>
> Sometimes, spending some time in a socialist country, is the best cure for
> what seems to be ailing you.
>

Didn't work for me and I even tried a Stalinist country, not a socialist
one...   There again I tended to be an employee in both systems,
not an employer... I have to admit, being an employee in
a Capitalist country made me a more active  and better socialist...

Can you see no difference between the owner of the corner shop
or a plumber employing 2 in his (very small) business  and
those of "big business"? Whatever the media image, if you have shares/
capital with a return of of more than say $60 000/year - you can choose
not to work all your life. Is that ethical?

If 40 hours of mindblowing, sweaty work is not adequate to earn
the essentials/non-essentials  others seem to get with ease (see adverts)
I can see a motivation to crime and "idleness".


>
> Tibor Benke writes:
> business
> > men and women who usually own some franchise business and work 70 hours a
>
> Now you give examples of your "robber capitalists"? I thought
> according to you these guys did not exist.
>
> Jeliko

On Tue, 17 Jan 1995 14:28:30 +0000 Eva Durant said:
>
>- not possible on the base of private property. If you
>are forced to work for somebody else, you can't be
>self-determinating...
>
--Most of us don't feel that we have been forced to work for
somebody else.  It's a choice.  There are a lot of individual
entrepreneurs, but that isn't practical for the manufacture of
large goods.

>Well, he was vindicated totally about his forcast about the tories'
>intention of closing down most mines.

--You support the principle of working uneconomic pits at taxpayer
expense even if no one wants or needs the coal?  Much of Eastern
and Central Europe had similar industries.

 He was called a liar by
>the media here, investigated for fraud - never found guilty in
>anything, but no apologies. Him, Benn and the Beast of Bolsover
>are the only politicians with some integrity around here.
>
--And evidently they have no trouble getting their messages out.
>
>I know. US media is perfect and giving an unbiased view on
>every important issue to your everage person, therefore you
>have a well-informed opinionated populace. That's why they
>are kidnapped so often by aliens, they want the latest info...
>
--Actually, most of our media has a liberal to left bias.  Of course
it isn't perfect.  But there is certainly a variety of opinion available,
including those who claim to have been kidnapped by aliens.  And there
are times when I wonder a bit about my wife's people, come to think of
it.
>>
>Meaning: women shouldn't leave unwanted relationships... That
>should be man's prerogative as ever before...

--Read it again, Eva.  There are a lot of women in this country who
have been deceived by irresponsible men in the name of the sexual
revolution.  They have been conned into thinking that they are "modern"
women.  They are providing sex, housework, child care, and money to
jerks who have convinced them that they are free.  But guess who
literally gets left holding the baby and the bills when the going
gets rough?

>Still more people used and are using the  downright dangerous drug
>called alcohol.

--Which is, at least, manufactured under government supervision to
a known potency and whose sale is regulated somewhat.

 Drugs would be not propagated if it wasn't
>a lucrative moneymaker as I said repeatedly and being ignored
>repeatedly.
>
--Oh, I don't think you are being ignored.  I don't think that there
is any disagreement.  Unfortunately, the counterculture made drug use
popular, and there still are people who are willing to ingest an
unknown substance manufactured under God knows what conditions that
they purchase from strangers.  Not my scene.

>> --At least it is worthwhile to try to make choices among alternatives
>> rather than to leave it up to others.

>What alternatives?
>
--You don't regard Tony Benn and John Major as alternatives?
>
>I took similar advantages, and am still poor. (Don't worry still being
>fairly happy and not after your swimming pool)

--Don't have one.  I live in a modest house in a middle-class--
in the American use of that term, not the British one--neighborhood.
You'd probably call it Class 3.

>Perhaps I am just not cute enough. Sorry.

--That can't be it.  Judging by your wit, you're probably cuter.

 Can you tell me, that
>the system is geared for everybody to become so privilaged?

--I would say that the system here is geared so that at least
80 percent of the people can live quite well.  Another five
to ten percent, depending on the era, get by.  About ten to
fifteen percent have a difficult time of it, no question.  And,
their situation is not improving.  What saves them at all is
the underground economy.

>The tendency is not so. Please give up the falacy, that if you smart and
>diligent you make it. Happens sometimes, but mostly if you were born
>in the right place and at the right time.

--Happens most of the time.  And, sure, luck does play a part.  But
I've noticed that the more you practice, the luckier you get.  I would
say that if one is assertive and looks for his or her chances, he or she
will be able to achieve a decent level of living.  Of course, if one
waits for it to happen, he or she will end up on the street.

 You just make people feel
>bad saying it is their own fault, only as much as being born with a
>given colour of skin...

--Oh, I think that most of us are past that.  I note that on Prime
Minister's Question Time, which is broadcast here, that there are
few people of color in your parliament.  Not so with our Congress and
certainly not in our state legislatures and courts.  It is still harder
for ordinary people of color to make it here, although the talented
do well.  That's the main racial problem here, in my view.  A Michael
Jordan or an Ella Fitzgerald won't go unnoticed.  But just a regular
John Smith who is black still has limited opportunity.  American still
has a long ways to go, and racism is one of our major, major problems.
But as Dr. King said, "The curve of history bends toward justice and
injustice cannot survive forever."  Or words to that effect.

Nice talking to you,

Charles

On Tue, 17 Jan 1995 07:46:22 -0800 Tibor Benke said:
>
>I don't believe much in statistics.  It might be math phobia, I still don't
>know my standard deviation from my mean error and my eyes blurr out when I
>see a frequency distribution table.  I share Sam Clemens' attitude, he
>said: "There are lies, damned lies and statistics".

First off, it was Disraeli.  Second, if you understand statistics, no
one can lie to you with them, because it is easy to spot the lies.

          Official rates of unemployment (which vastly undercalculate the
>actual number of those who have no work), however, continue to hover
>between 9% and 13% with 20% or more in,  Newfoundland.   The average real
>wage is way downfrom even a decade ago.  Supposedly, there was no inflation
>this year; nevertheless, if your "basket of goods and services" is
>different from what Stats Can uses you might experience a rise in your cost
>of living, as I have.

--There.  Evidently you believe in the statistics that support your point
and disbelieve those that don't.

>terms  like: 'advanced', 'bakward', 'civilized', 'primitive', etc.  as
>unscientific and ideological.

--Are you arguing that you are value-free?

Charles

> >
> --Most of us don't feel that we have been forced to work for
> somebody else.  It's a choice.  There are a lot of individual
> entrepreneurs, but that isn't practical for the manufacture of
> large goods.
>

Charles, I think you want to tire me out, and you're succeeding.
If I have to make a living (I haven't got capital/investment/
business, I HAVE to work for whoever is giving me a job, unless
I am one of the lucky few, who has unique skills.
The choice you want to do away in "rich countries" is being
"idle" - which is legitimate in my opinion, if the offered renumeration
is humiliatingly low.

> >Well, he was vindicated totally about his forcast about the tories'
> >intention of closing down most mines.
>
> --You support the principle of working uneconomic pits at taxpayer
> expense even if no one wants or needs the coal?  Much of Eastern
> and Central Europe had similar industries.
>

The point is, that AT THE TIME any such intentions were vehemently
(vow, my vocabulary knows no bounds lately, thanks list)
denied and called ridiculous etc. by the Thatcher government.
Also, now that the North Sea oil/gas is running out and nuclear power is
getting more and more expensive and not trusted, and coal
reserves are plenty in the UK - perhaps it was a hasty
decision to close mines.

>  He was called a liar by
> >the media here, investigated for fraud - never found guilty in
> >anything, but no apologies. Him, Benn and the Beast of Bolsover
> >are the only politicians with some integrity around here.
> >

> --And evidently they have no trouble getting their messages out.
> >

To me, I am interested and receptive... Not many watches news
late night, listens to debates in the parliament
(not much missed there), or reads the Guardian. If they heard
more often now, perhaps there is a market for it...
(They not all that dangerous afterall...)


> --Actually, most of our media has a liberal to left bias.

Could I hear a few liberal/left view on this? Thatcher was
convinced that the BBC and all teachers were dangerous left lunatics...

> Of course
> it isn't perfect.  But there is certainly a variety of opinion available,
> including those who claim to have been kidnapped by aliens.  And there
> are times when I wonder a bit about my wife's people, come to think of
> it.

??

>
> >Still more people used and are using the  downright dangerous drug
> >called alcohol.
>
> --Which is, at least, manufactured under government supervision to
> a known potency and whose sale is regulated somewhat.
>

Kills more people, makes more money for the government than drugs...


>  Drugs would be not propagated if it wasn't
> >a lucrative moneymaker as I said repeatedly and being ignored
> >repeatedly.
> >
> --Oh, I don't think you are being ignored.  I don't think that there
> is any disagreement.  Unfortunately, the counterculture made drug use
> popular

More to do with a psychological climate of entrangement, loneliness
and feeling of helplessness, need for escapism (see also
freak sects, fundamentalism and again ... aliens...)
No one really remembers the spirit of the 60s now, more the pity.

> and there still are people who are willing to ingest an
> unknown substance manufactured under God knows what conditions that
> they purchase from strangers.

Perhaps there are no creative alternatives/stimuli in their
environment. Any thoughts on this? Are you interested in the causes?
They were not born escapists...

> Not my scene.

I'm a good girl, I've never even smoked... (I tried but didn't like it)

> >> --At least it is worthwhile to try to make choices among alternatives
> >> rather than to leave it up to others.
>
> >What alternatives?
> >
> --You don't regard Tony Benn and John Major as alternatives?
> >

I meant alternatives to capitalism. I only know one, but perhaps
you not liking mine would come up with something...


> >I took similar advantages, and am still poor. (Don't worry still being
> >fairly happy and not after your swimming pool)
>
> --Don't have one.  I live in a modest house in a middle-class--
> in the American use of that term, not the British one--neighborhood.
> You'd probably call it Class 3.
>

Sorry, I've never learned sociology, don't know these numbers


>  Can you tell me, that
> >the system is geared for everybody to become so privilaged?
>
> --I would say that the system here is geared so that at least
> 80 percent of the people can live quite well.  Another five
> to ten percent, depending on the era, get by.  About ten to
> fifteen percent have a difficult time of it, no question.  And,
> their situation is not improving.  What saves them at all is
> the underground economy.
>

I have no figures, but skeptical of yours, in the standard
of living I would also count how much fear for the future
one has, and the people living on wages however well
are not well off in this respect here. Also 30+ pecent
counts as poor. I am worried about tendencies and that points
to more poverty and segregation of classes.

>
> --Happens most of the time.  And, sure, luck does play a part.  But
> I've noticed that the more you practice, the luckier you get.  I would
> say that if one is assertive and looks for his or her chances, he or she
> will be able to achieve a decent level of living.  Of course, if one
> waits for it to happen, he or she will end up on the street.
>

Yes, you cannot efford to be just - nice... Hm. What will happen
if we are all assertive and lucky? By than there will be no need
for employees I hope... Is this utopistic, or what?

>  You just make people feel
> >bad saying it is their own fault, only as much as being born with a
> >given colour of skin...
>

Well I meant a simple physical attribute, picked the wrong one for
a fitting example here.

On Friday, the 20th of January,
at the Embassy of the Republic of Hungary
      2950 Spring of Freedom Street, N.W.
               Washington, D.C.

    Recital by Kriszta Kovacs (piano)

Program
=======

Beethoven       Sonata No.26 in E flat major, Op. 81a  "Les Adieux"
Chopin          Ballade No. 1 in G minor, Op. 23
Chopin          Scherzo No. 2 in B flat minor, Op. 31
Granados        "Quejas o la maya y el ruisenor" from "Goyescas"
Liszt           Un sospiro - Etude de concert
Liszt           Apres une lecture du Dante
                          fantasia quasi sonata

R.S.V.P. (202)-362-6730 Acceptances only !

According to the HVG the three hotels in question are: Forum, Flamenco and
Beke Radisson. By the way, according to one of the correspondents to the
Hungarian-language Forum, a Budapest newspaper (and not a rightwing one
either) was putting forth the possibility that Horn is planning to pass the
hotel chain on to the trade unions. I don't know a thing about this but even
the HVG mentioned that the local governments expressed an interest in
purchasing the hotels.

Eva Balogh

Eva Durant writes in connection with the relative backwardness of Eastern
Europe:

>Would this mean, that if you are an expert in your field, than
>your view cannot be disputed - or discussed - by anyone else
>but a similar expert?

No, it doesn't. Moreover, I am not an expert on economic history. The only
period I would call myself an expert is World War I, the Hungarian Soviet
Republic and the early years of the counterrevolutionary regime. The question
of relative economic, social and political backwardness of Eastern Europe is
not question of "a view," or "an opinion." It is a fact. During this whole
discussion on the subject, occasionally I just grabbed my hair and sighed:
why are we discussing the obvious? Moreover, more intriguing, why the two or
three people with the most leftist views take such offense at the mention of
possible backwardness. Now Tibor tells me that he doesn't care about
statistics: he doesn't believe in them. And no, he will not look at any
comparative figures. They make him dizzy. Fine, then, if we don't believe in
the economic indicators then let's take a walking tour starting somewhere in
western Austria and keep going eastward. If you don't see the difference then
you can't be helped. Look at the peasant houses in western or southern
Austria and then in the Burgenland, or in the Dunantul, or in the Great
Plains, and then keeping going through Transylvania and so forth, until you
reach Russia. And once you are finished with this tour then take a side trip
to the Balkans, ending in Albania. The further east you go and the further
south into the Balkans you go, the relative backwardness is more and more
pronounced. Austria is more advanced than Hungary or Slovakia, Hungary and
Slovakia are more advanced than Romania or Bulgaria and so on and so forth.
Some of these differences were much more pronounced before 1945 but even
today there are discernible difference of development.

Eva Balogh

Tibor wrote:

>But how was Eastern Europe behind and how do you know?  What criteria are
>you using and what makes those criteria more valid then if I, for example,
>maintain that 17th century aboriginal Australian or  Tlinglit culture (in
>what is now northern Vancouver Island) was the highest  ever because both
>maintained their economies and ecologies in ballance.  What if in the long
>term scheme of things, it turns out that what we call 'civilization' is an
>evolutionary dead end?

Bravo, Tibor!!  Absolutely correct.  We even see signs that some westerners
are beginning to understand this, but making expediations into remote
jungles, and learning from 'primitive' natives about the medical uses
of various plants.  I think scientists sometimes forget that their
assumptions and criteria for judging the value of something need to be
re-examined periodically, at least to prevent arrogance.  Western
cultures have achieved great things thru science, but we need to lose
our superiority complex about our scientific understanding making our
decisions and priorities more valid than those of lesser developed
cultures.  People who live in jungles and in remote tribes are not
necessarily less happy than the rest of us - and people who live
in metropolitan areas are not necessarily more sophisticated and
wise than those in rural or undeveloped areas (people in NY sure
think their lives are better than the lives of those of us in
the suburbs). In short, 300 tv channels does not bring happiness.

Paul

My apologies for speaking too early.  As soon as I posted the piece I thought
that perhaps you merely misaddressed your post - just as it turned out to be
the case.  I reacted so quickly because this was the second time I saw a
Hungarian response to a private argument in this forum and I thought the
first one was from you also.  I am not so sure about that now.  In any event,
sorry!

Ferenc

Charles, I think you misunderstood one point when you wrote:

>You are on safer ground to argue that there are ethnic differences in
>ehavior, values, food, music, etc. than if you attribute these
>differences to race.

I don't attribute such differences to race.  Ny point was that there
are both cultural and ethnic/racial diffeences among peoples, and just
as everyone on the list thinks that it is good to preserve cultural
diffences, I think racial/ethnic differences are wonderful and should
be preserved.  Maybe maintaining ethnic differences (Polish vs Italian)
is impractical due to proximity of ethnic groups within a race (Europe,
Africa, Asia) maintaining racial differences might be a more practical
thing to propose.  Again, for those with bad memories, I do not
propose that any race/ethnic groups is better than another, just that
these differences are wonderful and should be valued.

>Zukie was born in this country .... Her parents made no attempt to preserve
>Japanese culture ... Following your argument logically, this must be an
>offensive example of denial of one's heritage.

The US being a 'new' country (ignoring the destruction of Indian
civilization for simplicity), people coming here to start/build a new
country would not be destrying the cultures from which they came.
People coming to the US should become Americans, as there is no
American ethnic groups as such.  The US and Australia would be
exceptions or this 'rules' would need more refinement, given that
people settling new land is older than the Hungarian settlement of
the Carpathian Basin (No, I don't want to get into the arguement
about conquest/settlement).  Remember the goal I was proposing;
Preservation of cultural, ethnic and racial diversity for it's
intrinsic value.

>My Chinese students are better than your Chinese students!

Are not, so there.  :-)

Paul

>
>Eva Durant writes in connection with the relative backwardness of Eastern
>Europe:
>
>>Would this mean, that if you are an expert in your field, than
>>your view cannot be disputed - or discussed - by anyone else
>>but a similar expert?
>
>No, it doesn't. Moreover, I am not an expert on economic history.

Didn't you write to me that it was annoying to be challenged by a
non-expert on an issue in your field?

BTW, if Eastern Europe's backwardness throughout all history is a commonly
accepted fact, I must have studied under some misguided souls (though none
of them had Eastern Europe as their field).  I was taught that projecting
this particular dualistic portrayl back beyond the Enlightenment was
anachronistic.

Moreover, more intriguing, why the two or
>three people with the most leftist views take such offense at the mention of
>possible backwardness.

I've refrained from commenting on this debate since your "loss of patience"
posting, as you wished.  If you don't want me to rejoin the debate, please
don't make references to me on this subject.

My only grudge with what you were saying is that I don't see either Eastern
or Western Europe to be monoliths which remained constant internally or in
relation to one another through out all history.

BTW, I was not offended...you were offended that I was questioning what you
had written.


Respectfully,

                        Thomas Breed
                        

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

Hello, Netters

I would be appreciated if someone could give me a hand to translate
a song for my friend ( from Hungarian song into English).

Thanks.....
Montri S./ Mahidol University