In article >, Andras Kornai
> writes:

> A peculiar
>variety of English has indeed flourished at the place that was supposed
to
>officially certify one's proficiency in English. But to blame this on
>Orsza1gh, rather than on the fact that Hungary was almost totally
isolated
>from the British and American capitalist imperialist pigs for over a
decade,
>is grossly unfair. A whole generation of language teachers grew up with
>practically no contact with native speakers of English (or with
contemporary
>literature, for that matter), and how were they to know that 'little
>slyboots'
>just doesn't cut it anymore? It was good enough for Fielding, it should
be
>good enough for Joe Sixpack.
>
>Andra1s Kornai
>
>
Actually, I look at it this way -- I'd rather be a native English speaker
trying to wrestle with learning Hungarian than vice versus. On the whole,
I'm getting the easier task. I know some Hungarians pride their language
on being very difficult to master. I would submit, however, that English
with its rich phonology, weird spelling, reams of idioms and massive
vocabulary is no easy thing to get an adequate grasp of. (Oh, my goodness
-- I ended a sentence with a preposition! And I make a living doing this?)
Sounds like Orszagh was making the best of a daunting task.

Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed response, Andra's. It
was exactly what I was looking for. I guess the next time we all hoist a
glass in our virtual faculty lounge, we need to make a toast to the
lexical genius of Laszlo Orszagh.
Sam Stowe

"If this is paradise,
I wish I had a lawn mower..." -- (Nothing But) Flowers, Talking Heads

Dear Mr. Perlmutter and fellow-listmembers,

I suspect it might be worth it to look into the major media that covered
1956 -- of course distance lends perspective changes, more information
gets released, and so on, but part of the research for a good article on
the '56 Olympics might be done in the newspapers and glossy magazines
that covered the games... Life? Saturday Evening Post? Time? the NYT?

If your brother has access to any decent university or some major public
libraries (is he also in New York?) the reference librarians there should
be able to help some, too.

Good luck!  And ask him to crosspost the article, when he finishes!

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

Dear fellow-listmembers,

I second Andra1s's questions about the teacher situation in Hungary (and
the Visegrad countries).  I think it would be a very illuminating compari-
son related to the whole problem of "transition" (if we're still in that
stage).

I can't give details about the Hungarian situation, and the last thing I
saw dealing with the issues was the film, "Sweet Eva, Dear Bobe" if I've
remembered the title correctly -- an excellent film dealing with gymnasium
level teachers in the post '89 era.

Some personal anecdotal stuff related to the Czech republic.  My three kids
go to the local Czech "zakladni skola" (Basic school, corresponds to US
grades 1-9) in the district in Prague where we live.  Admittedly, this
part of Prague 6 -- Dejvice (Hanspaulka) is something roughly corresponding
to Rozsadomb in Buda, so I don't know how "typical" this school is.  The
building dates to the 1930's though they've recently completed a new
additional structure to house cafeteria and the after-school care center
"skolni druzina".  Before that the building was modernized and attics
converted to extra classrooms to deal with student numbers.  I think the
total number of students in the school is somewhere around 900-1000.  My
children are in grades 1, 4, and 6 during this year that is just finishing.
The first and fourth graders have a single teacher for all subjects, except
Czech language and English language and music, my sixth grader has a class
teacher who also does history and geography while the technical subjects
have specialized teachers (Czech and English language, mathematics, physics,
biology, etc.).  Most of the teachers I have seen or met there are women,
though there are some men, one young teacher who deals with grade 3 is male.
The principal and her two deputies are female, the principal holds an MA
and is trained in Russian language; one assistant holds an MPaed (I think)
the other an MA.

By newspaper accounts and anecdote, pay is low, and morale is correspondingly
poor.  Just before the beginning of the school year this year, there were
negotiations with the government on pay and conditions, and the threat by
the teachers' union of a strike at the beginning of the school year.  This
did not come to the point of strike, actually.

People tell us (and this goes for university-level teaching as well) that
the basic problem is the pay structure:  it's so low for teachers that any
young person finishing their training, especially if they are skilled in
languages or technical subjects, can jump to the private sector and start
at salaries approximately 4 times what they make as a teacher.  I do know
that my son's 4th grade teacher is leaving the school at the end of this
year.

Impressionistically, I rate the Czech elementary school highly.  Teaching
is perhaps a little more "old-fashioned" than we are used to here now, but
my kids seem to thrive on it, as do their Czech friends.  Again, on anecdote
and impression, it seems to me that the system in the US (here my experience
is limited to what would probably be considered "elite" schools -- public
schools in university towns, a large proportion of whose graduates go on
for tertiary education) may do better at encouraging questioning, and
self-expression-- though as I get older and more curmudgeonly, I feel
that perhaps in our system the pendulum has swung a bit too far in this
direction....

Altogether, we're pleased enough with the experience overall, and the
specific school structure, to keep our kids there another year.

For what it's worth, and I'm sorry, Andra1s, that this doesn't have to
do with Hungary either, but it's a lot closer (oh, yeah, and for Hungarian
content, the kids of the first secretary at the Hungarian embassy go to
this school, and Sano sometimes plays with my kids, though they aren't
in the same class...:-)

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

On Jul  3 22:08:53 EDT 1996 HUNGARY #717 George Antony writes:

> In particular, the threat of Soviet intervention on behalf of the Communist
>regimes was the single most important source of their stability.

Quite right.

>                                                                  Once that
>was withdrawn, the Communist elites were on their own.  Most were not
>callous enough to reinstate terror against their own populations

This is much too generous an assessment of the motivations of the Communist
regimes.  They were callous all right.  Rather, as George implies above, they
just didn't feel secure in the absence of armed Soviet support.  Quite likely
they still remembered 1956, and didn't want to risk something similar without
the Soviet army behind them.


Ferenc

At 21:37 04/07/96 -0400, Sam Stowe wrote:
>
>P.S. -- It really is nice to have you [Joe Szalai] back in rare form. You
have been
>missed here.

I could say the same about you, Sam! You've been pretty quiet for the past
few weeks. Correcting exams, perhaps? In any case, are you sure you're not
just welcoming Joe back so you can have somebody to practice fencing with
your rapier wit? ;-)))

And Joe Szalai commented, in response to my plaudit to Eva Balogh, which
implied that he is extreme -

Surely you're not suggesting that I'm on the extreme left.

Yup, Joe, that is what I am suggesting.

 If you are, then
perhaps political theory isn't your forte.  Maybe in Canada's hinterland
people still think in terms of "left" or "right" politics.

Never claimed that political theory was my forte, I am only basing my
opinion on your posts, and you do seem to be somewhat *out there* with
Comrade Durant. Maybe you're only extreme when compared with the other
*hidebound conservatives* on the List!

  However, those
terms are rather confusing these days.  The "left" is struggling to preserve
the good social programmes that have been developed over the decades.  They
are acting like conservatives.  On the other hand, the "right" wants rapid
change.  They want to eliminate many social programmes and gut those that
are left.  In Ontario, for example, the Progressive Conservatives' (only in
Canada can political parties have such silly, misleading names) major
document for governing is called "the Common Sense Revolution" (written by
the vice president of an insurance company, no less).  And something just
tells me that when the "right" starts using words like 'revolution', we're
in trouble.

Yes, Joe, and why don't you tell about the NDP (that's Socialist, to you
non-Canadian readers) revelation last week that the Province of British
Columbia actually has a 230 million dollar deficit, when they won the
provincial election over the Liberals, just a few weeks ago, partly by
claiming that they had a balanced budget and thus that they could continue
their traditional spend, spend, spend policies. The Liberals had only the
*bad news* message of cutting gov't spending - when faced with that choice,
the voters *narrowly* elected the *good news* guys. This was not just the
politics of simplicity, it was the politics of *duplicity*!

But all is not lost.  Some people are starting to bring clarity to the
confusion of political terms.  People are now using phrases like "the
politics of simplicity" or "the politics of complexity".  To generalize, the
politics of simplicity refers to the "right-wing" and the politics of
complexity refers to the "left-wing".  Just look at recent political
developments and you might agree that the new concepts are more accurate
than the old "left/right" terms.

Well, I agree that the old terms don't adequately describe the variations in
political opinion these days. I think a *lot* of people, not just the
right-wingers, are looking for simple answers. Also, I think I have more in
common in my views with 19th. century liberalism than with many *new
conservatives* who seem to be just as happy as the modern liberals to use
the government's power to enforce their own political agendas.

For example, when dealing with the deficit, those who support the politics
of simplicity say that the deficit must be paid off.  They start cutting
money for health care, education, and anything else they can get their hands
on in their single-minded devotion to cut the deficit.  They don't seem to
care how the cuts will affect people today or the next generation.  But
their answer is simple and it has a lot of political support.  Now, those
who opt for the politics of complexity also realize that the deficit has to
be paid off.  However, they are much more likely to look at many ways of
doing it.  Yes, cuts to social programmes may be a part of the answer.
Increasing taxes for the well-to-do may also be part of the solution.

That is not the answer - that is just the politics of simplicity! Increase
taxes. It's great in theory, but the result in Canada is that the taxes are
increased on the *middle class*, which, after all, form the majority of the
tax-paying public. The amount of taxes paid, too, is deceptive, since there
are taxes on taxes on taxes. Taxes at the local level, taxes at the
provincial level (both sales and income taxes), not to mention constantly
increasing user fees, taxes at the Federal level (both sales and income
again), and at least at present, the Federal Goods and Services Tax (the
Equivalent of the VAT)  is put on top of the provincial sales tax, making an
effective rate of over 18% on most items sold. No wonder the *under the
table* economy is thriving in Canada!

Unfortunately, the politics of complexity are not very popular since most
people want simple, easy to understand, solutions to difficult and complex
social issues.

Joe Szalai

No matter what I say, Joe, I agree with Sam that the List would be a lot
duller place if you didn't post to it - even though I might disagree with
some (or even most) of your political views!

Tisztelettel,

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

I wrote:

>>Look, I'm sorry, Jeliko.  There's nothing I can do for you.  I'm a social
>>critic, not a proctologist!!

At 10:31 PM 7/5/96 -0400, Alexander Berendi wrote:

>Lucky you.  If you were a proctologist even your dearests couldn't
>distinguish you from the sorrounding tissue.

Yes, you might be onto something.  Maybe that's why so many folks still call
me a 'shit disturber'.

Joe Szalai

Thanks, Andras Kornai, for a long-overdue corrective.
Your defense of Orszagh Laszlo's monumetal dictionary
is well taken, to a point, and has just clarified for
me the underlyig reason for my total dissatisfaction
with it throughout the years, dissatisfaction rooted,
in part, in my own ignorance up till now, I must and
do admit . . .

However, the Orszagh dictionary is by now (has really
been for many decades) in dire need of massive modifictions.
Had I ever looked up the word "huncut" and found "little
slyboots," I would have thought that Orszagh had lost
his mind. And I *am* rather familiar with Fielding's
novels. "Mischievous" will have to do. "Little slyboots"
would require a lot of explanation. Some words are
simply resistant to adequate or satisfactory translation.
"Fun" in English is a good example of this. "Polgar"
in Hungarian is another. All of these words have
connotations that cannot be exported. Luckily, such
words are relatively rare.

Up to now, up to the point of reading your defense,
I never really appreciated Orszagh Laszlo's monumental
achievement. I still say, though, that this achievement
has become rather useless in many ways. I have owned
the dictitionary in question (all four big volumes of it)
for nearly thirty years, but have seldom if ever used
it, thinking it full of bizarre archaisms and strange
inaccuracies. (Your example of "little slyboots" is a
good case in point.) This has partly been due to the
way in which I acquired English: from TV, from movies,
from English and American literature, from Webster's,
and, last but not least, from Joe Sixpack . . . :-)

In summary, then, I find your points well taken, but
I also think that the Orszagh dictionary should undergo
a massive re-write . . . Perhaps someone not prone to
be merely "mechanical," someone worthy of such a task,
should undertake it as a labor of love . . .

Steven C. Scheer

Hi, All!

I apologize that by using the cut-and-paste method to comment on Joe's
message, I inadvertantly left out the indicators as to which were his
comments and which were mine. So, for clarification, here is the same post,
with the appropriate sections marked:

At 21:37 04/07/96 -0400, Sam Stowe wrote:
>
>P.S. -- It really is nice to have you [Joe Szalai] back in rare form. You
have been
>missed here.

JLT:
I could say the same about you, Sam! You've been pretty quiet for the past
few weeks. Correcting exams, perhaps? In any case, are you sure you're not
just welcoming Joe back so you can have somebody to practice fencing with
your rapier wit? ;-)))

And Joe Szalai commented, in response to my plaudit to Eva Balogh, which
implied that he is extreme -

JOE:
Surely you're not suggesting that I'm on the extreme left.

JLT:
Yup, Joe, that is what I am suggesting.

JOE:
 If you are, then
perhaps political theory isn't your forte.  Maybe in Canada's hinterland
people still think in terms of "left" or "right" politics.

JLT:
Never claimed that political theory was my forte, I am only basing my
opinion on your posts, and you do seem to be somewhat *out there* with
Comrade Durant. Maybe you're only extreme when compared with the other
*hidebound conservatives* on the List!

JOE:
  However, those
terms are rather confusing these days.  The "left" is struggling to preserve
the good social programmes that have been developed over the decades.  They
are acting like conservatives.  On the other hand, the "right" wants rapid
change.  They want to eliminate many social programmes and gut those that
are left.  In Ontario, for example, the Progressive Conservatives' (only in
Canada can political parties have such silly, misleading names) major
document for governing is called "the Common Sense Revolution" (written by
the vice president of an insurance company, no less).  And something just
tells me that when the "right" starts using words like 'revolution', we're
in trouble.

JLT:
Yes, Joe, and why don't you tell about the NDP (that's Socialist, to you
non-Canadian readers) revelation last week that the Province of British
Columbia actually has a 230 million dollar deficit, when they won the
provincial election over the Liberals, just a few weeks ago, partly by
claiming that they had a balanced budget and thus that they could continue
their traditional spend, spend, spend policies. The Liberals had only the
*bad news* message of cutting gov't spending - when faced with that choice,
the voters *narrowly* elected the *good news* guys. This was not just the
politics of simplicity, it was the politics of *duplicity*!

JOE:
But all is not lost.  Some people are starting to bring clarity to the
confusion of political terms.  People are now using phrases like "the
politics of simplicity" or "the politics of complexity".  To generalize, the
politics of simplicity refers to the "right-wing" and the politics of
complexity refers to the "left-wing".  Just look at recent political
developments and you might agree that the new concepts are more accurate
than the old "left/right" terms.

JLT:
Well, I agree that the old terms don't adequately describe the variations in
political opinion these days. I think a *lot* of people, not just the
right-wingers, are looking for simple answers. Also, I think I have more in
common in my views with 19th. century liberalism than with many *new
conservatives* who seem to be just as happy as the modern liberals to use
the government's power to enforce their own political agendas.

JOE:
For example, when dealing with the deficit, those who support the politics
of simplicity say that the deficit must be paid off.  They start cutting
money for health care, education, and anything else they can get their hands
on in their single-minded devotion to cut the deficit.  They don't seem to
care how the cuts will affect people today or the next generation.  But
their answer is simple and it has a lot of political support.  Now, those
who opt for the politics of complexity also realize that the deficit has to
be paid off.  However, they are much more likely to look at many ways of
doing it.  Yes, cuts to social programmes may be a part of the answer.
Increasing taxes for the well-to-do may also be part of the solution.

JLT:
That is not the answer - that is just the politics of simplicity! Increase
taxes. It's great in theory, but the result in Canada is that the taxes are
increased on the *middle class*, which, after all, form the majority of the
tax-paying public. The amount of taxes paid, too, is deceptive, since there
are taxes on taxes on taxes. Taxes at the local level, taxes at the
provincial level (both sales and income taxes), not to mention constantly
increasing user fees, taxes at the Federal level (both sales and income
again), and at least at present, the Federal Goods and Services Tax (the
Equivalent of the VAT)  is put on top of the provincial sales tax, making an
effective rate of over 18% on most items sold. No wonder the *under the
table* economy is thriving in Canada!

JOE:
Unfortunately, the politics of complexity are not very popular since most
people want simple, easy to understand, solutions to difficult and complex
social issues.

Joe Szalai

JLT:
No matter what I say, Joe, I agree with Sam that the List would be a lot
duller place if you didn't post to it - even though I might disagree with
some (or even most) of your political views!

Tisztelettel,

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

> George Antony is the most humourless person on this newsgroup.  Sorry, but
> there are no awards for such a disposition; not even an honourary one.
>
> Joe Szalai

Joe,

George is as capable of generating or understanding humor as the next
person.  There are, however, topics or situations, where humor is not
needed - or, indeed, would be out of place.

Your comment was lopsided, as you only know one facet of the gentleman.
I have found George to be a level-headed, well-informed participant of
this list; his comments are usually right on the money.  These are the
people whose readership we should elicit and not alienate.

Please refrain from making flippant blanket statements - let's give
everyone equal courtesy and the benefit of a doubt.

Martha

P.S. And just in case, someone is not the same as you, repeat after me:

                        "Vive la difference!"

Eva and Jeliko,

Whatever currency is an stg?

Martha

TB wrote: Communism was a consequence of Capitalism, have we learned anything?
EB responded:"I'm afraid this statement is not accurate. "Communism"--if under
that term you mean the regime which was introduced in the Soviet Union in
1917--was not the consequence of capitalism.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Russian Revolution of 1917 was tarted by starving Russian workers who
were being oppressed by the tyrannical leader of Russia, Czar Nicholas II.

This is a one-sentence summary of the official explanation of the cause of
the Communist Revolution. But is there another explanation? Is it possible
that the Russian workers were being used by someone else for another reason,
just as in the French Revolution of 1789?

Perhaps true cause of the Russian Revolution can be traced to a war of com-
petition in the oil industry  that  started  after  the  American Edward L.
Drake  drilled  the first oil well in 1859. Drake was not the one, however,
who saw the enormous potential in the oil business for exorbitant profits.

John D. Rockefeller was one of the early refiners of oil, as he started in
1863 with two partners. Rockefeller's interest was not satisfied with just
one refinery, however. As author William Hoffman observed: " What he wanted
was to be the largest refinery in the world, the only refiner in the world"

By 1872, Rockefeller controlled twenty-five percent of America's refining
capacity and by 1879 he controlled ninety-five percent. (Ferdinand Lundberg
The Rockefeller Syndrome)
His goal shifted now from national control to international control. His
company, Standard Oil, was supplying ninety percent of America's foreign oil
sales and America was the sole source of an exportable surplus. But some-
thing was happening to his international market. "The wall of Standard's
international oil monopoly had been breached with the opening of Russia's
great Baku field on the Caspian Sea. By 1883, a railroad had been built to
the Black Sea, and the Czar had invited the Nobel brothers and the
Rothschild family to help develop these great oil riches." (Peter Collier
and David Horowitz,  The Rockefellers)

Standard Oil now had an international competitor in the oil business!
The Rothschild family was now in a position to compete favorably with
Standard Oil in the sale of oil in the world market. By 1888, this new oil
source had overtaken Standard Oil as the international seller of crude oil.
The development of Russia's oil supply to the point where it could overtake
the United States can be illustrated by the following table:

Petroleum Production:

Year          USA.              Russia

1860        70,000 tons        1,300 tons
1885     3,120,000 tons    2,000,000 tons
1901     9,920,000 tons   12,170,000 tons

The rapid growth of the oil industry led Russia into the industrialized
world. The tradicional explanation of Russia's economy at this time was
that the nation was an agrarian economy, far behind the other European
economies. However, during the period of 1907 to 1913, Russia's increase
in its industrial production rate exceeded that of the United States,
England, and Germany, long believed to be the industrialized giants of
the day.

The following is typical of the conclusion of many researchers who have
axemined this period in history: The Russian revolution of 1917 came not
at the end of period of stagnation and decay, but rather after more than a
half-century of the most rapid and comprehensive economic progress."

And with this progress came the development of the middle class, the enemy
of conspiracy. There are historians who now beleive that the Russian Revo-
lution of 1917 was in truth a revolution instigated by American and Euro-
pean oil interests to wrest control of the Russian oil fields from the
Rothschild-Nobel combination.

But other forces were at work as well in the Russian Revolution. So I shall
continue.

NPA.

At 09:28 PM 7/5/96 -0700, Tibor Benke wrote:

>TB>> In short, Eva is the sort of historian, of whom there are still,
>TB>> unfortunately, too many, who believes that the most important part of
>TB>> hitory is to recunstruct the 'facts'.
>>
George Antony:

>>You just HAD to get this little piece of ad hominem off your chest, did you?
>
>
>Had I intended an 'ad hominem' argument, I would have used words like,
>"narrow minded", "arrogant", , "pedantic", etc.

        I'm so glad that you didn't!! I  feel much better hearing about
physicists and mathematicians.


>Rather, I pointed to the different assumptions or premises Eva and I use
>when thinking about history and society.

        Doesn't matter what "assumptions or premises" you are offering, you
cannot make a capitalist country out of Russia in 1917.

>Though, I admit, there may have
>been a trace of resentment in the way I frazed my point.   For this I
>apologize, it is just that, most likely, she and I have spent roughly the
>same time in academic endevours, yet, in contrast to her credentials, I
>have only my B.A. from Simon Fraser University to show for my efforts. (Not
>a bad school, not bad for a stupid person like me, but not in the same
>league as Yale).

        It is beyond me why anyone would resent someone else's academic
career. After all, you didn't want to be a professor of history and
therefore you didn't have to go to graduate school. I did, and I was good
enough to be accepted by all the universities I applied to.

>Nevertheless, I was attempting to raise the debate from the general tone
>usually prevailing on this list of negated _Animal Farm_ chanting: "Free
>enterprise good! Socialism bad!"  As usual, I failed.

        This is not what you were doing. You said, and let us repeat it for
sake of accuracy, that
"Communism was a consequence of Capitalism, have we learned anything?" and
when I asked for clarification; i.e., do you mean by "Communism" the
Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath in Soviet Russia/Soviet Union, you
said, yes. So, let's just stick with "facts."

>I could dismiss the failure two ways.  First, I could just admit that I am
>stupid and insane, wake up, smell the coffee and join the rest of you and
>help destroy the planet by the end of the next century.

       Now, come on. Just because I maintain that Lenin's Bolshevik
revolution had mighty little to do with a capitalist order in Russia, it
doesn't mean that I want to destroy the planet. Or, perhaps according to
your "philosphy and perspective" it does. But if it does, I am afraid I
can't follow your soaring thoughts!

>Or I could decide
>that you are all too dense and beyond salvation and curse you to your fate.
> I admit, I lean toward the second alternative, except...

        Again, why am I dense? Because I don't think that the capitalism was
responsible for Soviet Bolshevism? You see, perspective is not enough. It
would help you to read a few books about nineteenth-century Russia.


>Except, there is a deeper problem that should be addressed.  It is best
>illustrated by Jeliko's little unfunny joke:

        <little "unfunny joke" follows about high-school graduation>


>The case being that teachers in working class and poor neighborhoods
>('specially if they mess with YUUNIOONS) are incompetent and their students
>are too stupid to learn anyway.  If the joke were about blacks, it would be
>racist, if it were about blind or deaf people, it would be ableist,  but
>being 'cognitively challenged' is still a euphemism for being stupid, and
>being stupid is still an excuse for oppressing people.

        My God! How did we get from the Bolshevik revolution to teachers in
working class and poor neighborhoods? Perhaps because there is another
thread about teachers, teaching, high schools, and unions. And what baffles
me most is the mention of "being 'cognitively challenged' [which] is still a
euphemism for being stupid, and being tupid is still an excuse for
oppressing people."

        I find it difficult to believe what I am reading! First of all,
let's have straight talk. Some of the readers of HUNGARY might not know that
Tibor Benke is talking about himself when he talks about "cognitively
challenged" people. We have heard many, many times that he is cognitively
challenged and in spite of all the explanations he offered we still don't
quite know what it means to be cognitively challenged. It also seems that
the Canadian welfare authorities were not very sure what it meant either. I
took them a few years of convincing to realize the nature of the illness.

        So, Tibor Benke for some strange reason thinks that my professional
opinion on the origins of the Bolshevik Revolution has something to do with
his being "cognitively challenged." Somehow I don't take his ideas seriously
because I think that he is stupid! I must admit that I don't quite know
what, in practical terms, it means to be "cognitively challenged," and in
case it means "stupid" I don't think that this is Tibor Benke's problem when
it comes to capitalism, communism, the destruction of the environment, and
everything else you might come up with. Rather, I think that his problem is
being influenced by a far-left ideology. You are out left field somewhere,
in political never-never land.

<Long story about Tibor's inability to memorize the multipication table. Let
me add that I am terrible at math but I don't consider myself cognitively
challenged.>

>My point is, that it seems, that in our culture it is still o.k. to exploit
>people if they are less intelligent, just as in the late neolithic and
>until the rise of Christianity and beyond, it was o.k. to exploit people
>who were weaker.

        Did I want to exploit you because I argued with you about the
origins of the Bolshevik Revolution?

>Well, inumeracy and illiteracy are darned inconvenient, but not a moral
>shortcoming.  The cause of these conditions, however, is greatly magnified
>by our classism.

        Illiteracy is darned incovenient all right. But again, what does
that have to do with the Bolshevik Revolution. Perhaps that there were a lot
of illiterate people in Russia, although after the 1860s illiteracy was
great deminishing in the Russian Empire.

>Or to put it another way, education  (and I am talking about the whole
>system of education of a given social formation, including informal things
>such as sports, media, and parenting, as well as pre-school through
>universities and research institutes) has two social functions.  Its overt
>function is to produce and reproduce the totality of social knowledge.  The
>other, underlieing function, is to produce and reproduce the division of
>labour and wealth and knowledge.   In a class society, this division is
>unequal and the inequality is maintained by features of ideology and
>culture as well as force.

        Maybe I should'nt ask because you might oblige, but could you
explain what you mean by all that gibberish? Can you imagine, although I am
not cognitively challenged, I absolutely loath stuff like the above. I can't
quite follow it.

>And just for the sake of maintaining Hungarian content, do you think it is
>genetics or culture that makes most Hungarians regardless of background, or
>political orientation pedantic and intolerant?  I suffer from it myself,
>(though I make an effort to suppress it)  so I was just wondering.

        It must be "genetic." Oh, yes, we are all pedantic and intolerant.
Thank God, though, not all "cognitively challenged."

        Eva Balogh

However, during the period of 1907 to 1913, Russia's increase
>in its industrial production rate exceeded that of the United States,
>England, and Germany, long believed to be the industrialized giants of
>the day.

Rate of increase does not tell very much. What one shuld look at the
production per capita. From that point of view Russia before 1914 was still
basically an agricultural country - certainly not an
industrial giant.
>
>The following is typical of the conclusion of many researchers who have
>axemined this period in history: The Russian revolution of 1917 came not
>at the end of period of stagnation and decay, but rather after more than a
>half-century of the most rapid and comprehensive economic progress."
This is corrct but...
>And with this progress came the development of the middle class, the enemy
>of conspiracy.
What does this mean?

There are historians who now beleive that the Russian Revo-
>lution of 1917 was in truth a revolution instigated by American and Euro-
>pean oil interests to wrest control of the Russian oil fields from the
>Rothschild-Nobel combination.

Who are these historians? I taught Russian history for many years but I do
not recall anyone advocating such nonsense. The Germans did finance Lenin
in order to get Russia out of the war but the revolution probably would
have occurred without imperial petty cash.

And now back in Hungary...


Peter I. Hidas

Hungarian Studies
Department Of Russian and Slavic Studies
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Hungarian Refugees Granted Landing in Canada
by Major Occupational Groups
Eighteen Months ended April 30, 1958

OCCUPATIONAL GROUP                              NUMBER          PERCENTAGE
Destined to the Labour Force                                            %
of total workers
managerial
2       -
professional
1,811   8.0
clerical
825     3.6
transportation
739     3.3
communication
45      .2
commercial
235     1.0
service
2,429   10.7
agricultural
1,356   6.0
fishing, trapping, logging                                               64
.3
mining
578     2.6
manufacturing and mechanical                            10,297  45.6
labourers
4,128   18.3
not stated
91      .4


total   22,598

source: National Archives, Canada, RG 76, Box 863, File 555-54-565, vol.5


Peter I. Hidas

Hungarian Studies
Department Of Russian and Slavic Studies
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada

At 7:22 PM 7/6/96, Eva S. Balogh wrote:

>       Now, come on. Just because I maintain that Lenin's Bolshevik
>revolution had mighty little to do with a capitalist order in Russia

If you review the results of the Russian election of 1917 you will notice
that the industrial areas massively supported the Bolsheviks. The election
took place in November-December 1917 in the midst of the Bolshevik
coup/revolution. Without the backing of the workers the Bolsheviks would
not have been able to win the civil war. The industrial workers were
displeased with the kind of capitalism that existed in tsarist Russia.
Furthermore, the weakness of the Russian middle class or, if you wish, the
underdevelopment of Russian capitalism contributed indirectly to the
ovethrow of the Provisional Government in October 1917.

Meanwhile back in Hungary...

Peter I. Hidas

Hungarian Studies
Department Of Russian and Slavic Studies
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada

I enjoyed Andra1s Kornai's essay on the Orsza1gh-dictionary and on the roots
of our "unique brand of English" (HUNGARY#719).

I particularly appreciated his opinion in the latter question -
>                                                        ....A peculiar
>variety of English has indeed flourished at the place that was supposed to
>officially certify one's proficiency in English. But to blame this on
>Orsza1gh, rather than on the fact that Hungary was almost totally isolated
>from the British and American capitalist imperialist pigs for over a decade,
>is grossly unfair.

which is in perfect harmony with the lines I committed in the same issue of
HUNGARY:

>            ...it would be unfair to put the blame on Mr. Orszagh alone,
>other Hungarian-born English teachers and Rigo utca (a place in Budapest
>where official English exams had to be taken) have their due share as well.
>

Our interpretation of the terms "orszagos" and "nemzeti" is, of course, the
same. That is why it was surprising for me to read Kornai's explanation of
the opposites...

> However, the opposite
>of _orsza1gos_ is 'municipal' or 'local' while the opposite of _nemzeti_ is
>'cosmopolitan, unpatriotic', which are key terms used on the right (in
>particular Torgya1n's Smallholders Party) to condemn their opponents. It is my
>understanding that _nemzeti_ became something of a right-wing codeword in the
>past few years, this is why e.g. Fidesz adopted it when they repositioned
>themselves to the right of their previous position.

My opinion is -

1. Why to mix private political opinion into linguistic questions?
2. The opposite of "nemzeti" may well be "nemzetkozi" (international), a key
term used on the left (in particular Ka1da1r's Hungarian Socialist Workers'
Party - see Orsza1gh, 2nd ed., p2142), to praise their comrades.
3. I do not see how Fidesz adopted this right-wing codeword.

If Andra1s Kornai wanted to hint at the new name of this party, it is Fidesz
Magyar Polga1ri Pa1rt, in which name "magyar" means Hungarian. To explain
the opposite of "magyar" is not my cup of tea, perhaps Andra1s Kornai or his
favourite right-wing opponents will do the job.

George Jalsovszky

 .............................................
Dr. Ildiko Jalsovszky
Dipl.Chem., Attorney at Law, Patent Attorney
H-1093 Budapest,  Kozraktar u. 24,   Hungary
Phone: +361-218-4148;     Fax: +361-218-4506
Home: H-1111 Egri J. u. 40;    +361-165-4585
 .............................................