accomplish
the meaning of life - to be a consumer with free choice.

>                                      The point is that any ideology
> driven to even its logical extremes, be it "socialist" or "capitalist,"
> can be a powerful engine for individual human misery.

Here we agree, Soros said in his essay for the "open society",
that nobody should claim  to own The Truth, everyone should admit to
be fallable.


>The difference is
> that most of us have been convinced of this for Marxism-Leninism because
> of empirical experience. Given that, I wouldn't brag about having lived in
> such a society if I were you, because it's apparent that you didn't notice
> the barbarities it was inflicting on everyone around you.

I only had a chance to live in a deformed Marxist-Leninism.
Marx's definition of socialism is, that it is more democratic, than
any other society before, including capitalism. Even Lenin
re-iterates these themes in the April Thesis.
I am sorry to say, but I experienced as much barbarity in the UK,
as I had in Hungary, first hand.  I've grown up in the sixties, when the worst
excesses of stalinism were over in Hungary.

> It will become
> very apparent sooner rather than later to most everyone that laissez-faire
> capitalism is no better in this regard. You will still, however, be
> thoroughly dissatisfied with what takes its place.
> Darth Vader
>

Not, if it will be an advancement on the present primitive, chaotic
economic and political structure. If it provides more meaningful
democracy, it cannot be anything else but improvement.
I would be most surprised if it happens based on the "market
economy", but, as I admit to be fallable, I would welcome it.

Unfortunately, I cannot see the signs of any such developments,
I wish I did, It is much more comfortable to conform to the
majority view, I am getting too old to be a revolutionary, it's
bloody tiring.

> Status:
>
> Hi all,

I seem to remember, that I promised to give a more detailed
answer to new listmember, Ted.

> 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.
>

What do you mean working properly? Having  a better growth-rate,
than others? Than Malaysia, Thailand, Singapure, even Vietnam and
China (!!) are good capitalist countries.
Without particularily good democratic rule.

I feel more and more, that the establishment thinks in our western
"democracies", that democracy and welfare is a costly nuicance, they
would be happy to part with. Victorian values of family (no divorce
and taking back all women emancipation), hard working
and no complaints what would suit them fine...

> The desire to make money automatically leads to the pursuit of customers,
> which means the customers must be offered what they want.

Or more likely, things they didn't know they wanted.
An other enourmous waste of resources, the advertising/marketing
industry. And left short of elementary stuff, such as good
healthcare, even in rich countries, not to mention the poor ones.
There are an awful lot of capitalist poor countries.

>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.
>

But they have to take what they get, if they are lucky enough to get it.
I think you are a lee bit naive and idealistic here, aren't you?
What people are realising is, that they haven't got the power, and
that voting for the opposition ever so often doesn't make any
difference.  I do hope that people do realise if the establishment is
taking away from them too many of the freedom they thought they had.
I do hope, they wont' let it happen.

But here in the UK, they were not educated to question and to be
critical, they just at the point of being distrustful and annoyed
with politicians. They don't know, that at the moment -
with the cooperation of the opposition, unheard-of extra
police-powers are legislated, by the time they wake up, saving
democracy could be quite a task.

What people want, the market is not able to provide.
Decent housing, healthcare, security, a feeling of belonging,
of being creative and useful - a feeling of security for the present
and the future. I think, if people felt they had power, they'd use
it, to start with, they would be interested in political ideas.

> 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.

That is news to me. What is the deep moral content of capitalism?
As I mentioned in another post, it works beautifully in a
totalitarian environment, such as say - Saudi Arabia. It has no
clame to one-to one correspondence with democracy or even liberalism.
If there is a crisis and there are, inspite of the efforts of
international financial organisations and national financial
interventions, democracy and peace is in instant danger..

> 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.
>

Human nature is to use critical thinking, point out inconsistancies,
and always - to search for a better solution. I think  -
especially looking globally - capitalism is not impressive,
it is far from being in syncron with technical development.
Depending on the chaotic whims of the markets, that are totally
separated from human needs is primitive and outdated.


> Ted Fisher
> Kaposvar
>

(Aniko D.)
>  I
> am confused.  Are you, or are you not, advocating that Private Ownership
> be not a minority?
>
>

Well, I think it would be  a bit difficult for the majority of the
population to own a 3+ employee business... If you can arrange it,
I am a convert for capitalism straightaway...





>
> -your definition of private ownership has drastically changed through
> this post
>
> -that you advocate private ownership, but show next to zero respect for
> that entity
>