At 02:26 AM 2/9/96 -0500, Andras Kornai wrote:

>The burden is still on E1va. Whatever its failures, capitalism has at least
>outlasted socialism.

Much to everyone's relief!  And cockroaches will outlive all other lifeforms
even after a nuclear war or accident.

>So the socialist logic inevitably leads to the conclusion that people
>actually don't know what's good for them, and it's up to the revolutionary
>avant-garde (forradalmi e1lcsapat) to make them see the light.

Your ideas are trapped in the past, Andras.  Nostalgia just isn't what it
used to be.

>Central America is not a happy place, mostly because the US has a
>tendency to prop up the stupid oppressive regimes there, which conserves an
>economic system (still based on latifundia) rather ill-suited for the 20th
>century.

Ok.  That's a good explanation.

>Botswana, Gambia, Mali, Zambia, and Tanzania are mired in tribalism.

Tribalism is another good explanation.  I'm impressed.

>Notice that in both cases the problem is a precapitalist (in Central
>America, feudal, and in Africa, even more primitive) system, over which
>capitalism is a distinct improvement.

Yup.  I'm still with you.

>Sri Lanka is cursed by an ethnic conflict,

Very tragic indeed, as are all conflicts.

>so your list narrows down to Bangladesh. Frankly, I have no idea what's
>going on in Bangladesh, perhaps even socialism is better than what they
>have now.  Give 'em a true revolutionary like Pol Pot, and the
>overpopulation problem will be taken care of, wouldn't you agree?

What you're saying is that capitalism can't really function if it is bogged
down by 'stupid oppressive regimes', latifundia, tribalism, precapitalist
systems, ethnic conflicts, and what have you.  In essence, your argument is
very simmilar to Eva's except she says that socialism/communism didn't work
because there was never any 'democratic socialism'.  Are you both right?

As for Pol Pot, I wouldn't wish him on anyone, not even on the two Johns who
make regular contributions to this newsgroup.

>>The wellspring of your economic fundamentalist ideology is, no doubt,
>>Friedrich August von Hayek's, 1944 text, The Road to Serfdom.   Hayek
>>believed that increased government control would lead both to economic
>>decline, as state planning replaced the free market, and to the erosion
>>of personal liberty.
>Hayek indeed "believed" this, though I think this choice of the verb
>does disservice to "belief" arrived at by logical argumentation. I'd
>say Hayek "reasoned", "argued", even "concluded" this, and boy did the
>ensuing period prove him right.

So his little book is like a catechism?  Reasoning and arguing is fine, but
what does that have to do with the scientific understanding of the economy?
And was it increased government control that led to the decay of American
inner cities, high unemployment, environmental degredation, and the decline
of the hinterland?

>It's not a bad idea, considering the ineptness governments handle almost
>anything. If someone came up with a better method of redistributing wealth
>(which I take to be the primary function of the modern state, given that it
>is both incapable of and unwilling to uphold contracts between private
>parties) I'd be ready to dispense with governments altogether.

Oh please!  Such bravado!!  You'll soon be asking us to join the citizens
militias that seem to be so popular in the States these days.  Governments
work only to the extent that people allow.

>Do Hungarians like capitalism? No. Would they like peace and prosperity
>bankrolled by foreign loans, like in the golden years of Ka1da1r? You
>betcha.  Do they actually want to work harder than they used to? No. Do
>they see the loss of job security as something positive? Perhaps the
>employers who thereby gain more hardworking employees do, but obviously
>they are a minority.
>
>Altogether, we have yet to see a drug addict who likes to come down from a
>high. I highly recommend the Fugs classic "I'm a-coming down" to get
>yourself in the mood of Hungary today.

Oh, I don't know Andras.  You're 'capitalist realism' is not very appealing.
You seem to be content knowing that people in Hungary will now have to work
harder and with no job security.  And people will have to do this to make
the 'boss' richer.  I bet you never argued for people to work harder to make
'society' richer.

As for drugs, they may give one a false sense of well-being.  But in my
books, a false sense of well-being is better than no sense of well-being.

Joe Szalai

At 09:25 AM 2/9/96 -0500, Doepp James wrote:

>I'm afraid you've got it wrong.  The only interest of the market is not to
>"endlessly create capital".  The only interest of the market is to make
>profit.  Before you jump on me for saying this, let me define profit.
>Profit - for an individual - is the difference (if positive) between
>the subjective value he attaches to the end achieved and the subjective
>value he attaches to the means that had to be expended to achieve it.
>Profit, therefore cannot be measured in money.

Voodoo economics, anyone?  Profit cannot be measured in money??  Does anyone
else on this list have a problem with this idea?

James, it's very difficult to argue economics with you if you resort to
mystification and obfuscation of economic theory.  And you claim that Eva
Durant's ideas are utopian!  I am glad, however, that you've clarified what
the interest of the market is.  And do you know what?  I agree with you.
The only interest of the market is to make profit, measurable or not.  The
market does not care about labour laws, the environment, medicare,
education, the arts, child care, democracy, dictatorship, racism, etc.,
etc., ad infinitum.

However, where is the fairness and justification to tailor all human
activity to the persuit of profit?

>One can profit much from helping those in need.  The profits are not in the
>money earned, but in the satisfaction gained that you helped somebody
>in their misery.

Yes!!  Bring on the churches.  Bring out the Salvation Army soup kitchens
and hostels for the homeless.  Better to spend time on your knees praying
for a better world than actively building one.  Lets ensure that there will
always be disadvantaged people so that the more fortunate ones can give them
a hand and feel good for doing so.  It warms the cockles of my Hungarian
heart to have discovered the utilitarian uses of poverty and misery!  I
never would have guessed.  James, have you been feeling very 'profitable'
these days?

>Most people seem to attach much value to material
>wealth.  Would it be right for me to say to someone:  I know what is
>good for you and what would make you truly happy; you should not make
>money, but you should live off of a simple meal of rice and beans, live
>in a thatched hut with mud floors, no indoor plumbing, etc.?
>Even if it is true, do I have a right to force somebody into that
>situation?  Would he be any happier because of it?  I think it would
>only build resentment.

This is hogwash.  What does this have to do with making profit?  Nothing!

>Does believing in the law of supply and demand make one a "free market
>fundementalist"?  Or believing that people make choices according to
>the felt uneasiness they expect to reduce in making those choices?  Or
>that freedom is better than slavery?  Or that economic growth is better
>than economic stagnation?  Well, if so I (and any economist you
>come across) am a fundamentalist.  The above are some of the fundamentals
>of economics.

Obfuscation, obfuscation, and more obfuscation.  To agrue that unfettered
profit making is akin to freedom, and that any government or social
interference in the market is to court slavery is pure nonsense.  The single
minded pursuit of profit if slavery.

>You've got things backwards.  The market is there because people have
>needs.  Some people have more of one thing and need more of another.
>Trade takes place when people who have higher needs in one area give up
>that which they have lower needs of in order to obtain that which they
>feel they have a greater need of.

Thanks for your introductory notes to economics 101!

>There is no need for "economic missionaries" here.  People understand
>first hand the effects of socialism - on the economy and on society.
>If I really wanted to be an "economic missionary" I would have to move
>to a US or Canadian university, the last bastion of communism in the world.

You lose all credibility when you tell off-colour jokes.

>The free market has prevented Hungary from being an even worse basket
>case (such as Russia, Ukraine, etc.)  It started in 1968....
>The state, especially in the 1980s turned a blind eye to people who worked
>two jobs, one "official" while the other in the second economy.

If all Hungarians worked at two jobs for the common good rather than for
greed, then even that so called 'socialism' would have looked pretty good.
I don't know the current situation in Hungary, but in Canada, many people
are now working at two jobs just to make ends meet.  And they're the lucky
ones.  Many more, especially the young, have no jobs or have two or three
part-time jobs, with no benifits or job security.  And a lot of them are
very angry.  They've concluded that liberalism, socialism or social
democracy is not the solution and they are drawn towards narrow, fascist
ideologies and religion, or a combination of the two.  They don't share your
fetishism for the 'free' market, but boy, are they learning how to
scapegoat.   But not to fear.  Fascism can strengthen the free market!

Joe Szalai

>We've seen the results of the 'great Serbia' dream.  From an Hungarian
>cultural perspective, I think the best that can be is to see thriving
>Hungarian communities in Romania, Slovakia and Serbia. Leave the borders as
>they are.
>
>Joe Szalai
  And welcome the gifts like the language laws and openly anti-Hungarian
  parties, etc...
    O yes! This is what some leaders in those countries want to hear.
  Who cares about the 84% Hungarian population in today southern Slovakia.
  The 16% non-Hung. is enough for it to be part of Slovakia which did not
  exist in the history anyway up to a few years ago. Your lovely
  advices should be addressed to CIS countries as well concerning the SU
  borderlines, let us see what they think. How about the east-west
  German borderline ? Do you have some more lirical advices ? Any
  autonomy thought is shouvinistic and any language law is progressive ...
    Where is the borderline of the 'great Slovakia' dream for example?
  May I remind you that there was a version in Trianon that Hungary
  was not on the map ?
    Why do not you tell it to Romanian and Slovakian authorities?
  Just change the name of the country or ethnic people in the advice.
    Why the Hungarians have to forget what was done against them?
  Later we can forget about autonomy and thereafter the identity as well.
  Listen what has come tuday :
>How the Czechs and Germans come to grips with their odious past behavior
>is also significant for Hungarians. The Benes Decrees also applied to
>the ethnic Hungarians of Czechoslovak citizenship. Hungarians were ethnic
>cleansed solely based on their ethnicity. They still have not been
>compensated for the wrongs inflicted upon them.
  Also recall that a Slovak party leader asked the Hungarian government
  in these months to apologise to the Slovaks because of the history.
  Should not the HL recommend Benes for post-humus Nobeal Peace Prise ?

    Nobody was thinking about Serbian crisis as a way of solution of
  Hungarian ethnic problems. See the Berlin wall: a black eye here, a
  kicked ass there, that is it, no more. But people must speak and stand up
  for themsels. Have you heard the proverb :
  Shiny beggar has empty stomach. If you do not resist against the
  person who has kicked your ass, later he will be more cruel to you
  and he will even enjoy it.

    Just a little about the war game : The greater Serbia dream existed
  until it was supported by some of the powers up to about 1990.
  Just the old rule apply : It is easier to exterminate people than to
  force to change their mind. Big powers do not prefer political
  movements from those countries who have no enough military force
  to achieve it.

At 11:27 AM 2/9/96 -0500, Eva Balogh wrote:

>>Would this law legalize both female and male prostitutes?
>
>Are you kidding? You should have a sampling of what Hungarians think
>of homosexuality at the Forum. You will be surprised. Or perhaps not!

No, I wouldn't be surprised.

A sampling of opinions expressed here and on other newsgroups indicate that
many Hungarians are sexist, racist (especially toward gypsies), and
homophobic.

Are Hungarians ready to join the European Community?

Joe Szalai

Jeliko:

>Now, I have a map of pre-Trianon Hungray and one of the 1940 period, when
>parts of the territories awarded to neighboring countries were returned
>to Hungary. Does this make me into an irredentist? I do not think so.
>
>The maps are one of my best sources to historical names of localities,
>which certainly do not show up in the maps of Romania, Serbia, Croatia
>or the Slovak Republic.

        Of course! I happen to have a copy of the "Ethnographic Map of
Hungary based on Density of Population by Paul Teleki," according to the
1910 census. I had it framed and it hangs right in front of my desk. On that
map there is the whole former Greater Hungary minus Croatia, which the
Hungarians did not lay claim to at the Peace Conference. Moreover, I am
planning to purchase a series of historical maps of Greater Hungary
published a few years back. They are invaluable help for anyone interested
in the history of modern Hungary.

        Eva Balogh

Joe Szalai, answering Andras Kornai:

>Oh, I don't know Andras.  You're 'capitalist realism' is not very appealing.
>You seem to be content knowing that people in Hungary will now have to work
>harder and with no job security.  And people will have to do this to make
>the 'boss' richer.  I bet you never argued for people to work harder to make
>'society' richer.

        You may not find it very appealing but, unfortunately, it is true.
And I will be even harsher than Andras was in his original piece. I contend
that most Hungarians misuse, abuse, take advantage of (take you pick) the
social services provided. Currently, the Hungarian people pay 65-70 percent
of their wages for social services, but somehow they don't seem to realize
the connection between the "free" social services and their own contribution
to them. Because they come from the state, they are free--manna from
heaven!! And as such you can abuse it.
        Just to give you a couple of examples. The abuse of the so-called
"rokkantsagi nyugdij" (disability pension) is staggering. Gyula Horn in one
of his speeches called for its reform because as it stands "Hungary is
becoming of the country of the disabled." An incredible number of these
so-called disabled people are not disabled at all. Doctors are bribed and
give false testimonies. The so-called disabled men and women get a monthly
check but, of course, that is not the main source of their income. They work
in the black/grey economy. The disability payment is simply a little extra.
        The same is true of certain "free" drugs which only people who earn
under a certain amount can get. Again, the doctors are bribed and give out
prescriptions by the dozen. Some of these "entrepreneurs" appear at the drug
stores with 70-80 prescriptions. Needless to say they turn around and sell
the drugs on the black market. And the interesting thing is that they can
get away with it because the necessary laws and regulations are not in place.
        Disabled people could import cars from abroad without duty--do I
have to tell you more? Mercedeses were imported in the name of the so-called
disabled and sold immediately to someone else! One could continue ad infinitum.

        Eva Balogh

At 05:33 PM 2/9/96 -0500, you wrote:
Sam Stowe:

>But anyone who monitors soc.culture.magyar for any length
>of time is going to be treated to an on-going flamefest between Hungarians
>and Romanians about Transylvania-Erdely.

        That's true. I normally don't read soc.culture.magyar but for a
little while I did follow some of the discussion. Admittedly, there is quite
a discussion going on between Romanians and Hungarians about Transylvania
and one finds a few extremists on both sides, BUT I was, on the whole,
favorably impressed with some of the Romanians and Hungarians who
participate in these discussions. They are very reasonable for the most
part. I learned all sorts of interesting things from the Romanians and I
hope, they learned something from me. (I provided a lot of population
statistics from some of the contested territories along today's
Romanian-Hungarian border.) One very nice fellow called Adrian translated
for us his grandfather's memoirs from the late twenties, when he was a
school teacher in a village close to the then Czech-Romanian (now
Ukrainian-Romanian border). It was most interesting. The population was
extremely mixed: over 50 percent Hungarians, about 20 percent Romanian and
30 percent Ukrainian. According to Adrian's grandfather the Romanians'
Romanian was not that great--I added that most likely the Hungarians'
Hungarian and the Ukrainian's Ukrainian wasn't that great either. In any
case, the reasonable Romanians don't claim that the new borders were
entirely justified and the reasonable Hungarians don't want to get whole of
Transylvania back. But they want the Romanians admit that Transylvania, in
spite of its large Romanian population, was a very important Hungarian
political and cultural center. Hungarians also treat the Daco-Romanian
continuity theory with great skepticism. (I myself am very skeptical as well!).

>Hungary is caught in a precarious
>spot on this particular issue. With so many ethnic Hungarians living as a
>minority population in adjacent states, any Hungarian government is going
>to have to come down on a continuum between ignoring those over-the-border
>communities outright and tacitly sanctioning any oppression the majority
>ethnic group in their respective nation may dish out or aggressively
>guaranteeing, through military sanctions, the rights of Hungarians in
>adjoining states.

        Very true. It is almost an impossible situation. Critics of the
Antall government claimed that between 1990 and 1994 Hungary took a too
rigid and antagonistic attitude and the socialists promised an entirely new
approach: signing of basic treaties (like with Slovakia) and historical
reconciliation (as the Romanians call it) with Romania. The basic treaty
with Slovakia was signed and ratified by the Hungarian parliament. As we all
know Slovakia still hasn't ratified the treaty. Moreover, they introduced
the controversial language law since the signing of the basic treaty with
Hungary. The Romanian-Hungarian negotiatons are stalled.

Eva Balogh

Joe Szalai wrote:

>A sampling of opinions expressed here and on other newsgroups indicate that
many Hungarians are sexist, racist (especially toward gypsies), and
>homophobic.

By your definition, not by mine or many others'.

Paul Gelencser

At 04:35 PM 2/10/96 EST, Paul Gelencser wrote:
>Joe Szalai wrote:
>
>>A sampling of opinions expressed here and on other newsgroups indicate that
>many Hungarians are sexist, racist (especially toward gypsies), and
>>homophobic.
>
>By your definition, not by mine or many others'.
>
        Well, Paul, as you know, I don't agree with Joe Szalai on political
questions but, by golly, he is right about the sexism, racism, and
homophobia. I know you don't like to hear that but that's the truth.

        Eva Balogh