Sukhbaatar and the Mongolian revolution

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Are there any good pieces of information on this? The lack of info on the Mongolian revolution is interesting, considering it is the second revolution by a Leftist party to produce a "socialist" state, and the first non-European and non-Christian country to do so. More interestingly, it and the revolution in Tuva were the only revolutions in largely nomadic countries. Of course, I know in later history it largely trailed the USSR in policy (the inevitable fate of a thinly populated satellite state), but what details are there of the initial revolutionary movement? To what extent was it influenced by Marxism or Leninism, and to what extent was it influenced by Mongolian nationalism? What where their goals, and how did they initially propose implementing them?

And what about the figures of Sukhbaatar and Bodoo?

[Emmett Till]

Are there any good pieces of information on this? The lack of info on the Mongolian revolution is interesting, considering it is the second revolution by a Leftist party to produce a "socialist" state, and the first non-European and non-Christian country to do so. More interestingly, it and the revolution in Tuva were the only revolutions in largely nomadic countries. Of course, I know in later history it largely trailed the USSR in policy (the inevitable fate of a thinly populated satellite state), but what details are there of the initial revolutionary movement? To what extent was it influenced by Marxism or Leninism, and to what extent was it influenced by Mongolian nationalism? What where their goals, and how did they initially propose implementing them?

And what about the figures of Sukhbaatar and Bodoo?

The main things to understand about the Mongolian Revolution are,

1) It was motivated by revulsion against the bloody white Baron Von Sternberg, possibly the vilest and most despicable individual ever to head a government in the modern era. A cautionary tale for those who think Buddhism is good. As he thought everyone was reincarnated, he had absolutely no limits in what he did to human beings in this life.

2) Although it was certainly supported by the population, it was essentially a revolution from outside. The Red Army, then commanded by Trotsky, marched in, cleaned up the mess and established a revolutionary government. Appointing Sukhbaatar and Bodoo to be the leaders.

Robespierre's famous line that people do not like those spreading revolution at bayonet point is not always correct.

[Heretek]

Now that's interesting. Where does this attitude of "Buddhism is good" come from? The majority of people on this site are rather opposed to religion in general. I don't see why it would be an exception.

However, to play the other side, how does one individual's actions prove that an entire way of life is "bad?" Surely we stand against religion, but after the revolution why would it matter if certain people believe in metaphysical things?

And a last thing, can you provide a link to some of this Sternberg material? I don't doubt you, I'm just curious

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Sternberg sounds like a loony autocrat from what I've read. He exemplifies how a deep interest in cross-cultural mysticism can be congruous with being utterly reactionary. There's some basic ideological inconsistencies. He wanted to restore some kind of Khanate despite the marginal population and productive capacities of the Mongols and Oirats, but he also wanted to preserve Western European monarchy.

Interestingly, it doesn't seem like either regime in Mongolia or in Tuva moved against the clerical establishment until the later 20s, and Bodoo himself was a Lama. It seems that the Buddhist clergy was divided on the matter of revolution. It also doesn't sound like the regime concerned itself much with countering religion until Stalin pushed them to do so.

One thing I'm curious about is how the class composition of society - mostly nomad pastoralists - impacted the revolution. I really can't think of any examples where societies with large transient populations and small settled centers around religious and commercial sites underwent a revolution (outside of regions of the USSR), and all things considered we won't have any more examples like that.

[Emmett Till]

Now that's interesting. Where does this attitude of "Buddhism is good" come from? The majority of people on this site are rather opposed to religion in general. I don't see why it would be an exception.

However, to play the other side, how does one individual's actions prove that an entire way of life is "bad?" Surely we stand against religion, but after the revolution why would it matter if certain people believe in metaphysical things?

And a last thing, can you provide a link to some of this Sternberg material? I don't doubt you, I'm just curious

The attitude that Buddhism is the nice religion, unlike all the others, is extremely common among Western leftists. Buddhists were all over the New Left, the counterculture, and Occupy for that matter. If it is totally absent on Revleft, good.

Thus you have all the enthusiasm for Tibetan Buddhism and the Dalai Lama, as opposed to the evil secular Chinese. Tibetan Buddhism wasn't as bad as Sternberg's variant, but it did include slavery, including sexual slavery of peasant children in the possession of the monks who ruled Tibet until Mao got tired of it. It reformed a bit in the 20th century, the last known human sacrifice was in 1932. The Dalai Lama is definitely a reformer by Tibetan Buddhist standards, against slavery, for some cooperation with the Chinese communists, etc. etc.

For Sternberg, I was going to give you the Wikipedia entry, until I read it. A thorough whitewash of Sternberg, perfect example of how rotten Wikipedia can be. I betcha it was written or extensively fiddled with by Mongolian nationalists, quite likely by agents of the current anti-communist right wing nationalist Mongolian government, who spend a lot of time trying to rehabilitate Genghis Khan as not so bad after all.

Here's a link to a very well informed article by a guy with definite sympathies for the Whites. Even the other whites thought the bloody baron was an embarrassment, kind of like what Trotskyists think of Stalin.

http://www.brightreview.co.uk/ARTICLE-Urga-February-1921.html

[Aslan]

Sternburg wanted to conquer china and reestablish the Mongol Khanate. There are some crazy people in this world...

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The attitude that Buddhism is the nice religion, unlike all the others, is extremely common among Western leftists. Buddhists were all over the New Left, the counterculture, and Occupy for that matter. If it is totally absent on Revleft, good.


I think people of the era liked Buddhism because it entails fewer metaphysical commitments (it does draw some beliefs from Brahminism, such as reincarnation and Karma, but there are schools of Buddhism which are skeptical of such ideas) and because its ethics are more practical and less rigid. Thus, a Jewish or Catholic activist from the 60s might find it preferable to their parent's conservative Abrahamic faith. However, they overlooked what Buddhism is in practice, which is more than just some nice doctrine and is, in fact, a set of powerful institutions.



Thus you have all the enthusiasm for Tibetan Buddhism and the Dalai Lama, as opposed to the evil secular Chinese. Tibetan Buddhism wasn't as bad as Sternberg's variant, but it did include slavery, including sexual slavery of peasant children in the possession of the monks who ruled Tibet until Mao got tired of it. It reformed a bit in the 20th century, the last known human sacrifice was in 1932. The Dalai Lama is definitely a reformer by Tibetan Buddhist standards, against slavery, for some cooperation with the Chinese communists, etc. etc.The problem here is with an idealist interpretation of Buddhist institutions, instead of a materialist one. A Buddhist feudal theocracy will rely on brutality, slavery and violence as much as any other feudal form of governance, no matter how nice some phrases and arguments from the Buddha might sound. Also, reactionary Buddhists in Burma and Sri Lanka show that a monk can be no less dangerous than priests and imams, no matter how tranquil and cultivated a monk is supposed to be.

However, one of my interests in the Mongolian revolution is how the local culture (including religion) interacted with Bolshevism, since the cultural context was so different than it was in most of Russia. According to Wiki, Bodoo's position was undermined by his rival, and by a Soviet-backed campaign to "modernize" dress and remove ornaments. At face value, it seems daft to me that anyone would spend serious political capital on clothes (especially when the alternative is western bourgeois business suits).

[Heretek]

Just a quick aside, but considering that Buddhism had the same kinds of institutions and obligations of western religions, like warrior organizations of monks, repression/shaming of the "unenlightened," and suicidal tendencies ranging from simple ritual to almost terroristic in nature (think of the monks lighting themselves on fire in public places. Vietnam I think it was, Indochina at the time), its hard to see how anyone would see this as particularly "better," but like SCM said, it's mostly about theory and feel-goods than actual practice and consequence.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Just a quick aside, but considering that Buddhism had the same kinds of institutions and obligations of western religions, like warrior organizations of monks, repression/shaming of the "unenlightened," and suicidal tendencies ranging from simple ritual to almost terroristic in nature (think of the monks lighting themselves on fire in public places. Vietnam I think it was, Indochina at the time), its hard to see how anyone would see this as particularly "better," but like SCM said, it's mostly about theory and feel-goods than actual practice and consequence.

To be fair to Buddhist self-immolators in Vietnam, they were protesting a pretty vile pro-Catholic and pro-war government under Diem. Perhaps a better example would be the number of Buddhist institutions which became apologists for the Japanese Imperial war machine during WWII. Not all Japanese Buddhists were guilty of this, but many were.

[Heretek]

To be fair to Buddhist self-immolators in Vietnam, they were protesting a pretty vile pro-Catholic and pro-war government under Diem. Perhaps a better example would be the number of Buddhist institutions which became apologists for the Japanese Imperial war machine during WWII. Not all Japanese Buddhists were guilty of this, but many were.

Very true, I just used that example because one can see this kind of logic: "Set fire to self. Well, why not set fire to self and other things. Even better, why not set fire to everything we don't like and not ourselves at all?!" To be entirely fair, I don't know of Buddhists doing this, but other groups have

[John Nada]

Lenin had a brief talk with delegates from the Mongolian People's Party: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/nov/05b.htm It's kind of interesting. Mongolia was the only other country to have a successful revolution and remain committed moving towards socialism. Yet it had no proletariat. Lenin supposedly said they should pursue non-capitalist development. Doesn't seem like most theorist gave Mongolia much thought beyond its military importance. Yet it could've been relevant to other nations without much of a proletariat, like much of Africa at the time.