I.Y. MOROSOVA. SOCIALIST REVOLUTIONS IN ASIA. THE SOCIAL HISTORY OF MONGOLIA IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY. L. -N.Y.: Routledge, 2009. 173 p.

(Central Aзian Studies)*

The social history of Mongolia in the 20th century is full of drama: the country has experienced three revolutions, three changes in the social system, and five forms of government. An attempt to understand and objectively present the process of social transformation of Mongolian society in these conditions is an honor for any researcher, especially a young one, such as the author of the reviewed monograph Irina Morozova. A graduate of the Mongolian Department of the Faculty of History and Philology of the Asian and African Countries of Moscow State University, she has already shown herself to be a serious and creative scientist with an impressive experience in research and teaching. Even before the brilliant defense of her Ph. D. thesis on a related topic at the ISAA in 2002, which formed the basis of six of the eight chapters of this work in a significantly expanded, updated and expanded form, she published the monograph "The Comintern and the Revolution in Mongolia" (Cambridge, 2002) in English and began lecturing on Central Asian problems. Asia and Mongolia. Morozova is currently a lecturer at Moscow State University and at the same time a researcher at the International Institute for Asian Studies at Leiden University.

To date, Morozova has two monographs, more than a dozen analytical articles, developments, reviews, reports on numerous scientific forums and other publications in her scientific luggage. Their authors are characterized by a deep insight into the subject of research, the ability to identify, collect, analyze and summarize a huge amount of factual material, not least field material, and the ability to generate new ideas and positions.

These features of I. Y. Morozova's creative handwriting are reflected in the reviewed monograph. Its advantages primarily lie in a solid source and historiographic base, in attracting a lot of new documentary data drawn from almost all the main historical archives of Russia and Mongolia, in making extensive use of the results of sociological surveys conducted during the author's multiple business trips to Mongolia and interviews with representatives of all social strata of modern Mongolian society. Hence the factual richness of the study, detailing in the original interpretation of a number of previously known events.

An extensive critical review looks very erudite. "Historiography of Socialist Mongolia "(chapter 1). It clearly shows that the Soviet-Mongolian and Western literature on the political and social history of the country during the period of the MNR's existence was ideologized and biased, and after 1990, Mongolia, Russia and partly the West are undergoing a fruitful process of revising pre-perestroika concepts and provisions.

I. Y. Morozova's comparative-historical and structuralist approach to the analysis of fundamental changes in Mongolian society is fruitful and interesting. Thus, the author believes that "revolutionary changes and the transition to a" non-capitalist path of development " in the 20 - 40s. The twentieth century was not something essentially new, but was the result of a confluence of traditional systemic and external factors" (p. 2).

In general, the idea of the interpenetration and interaction of internal system-forming factors, first of all, the basis of the foundations of the integrity of Mongolian society at all times-nomadic pastoralism and innovations introduced from outside as the driving rod of the social and political history of Mongolia in the XX century.

The structure of the monograph seems quite logical and correctly reflects the essence and features of the main stages of development of the social history of Mongolia.

The first stage " 1921-1924. The Theocratic Monarchy and the Revolution in Mongolia" (Chapter 2) was described by I. Y. Morozova as "a decisive turning point in the political history of Mongolia in the XX century" (p. 43). The first Constitution of the MNR of 1924 limited the influence of the hierarchs of the Buddhist Church -

* I. Y. Morozova. Socialist revolutions in Asia. Social history of Mongolia in the twentieth century. London-New York: Routledge, 2009. 173 p. (Central Asian Studies).

page 196
the first allies of the MPRP and deprived hereditary princes of political rights. "Nevertheless," the author concludes, "the laws, decrees of the People's Government, the proclamation of the republic and the adoption of the Constitution did not have a significant impact on the social life and culture of the Mongols" (ibid.).

The second stage " 1925-1928. The birth of the Mongolian People's Republic " (Chapter 3) is, on the one hand, a period of strengthening the republican system, its repressive state apparatus and, of course, the MPRP, which covered the country with a network of its primary cells, on the other hand, a period of instability in socio-political life, division and aggravation of political struggle in the leadership of the MPRP, which threatened to move away from the revolutionary This led to the intensification of the Comintern's interference in the internal affairs of Mongolia.

Chapter 4 " 1929-1932. Old and New Mongolian Terror " highlights the campaigns initiated by the left-wing leadership of the MPRP, put in power by the Comintern, to expropriate the property of the hereditary aristocracy, high lamas and monasteries and their devastating consequences. "The key outcome of this period, - sums up I. Y. Morozova, - was the completion of the redistribution of property. The property of hereditary noyons (princes) was completely confiscated. The Jass campaigns (for the elimination of Buddhist property) destroyed the economic foundations of the Buddhist Sangha... "The leftist experiment" opened a direct road to the mass terror of 1937 " (p.81 - 82).

The next stage of transformation of Mongolian society " 1933-1939. Between Russian Communism and Japanese militarism " (Chapter 5) is characterized by the author as the further progress of Mongolia along the non-capitalist path, the growing external threat, largely caused by the clash of interests of the USSR and Japan in this region. It was also the time of the elimination of the Buddhist Church and lamas as a class, the rise of X. Choibalsan and mass repressions, which affected all strata of the Mongolian population, including party, state and military personnel, and even closer rapprochement with the USSR and increased its leadership role. The author believes that by the end of this period ."..Structurally, Mongolia has already become a new society, but economically it has not changed significantly: nomadic pastoralism still determined the inner life and connections between people " (p. 101).

In chapter 6, " 1941-1945. Mongolian Aratstvo and the Second World War " the author characterizes the situation of the Arat masses as very difficult and explains this not only by the hardships of wartime, associated with a certain weakening of Soviet supplies and the provision of all possible assistance to the USSR, with the tightening of state-party control over Arat farms and local authorities, in particular, by introducing a system of compulsory supply obligations the state of livestock and livestock products, as well as the atmosphere of fear and apathy that prevailed in the country after the rampant terror in the late 1930s.

In social terms, the main result of this period was the beginning of the formation of the party-state nomenclature, and in external terms, the recognition of Mongolia's de jure independence by China, which was a struggle to gain."..one of the key factors that determined the course of Mongolia's history in the XX century" (p. 9).

In chapter 7, " 1946-1952. Socialist nomadism " the initial stage of the post-war development of the MNR is considered by the author as a period of dictatorship and personality cult. Choibalsan, the episodic continuation of repressions and the coverage of the entire population with indoctrination, on the one hand, and secret supervision, on the other, as a time of transition to economic planning, the formation of a stratum of workers and the beginning of broad cooperation of aratstvo, i.e., the establishment of "socialist nomadism". For social transformation in these years, "the expansion of the sphere of mass culture and education and the cultivation of a new national intelligentsia were of key importance" (p.132). In fact, during this period, the foundations of socialism were created: a planned economy, a complete monopoly of the MPRP on power, its transformation, according to the author, in terms of goals, structure, strategy and tactics, into a copy of the CPSU, and its leading cadres in the center and in the field - into a privileged layer of the party-state nomenclature, the domination of the Marxist-Communist Party.lenin's ideology. As a result, by the end of the 1950s. Traditional Mongolia finally turned into a socialist MNR, which received international recognition initially within the framework of the socialist bloc led by the USSR.

In conclusion (Chapter 8), the author briefly outlines the main social changes and trends in the development of socialism in the 1950s and 1980s in Mongolia: strengthening of the cooperative system in khudon (in rural areas), the beginning of industrialization and urbanization, the introduction of material and moral incentives to work and a social security system, etc.

page 197
The author dwells in more detail on the leading role of the MPRP, which rejected communism, in the country's transition to democracy and the market in 1990-2006.

In my opinion, a fairly reliable picture of the social history of Mongolia in the last century would have looked even more vivid and accurate if I. Y. Morozova had shown, as, for example, S. K. Roshchin, unfairly criticized by her (p. 32), the objective situation and causes, the social essence of the confrontation between the MPRP and the Revolutionary Youth League, the "right" in the 1920s, a closer organic connection between the events in the MNR and the USSR in the 1930s and 1940s, as well as the growing crisis phenomena in Mongolian society in the 1960s and 1980s, which led to the victory of the democratic revolution of 1990.

We can agree with the author's "longue durée" approach, her desire to find the historical roots of the described events and structural changes, including in the persistence of traditions inherent in nomadic society, in particular, violence as a means of earning a living and eliminating political rivals, uniting around a strong personality, respect for the authorities and their representatives, whether it is a khan or noyon in the past or a modern boss, collectivism in everyday life, etc.

However, the world-old aphorism that everything new is well-forgotten is not always applicable, and therefore some historical parallels stemming from the text, for example, about the similarity of the terror of the 1930s and the "authoritarian repressive" regime of the X's. Choibalsan (and why not totalitarian?) The facts about the despotism of Genghis Khan and other Mongol khans, with their plunder of settled peoples, seem speculative or require justification, rather than a simple declaration.

The question of the so-called united front of Mongolian revolutionaries, high clergy and princes during the first years of the revolution is still very controversial, and the author does not doubt its existence. I think that it would be more correct to speak about the peculiar tactic of the Mongolian People's Party (since 1925 - MPRP) to temporarily attract and pragmatically use certain representatives of these irreconcilably hostile layers of Mongolian society to implement reforms aimed against them from the very beginning and, above all, at the social liberation of all categories before the revolution of 1921 economically dependent and politically disenfranchised aratstvo, namely: Arats albatu-tax or somon, Arats Hamzhilga-not slaves at all (p. 40), but domestic, princely and Shabi arats assigned to monasteries and bogdo-gegen. This was the essence of the very first laws, decrees and resolutions of the people's Government. So the high lamas and hereditary princes were hardly "key agents of revolutionary change" (p. 136).

While the idea of violence and terror as a kind of pivot, a midwife of social transformation in Mongolia up to the end of the 1940s, the author misses one of the important reasons for this. The fact is that the leaders of Mongolia were not only faithful executors of the will and directives of the Comintern and the leadership of the USSR, but often ran ahead of the locomotive, were or wanted to be more radical "revolutionaries" than their Comintern and Soviet teachers, mentors and sponsors. This was the case during the period of forced collectivization in the early 1930s, when leftists forcibly planted not only collective farms, but also communes. So it was during the unleashed X. Choibalsan genocide against his people in the late 1930s, ideological purges and campaigns during the rule of Yu. Tsedenbala in 1952-1984

All these comments do not detract from the significance and merits of the study conducted by I. Y. Morozova. She wrote a necessary, useful and interesting monograph.

Permanent link to this publication: