E.Durant wrote:

>I think the "human nature" arguement is not valid.
>
>1. The progress of human society is actually based on cooperation,
>    and over history people tend to feel a duty towards the others
>    in the same family, than the same tribe, than the same state, and
>   now  - most of us - even for people on other continents.

First, what the need for cooperation has to do with socialism/communism?
Why me or anyone have to share the properties to be able to cooperate?

Second, about this trend in the human history. Hmmm. Let's think about
the last two century. Colonization, slavery, world wars, holocaust,
it is possible that more people died for miserable and senseless reason
in these two centuries than in any other period. Well, if one strongly
want to see your trend s/he will be able to do it. Then you establish
a new philosophy, the 'subjective objectivism'.

>2. There is no such thing as "human nature" defined, we are still an
>    evolving/changing entity.

With all its limitation. Nothing is infinitely adjustable. Just think
about the evolution, the entities were changing or disappearing. Beside
there are plenty of human feature which can be found throughout human
history. Love, geniality, 'onfelaldozas' (soory, I don't know the English
version), belief, etc as good ones. Hate, stupidity, selfishness, etc
for bad ones. I don't see much change during the history.

>3. It is too easy to throw up our hands and say - all people are
>   selfish, so we are justified not to look for better
>   solutions/change and put up with all the injustice around us.

Subjective objectivism again. You postulate THE BETTER SOLUTION for
injustice is your solution, so if one disagree s/he does not want
to solve the problem at all.

>4. Yes, we are all selfish upto a point, but it is in our selfish
>    interest to create a  more human-friendly society.

"Kutyaharapast szorivel" (impossible to translate), if it works.
This reminds me what I loved in Marxism/Leninism. They want(ed)
to create the society of saints with the methods of Machiavelli.

>Would you elaborate, where do you find  the flaw in my idea
>of democratically controlled and owned society? I don't remember
>our pol.gazd books drawing our attention to the (existed) elevated role of
>the state - as opposed to it's diminishing role prescribed by the
>classiscs and for which now the social/material environment exist.

Well, ok, first, please answer one single question.

How the transition from capitalism to socialism/communism can be
done peacefully and democratically. If you cannot provide a satisfactory
answer to this question, there is no need for further argue as your idea
does not worth a dime.
Please don't tell such things that the rich will see and understand and
voluntarily give their properties to the common.

J.Zs

Western Policy Toward Bosnia Is To "Perpetuate a Mess"

  The Western policy approach toward Bosnia is to
"perpetuate mess, while preventing it from exploding
and attemting to contain it, "said a retired.
   British diplomat in discussion with this news service.
This individual, while close to British Foreigh Office
circles, has long vocally opposed the Anglo-French
policy of backing the Serbians in the former Yugoslavia.
    What worries him most, is that there is no pressure
whatever on Rump-Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic,
on the matter of the Kosovo Albanians. Instead,
Milosevic is being courted and appeased. Meanwhile,
the situation in Kosovo is heating up dangerously, with
the increasing ascendancy of more extremist elements
on the Kosovo side, taking influence away from the
"non-violence" advocates around Kosova leader
Ibrahim Rugova.
    At the same time, in Macedonia, the basis is being
laid for future conflict, because of Western nations'
encourgement of a policy of "Macedonia-ization."
This policy is alienating the 40% of the population who
are the ethnic-Albanian Minority.

In article >, Joe Szalai
> writes:

>Subject:       Re: To everybody
>From:  Joe Szalai >
>Date:  Wed, 20 Nov 1996 17:49:53 -0500
>
>At 04:07 PM 11/20/96 GMT, Sam Stowe wrote:
>
><snip>
>>You're being hypocritical. You usually rant and rave against the
>>commercial sector, but the first time it'll help you stoke your
>>anti-Americanism, you become Armand Hammer.
>
>First of all, being anti-American is a virtue everywhere except in
America.
>And secondly, I don't rant and rave against the commercial sector.  I
rant
>and rave about the loss, or the reduction, of social services.  Do you
think
>the commercial sector has anything to do with that?

Okay, boys and girls, remember the above paragraph as you read further
down.

>
>>May we assume, then, that the
>>next time el maximo jefe decides to clean out his prisons and put them
on
>>rafts and inner tubes in the Straight of Cuba, the U.S. Coast Guard can
>>pluck them out of the water and ship them to Ontario along with the
death
>>row inmates from all of our own prisons?
>
>So, because you label me anti-American, you want to pull a Castro on
>Ontario?  That's too clever by half.  But at least I know who your mentor
>(or is that tormentor?) is.
>
>>By the bye, I'm all in favor of repealing the Helms-Burton Act, which is
>>what you find so objectionable. I don't think Castro can withstand a
major
>>infusion of American capital investment.
>
>Nobody can!  It's certain cultural death.

Ta da! Hypocrisy hat trick! You just got done telling us that you don't
rant and rave against the commercial sector.

>
>>God knows, though, why the
>>American business community would want to do business in Cuba.
>
>I'm not God, but I think they'd do business in Cuba for the same reason
they
>do business anywhere - to exploit, to take more money back to the US than
>they brought.

Ibid.

>
>>It's like Haiti without all the widespread affluence and public order.
>
>Yeah, pity eh?  At one time, and I guess you're too young to remember,
>Havana was referred to as America's whorehouse.

Havana was a toilet for 300 years before the Batista regime ever first saw
the light of day.
>
>>And I'll bet
>>once the embargo does end and Americans start doing business in Cuba,
>>you'll be running your yap at top speed about how capitalism has ruined
>>that socialist paradise.
>
>In this world an iconoclast never rests.  You guys make that impossible.

You're not an iconoclast. Your world view is entirely predictable and
regular, like trains timetables or bowel movements.
Sam Stowe

>
>Joe Szalai



"Tourism probably changed our culture
as much as anything did. To attract tourists
you don't necessarily give them the true
history. Sometimes you have to compromise
and make those little tomahawks and
set a chief up on the street."
-- Joyce Dugan, Principal Chief of the
Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation

In article >, "Eva S.
Balogh" > writes
>        Lately I have been reading about a new legal twist and considering
>that I know absolutely nothing about Hungarian law I can't tell whether it
>is based on real knowledge or the equally ignorant commentators simply make
>it up in order to have a case against Tocsik. New voices are heard that not
>all contracts are valid. In this case it means that although there was a
>legal contract services rendered in no way equalled the size of the payment.
>In plain language: Marta Tocsik made her money too easily! Now, in my
>American-trained mind, this is hogwosh. I am almost certain that there is no
>such provision in American law. One could say that the board of directors of
>the APV were fools for giving such a large percentage of the monies to Marta
>Tocsik, but that's all one could say. One couldn't say that Marta Tocsik is
>guilty because she managed to have a contract which was very favorable to her.

I think what they are trying to imply is that the contract was
fraudulent.  Based on your information, it appears there was indeed a
contract between two parties which purported to pay a fee in return for
services rendered.  However, if both parties knew at the beginning that
the contract was simply a piece of paper intended to cover some form of
illicit payment, then it could indeed be void.  Section 200 of the
Hungarian Civil Code states that contracts that violate a legal rule
(i.e. a law or decree) are null and void, as are contracts that is
concluded by evading a legal rule.  Furthermore, a contract is null and
void if it violates good morals (this is a civil law concept not always
expressed in common law jurisdictions such as the US).  They may be able
to argue that this contract, as it was effected to may a payment that
was otherwise illegal and contrary to good morals, is void.
Furthermore:  section 227(2) of the Hungarian Civil Code states that a
contract aimed at an impossible service is null and void.  Section
228(3) states, in part, that "an...illegal...condition shall be null and
void."

The legal rule in question may be found in the Hungarian criminal code.
Section 225 makes it a felony, punishable with up to 3 years
imprisonment, for an official person (in this case Suchmann and perhaps
also the members of the board of the APV Rt.) to breach his official
duty, transgress his competence or otherwise misuse his official
position to obtain or attempt to obtain an unlawful disadvantage.  I am
not sure of the interpretation of "official person".  Based on the state
control of the APV Rt., it may be that members of the supervisory board
are considered such official persons.  Fraudulent breach of trust
(section 319) may also apply.  There may also be provisions in the
Constitution about political parties and acceptance of funds, but I
don't have time to check those right now.
>
>        However, there might be another complication here. Let's say that
>Marta Tocsik was simply the "frontman" in this affair and actually she was
>used, for a fee, of course, to launder money from the privatization office
>into the coffers of the MSZP and/or the SZDSZ. According to the Hungarian
>press the parties simply don't have enough money and the governing parties,
>taking advantage of their positions, simply syphoned some money from
>privatization into their own bank accounts through different
>"subcontractors" Marta Tocsik allegedly hired. My meager legal knowledge
>stops here. I don't even know what kind of laws are on the books concerning
>such a possibility. Given the very large holes in the fabric of Hungarian
>laws I wouldn't be surprised if there was absolutely no grounds to
>prosecute. Perhaps someone more familiar with Hungarian law could help out.
>
Unfortunately, there are some pretty big gaps in the Hungarian legal
framework.  They are slowly being filled.  However, the biggest problem
is not the existence of these gaps but the enforcement of the law that
does exist.  As I noted above, there are provisions on the "purity of
public life", as the Criminal Code calls it, that should permit
prosecution if there is cause.  Certainly, if what you allege is true,
official persons were abusing their authority in violation of section
225 of the Criminal Code.  It becomes a question not just of proof, but,
above all, the guts of the public prosecutor to investigate and then
prosecute senior members of government.  Such a course of action will
require significant support from the public and from the government.
Whether government support will be forthcoming remains to be seen.

Of course, the biggest problem right now is adequate and accurate
information.  As I see it, the media has jumped on this, but isn't able
to provide any real information.  It looks like one big rumour-mill to
me.

In case you are wondering why someone with a name like Skinner knows
anything about Hungarian law:  I am a Canadian attorney currently
researching a PhD thesis on criminal and administrative regulation of
business organisations in Central and Eastern Europe, with a focus on
Hungary.  Prior to this, I worked as an attorney with a large Canadian
law firm in Budapest for two years.


Karen Dunn Skinner
Grad Student, Law Department
London School of Economics

Dears:

There will be a Hungarian Church Service

n Sunday Novemebr 24th at 11 a.m.
at the Wesley Theological Seminary Chapel
4500 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington DC

During the Church services there will be Sunday School for children in
Hungarian.

> >1. The progress of human society is actually based on cooperation,
> >    and over history people tend to feel a duty towards the others
> >    in the same family, than the same tribe, than the same state, and
> >   now  - most of us - even for people on other continents.
>
> First, what the need for cooperation has to do with socialism/communism?
> Why me or anyone have to share the properties to be able to cooperate?
>

With the existence of private property some people can
force other people to "cooparate" - not of their free will, and of
unfavourable conditions.



> Second, about this trend in the human history. Hmmm. Let's think about
> the last two century. Colonization, slavery, world wars, holocaust,
> it is possible that more people died for miserable and senseless reason
> in these two centuries than in any other period. Well, if one strongly
> want to see your trend s/he will be able to do it. Then you establish
> a new philosophy, the 'subjective objectivism'.
>

How right you are. The history of capitalism not all that great...
But like all  other epoch, it brings closer better understanding
and more conscious control of the physical and I hope of the social
environment.  I think if these were more in syncron, we could have
skipped a lot of the new-dark ages, including stalinism.

I have no idea what you are on about "subjective objectivism"?


> >2. There is no such thing as "human nature" defined, we are still an
> >    evolving/changing entity.
>
> With all its limitation. Nothing is infinitely adjustable. Just think
> about the evolution, the entities were changing or disappearing. Beside
> there are plenty of human feature which can be found throughout human
> history. Love, geniality, 'onfelaldozas' (soory, I don't know the English
> version), belief, etc as good ones. Hate, stupidity, selfishness, etc
> for bad ones. I don't see much change during the history.
>

I don't think you are listing inherent human characteristics, all
items in your list developed by individual social experience.
I think it is rational to suppose, that in a society where
property wouldn't mean status, and there were no shortages of
the things people feel necessary for a comfortable life, human
behaviour would alter in favour of the "good ones".


> >3. It is too easy to throw up our hands and say - all people are
> >   selfish, so we are justified not to look for better
> >   solutions/change and put up with all the injustice around us.
>
> Subjective objectivism again. You postulate THE BETTER SOLUTION for
> injustice is your solution, so if one disagree s/he does not want
> to solve the problem at all.
>

Actually, if you read carefully, I just suggest, that critical
thinking about the present and ideas for the future are necessary.
I  propose my favoured idea, but I had no chance to renounce anybody
else's, as there were no other ideas (yet) being put forward - besides the
one which says that capitalism is great and everybody is happy with
it, or  that it is not that great but we cannot get any better
(ez van ezt kell szeretni...)  and  relying on experience, I cannot
accept these options.

> >4. Yes, we are all selfish upto a point, but it is in our selfish
> >    interest to create a  more human-friendly society.
>
> "Kutyaharapast szorivel" (impossible to translate), if it works.
> This reminds me what I loved in Marxism/Leninism. They want(ed)
> to create the society of saints with the methods of Machiavelli.
>

I can't see where you get this from. They say, that it is the
self-interest that makes people to go for a society that would
work better for them.  People in the French or the Russian revolution
fought to get a more equitable society, where more people have a
chance for a full stomack and even for a say in decisionmaking.
These same selfish aims could still motivate a lot of people in our
world - even some who are actually not hungry, but would selfishly
feel more comfortable and safe, if everybody else was satisfied.


> How the transition from capitalism to socialism/communism can be
> done peacefully and democratically. If you cannot provide a satisfactory
> answer to this question, there is no need for further argue as your idea
> does not worth a dime.

The problem hear is, that if the process will be genuinly democratic,
no one can give a precise protocol as no one has a crystal ball to see
the future and envisage what option will be the damocratically
preferred one.  I think, that there will be probably several ways
parallel, and the more successful ones will be known with today's
communications and will be chosen by others.
I picture people taking over together the running of their local
affairs, including their workplaces. They will pass on information on
what capacities they have and what they need. there will be rotating
delegations to all necessary integrating bodies - selected random or
by the inclinations/qualifications of people.  As the "really
necessary" food/essentials production needs now so few people
(less than 20% of the population in manufacturing) there will be
enough people in information process - that's where most people seem
to be already.    As people will see the result of their own
activity, they will enjoy taking part, as they enjoy now
participating in organising their leasure activities, like clubs.
They still won't need to be saints, but they will have a chance much
more to express themselves as free and social beings.
As I said - this is how I picture it, if it happens in time - before
time running out and change happens in a destructive, unplanned,
undemocratic way.


> Please don't tell such things that the rich will see and understand and
> voluntarily give their properties to the common.
>
> J.Zs
>

I would not say such rubbish. The rich are just as much the prisoner
of their circumstance, than anybody else, and  there even a few of
them, who genuinly beleive, that their getting rich is good for the
society as a whole, and they doing their best for that so much
thought after trickle down...  I would think, that if they are
confronted with a democratic majority who actually started by the
millions taking their bits of property over, there is not a lot they
can do besides having a paid army to shoot...  But if they are aware,
that they can keep their houses and their swimming pools - their
personal effects, perhaps they chose a more worry free if
less "influential" lives.  If there is an overhelming democratic
majority for change, I hope they have no options, they wont find
enough people to do their fighting - this time.

You may say I'm a dreamer - but I find such speculation more
practical, than hoping that if we just leave things as they are, it
would  be just fine.

Karen,

        Thank God for someone who actually knows she is talking about!! I
can't tell you how excited I got over reading your message on the Hungarian
civil and criminal code. Because I will not be able to comment on any of
your points for at least four or five days (I will be away), I just want you
to thank you for your extremely valuable contribution. I am amazed at the
some of the provisions of the law--foreign to me who have been living in
Canada and the United States for forty years! Very enlightening.

        Thank you again, Eva Balogh