Many in Mongolia Nostalgic for Communism

[Portuguese Rebel]

By STEPHANIE HOO, Associated Press Writer
Sat May 21, 5:24 PM ET

GACHUURT, Mongolia - For most of her 53 years, she has lived as a nomadic herder under Mongolia's wide blue skies, raising nine children, surviving snowstorms and drought, and hauling the family's white felt tent to a new site each season in search of grass for their sheep. But never did Tsahiriin Daariimaa think life would be as hard as it is now, on the eve of Sunday's presidential elections.

With the end of communism in Mongolia 15 years ago, Daariimaa said she and her husband are no longer guaranteed monthly wages from a government farm, but must sell their wool in a market of fluctuating prices and nervy Chinese traders.

Under communism, "everyone worked for the collective farm," Daariimaa said. Today, none of her children has a steady job.

"Communism was much better," she said.

Nostalgia for the old ways might stun the founders of democratic Mongolia, who defied police and took to the streets in 1990 to bring down one-party rule. But polls indicate that on Sunday, many Mongolians plan to vote for the candidate of their former communist rulers — the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party.

The MPRP says it is committed to democracy. Its candidate, Nambariin Enkbayar, leads a four-way race in this impoverished country of 2.5 million people wedged between Russia and China.

Free-market economics has brought poverty, Daariimaa said, as she served bowls of milk tea and yogurt in her tidy ger, a traditional round tent with wooden poles painted orange to symbolize the sun.

Her husband, Sharaviin Baatar, nodded in agreement.

"We are loyal friends of the MPRP," he said.

That talk infuriates Sambuu Ganbaator, a member of the Democratic Party, who was building himself a simple Russian-style dacha, or summer house, just over the next hill.

"Too many people forget what the MPRP did to Mongolia," he said. "They kept Mongolia under a brutal dictatorship. You weren't allowed to speak your mind."

Now, he said, "you can say anything you want to say and do what you want to live a happy life."

Ganbaator, a retired driller for a geology company, said he supports the Democratic Party's Mendsaikhanin Enkhsaikhan for president.

"He was one of the founding members of democracy. He crushed communism," Ganbaator said. "To vote for the Democratic Party is to vote for more democracy."

But few of his neighbors have much affection for the Democrats.

To them, rule by a coalition of anti-communist parties in 1996-2000 was chaotic, with a new prime minister nearly every year.

As the coalition splintered under the weight of personal rivalries, the MPRP roared back to power in the parliamentary vote of 2000. The current president came from the MPRP.

"I will support the MPRP," said Tseveenjav, a 70-year-old herder who uses one name. "They always do the right thing."

Wearing a traditional Mongolian felt hat and heavy boots, he sat atop his horse and watched over 500 sheep with help from his faithful dogs, Falcon and Tiger. A dead marmot hung from his saddle.

While city dwellers say their main concerns are poverty and corruption, Tseveenjav's worries were more pastoral.

"I would say my main concern is that I hope in the summer there will be good grassy areas, so my sheep will become fat enough to survive the winter," he said.

Tseveenjav has little interest in government, but under communism he picked up the habit of always voting — for the MPRP.

Myatav Choijav, also on horseback, greeted foreign visitors by shouting cheerfully in Russian: "Hello!" and "Mongolia is great!"

He, too, supports the MPRP.

"Everyone was equal under communist rule," Choijav said. "Now, some people are very rich and some are very poor."

When the country was under Russia's influence, all schoolchildren learned Russian, and Soviet aid made up as much as one-third of Mongolia's gross domestic product. That aid disappeared overnight with the Soviet Union's collapse, and Mongolians miss it.

"In the old times, the government took better care of us ordinary people," Choijav said. "Now, the government is very far away from us, especially if you live in the countryside and take care of sheep."

Well... I wonder in how many of the ex-communist countries there is a strong force supporting the return of communism.

[Dr Zoidberg]

Well if the majority of the people decide that they want a communist government, then let em have it. The only problem is that the global economy has changed in the last 15 years, so I dont think the exact same government that existed back then would work as well today. It would probably have to be some sort of hybrid communist/capitalist system, much like the Chinese are doing.

[Torment]

Yes, I can understand that poor people who had a reasonable life under communism yearn back to those days. This statement is especially amusing:

"Too many people forget what the MPRP did to Mongolia," he said. "They kept Mongolia under a brutal dictatorship. You weren't allowed to speak your mind."

Now, he said, "you can say anything you want to say and do what you want to live a happy life."

Freedom is important, but food is more important. I can fully well understand that people would like to see freedom dissapear if it would mean the return of food. Some people just tend to overestimate the value of freedom. If your government is able to feed you in a country that exists mostly out of dry tundra's, what need is their for a personal opinion? (At least, that is the mentality I would have...)

[Spetsnaz]

They dont want communism,they just want a better life,because in reality life in times of USSR was better than now,most russians want that to. And if I for example want my country to be stronger and better than it is ,that doesent make me a communist,even though most russians want what i want,but they are not communists,the communists got only 10% at last elections.

[Lugotorix]

The story of Mongolia has always brought me to the heights of anger, and sadness.
They have no arable land. They live in a mountainous desert. That's worse than living in a swamp.

It's like Mad Max on Chinese Opium, with a mind-numbling horrible aroma of Dune, The Matrix, and War of the Worlds. They once were kings of the steppe, masters of the horse, the center of an Empire. Now they are dirt poor, with ruler after alien ruler shaking them down. Rich miners and terrorists ruled them in 1924, and they have ruled them ever since. This is the one country where a Soviet (collection of farms) working together actually seemed feasible and reasonable, but it brought only the deaths of 10 thousand workers and Tibetan Buddists who wouldnt play along.

When you live in a yurt (tent) herding sheep and goats in a terribly modern world, the only thing that's left to do is drown yourself in alcohol, or revert to a system that was forced upon you by rich bastards half a world away. It's all you know. The grass is greener on the other side. Cept it sucks when even the crops won't grow. You need to feed your kids. They voted for independance but Russia should help ease the transition imo through foreign aid.

Don't mean to offend any Russians here, but I believe any state that forces its beliefs and occupies another country, and brutally suppresses any opposition through a puppet has a responsibility to the client state's future.

[Odovacar]

I can well understand their wish to live again in communism. It does mean for them the old days, in which they were able to live, although not in freedom. But most people's point of view makes a very bad start to a better life. For example the Russians always wanted to make a rich and great empire to defend the people from enemies, who invaded Russian in every age. Even Stalin said that Russia had to suffer because she was weak, so everyone was just keeping beating her. But who did Peter the Great and Stalin start to build a new Russia? Always with brute force..In the end, Russia became a military empire. But real greatness is not achived by military but with economy. We can see it on the English example....In the present day peoples should focus on social achievments not on military. As for the mongolians: they committed the same error. Once they had a large empire..but what for? To rule peoples? It is worth nothing. The king of England had just a small kingdom at the beginning, and now even we non-english speakers use English to discuss things here, and mongolian and other empires are nowhere now. For the future we must make something to change, not to dream. But well, in the most desperate countries this could be almost impossible....

[fallingstar]

I always thought Mongolia was under control of Russia back in those days, maybe I read it wrong.

It would probably have to be some sort of hybrid communist/capitalist system, much like the Chinese are doing.

what are chinese people doing? I don't understand

[mogred]

I think part of their problem is they're right next to china I mean how do you compete with that? Also looing at things happening in china they seem to be practically only communist in government now.

[Tiwaz]

Originally posted by Odovacar@May 22 2005, 06:24 AM
I can well understand their wish to live again in communism. It does mean for them the old days, in which they were able to live, although not in freedom. But most people's point of view makes a very bad start to a better life. For example the Russians always wanted to make a rich and great empire to defend the people from enemies, who invaded Russian in every age. Even Stalin said that Russia had to suffer because she was weak, so everyone was just keeping beating her. But who did Peter the Great and Stalin start to build a new Russia? Always with brute force..In the end, Russia became a military empire. But real greatness is not achived by military but with economy. We can see it on the English example....In the present day peoples should focus on social achievments not on military. As for the mongolians: they committed the same error. Once they had a large empire..but what for? To rule peoples? It is worth nothing. The king of England had just a small kingdom at the beginning, and now even we non-english speakers use English to discuss things here, and mongolian and other empires are nowhere now. For the future we must make something to change, not to dream. But well, in the most desperate countries this could be almost impossible....

Freely quoting ingenious british comedy series Black adder... "Britain controls half of the world. Germans have one colony with a sausage factory. We are hardly innocent when it comes to empire building."

Britain gained it's empire and influence through use of brute force just like everyone else.

[mogred]

Odovacar the empire of england was actually more controlled by parliament and financial companies that the queen or king of england. Also read my signature or whatever its called that was the british policy of what to do with people when they were at war with the zulus or some other tribe and they did it with the chinese in the opium wars and they probably did it with the indians too. Sorry I didn't adress this in my first post I was just replying to the first and last post didn't take time to read the rest.

[Odovacar]

Around the time Napoleon invaded Russia with 500 000 men, England has an army about 25000 in Europe, some other thousands in India, or maybe a fewer number. I don't tried to argue that Britain was a little white sheep of peace, but that Britain was built on economy not on sheer military power. Ecenomoy is the reason England conquered India, economy is the reason they did not brother with Usa more, when she revolted.

the empire of england was actually more controlled by parliament and financial companies that the queen or king of england.

That is exactly what i am saying! In England many interest governed the state, and many people could gain a part from the power, in Russia or even in Germany, mainly nobles. Later the citizens acquired more power in Germany but the Empire after 1871 was still an absolut monarchy. That is one element of success.
I just trying to point out that mongolians had a chance to be great but they messed up. They went on a wrong way.

[mogred]

oh ok I guess I just misunderstood your post sorry. :blush

[Carsomyr]

Originally posted by Spetsnaz@May 22 2005, 05:27 AM
They dont want communism,they just want a better life,because in reality life in times of USSR was better than now,most russians want that to. And if I for example want my country to be stronger and better than it is ,that doesent make me a communist,even though most russians want what i want,but they are not communists,the communists got only 10% at last elections.

You're actually right. These people simply want a better life. As long as they can have a better life, I doubt they'd care if it means living under communism, democracy, socialism, capitalism, a dictatorship, etc.. Just as if they were previously a democratic state and things were well, they'd all want democracy to return instead of, in this case, communism.

[Garbarsardar]

Around the time Napoleon invaded Russia with 500 000 men, England has an army about 25000 in Europe, some other thousands in India, or maybe a fewer number. I don't tried to argue that Britain was a little white sheep of peace, but that Britain was built on economy not on sheer military power. Ecenomoy is the reason England conquered India, economy is the reason they did not brother with Usa more, when she revolted.

I think I have a slightly different perspective on empire-building. I think it was the empire that boosted the british economy through the free fresources from the colonies, and the quasi-slave labour for the "buanas" and the "sahib" and not vice-versum.
So the conquering of india (and all the places in between)was what made the british economy what is was combined with naval power and sea domination. And to do that it often unleashed extermination campaigns against the unruly natives.
Or you forget Amrichar?
The statement that it did not bother with the US needs some support from historical facts.
Like:

Washington had 11,000 men engaged in the battle, while the French had at least 29,000 soldiers and sailors. The 37 French ships-of-the-line played a crucial role in trapping the 8,700 strong British army and winning the engagement.

link
and :...at the time the losses were so great that it was impossible for the Empire to expect victory as a possible outcome"here

On topic now

I found and attached a very good paper, by Eckman wich you will find attached. For those of you who are bored to read (although it has very nice tables) I give you the summary of the results here:

To summarize the findings so far, ‘communist nostalgia is a multidimensional phenomenon.
On the one hand, we have found that nostalgia is clearly related to age. The older the respondents, the more likely they are to express feelings of nostalgia for the old, communist system. On the other hand, our findings indicate that nostalgia is mainly
Output oriented. When looking at the determinants of the phenomenon referred to here as
‘Communist nostalgia’, we find that our performance items have significantly more explanatory power than the principle item used here.
An overriding concern in this paper has to do with the consolidation of democracy in
Central and Eastern Europe, and the question we are interested in is if the kind of ‘nostalgia’ we are dealing with here poses a threat to democratic consolidation or not. In the literature, there is no agreement on this issue. Some scholars claim that in order for democracy to be considered ‘the only game in town’, a majority of the population should firmly reject the old non-democratic type of regime. Others have taken a more pragmatic stance, arguing that there is no immediate need for people in general to reject the non-democratic past altogether, as long as they land sufficient support for the new, democratic regime
The findings in this paper indicate that ‘communist nostalgia’, as understood here, does not pose a serious threat to democracy in post-communist Europe. Even if we find disturbing pattern – increasing feelings of ‘communist nostalgia’ in recent years – this is clearly not a phenomenon that goes hand in hand with a rejection of the blessings of the democratic system. This may seem somewhat contradictory. ‘Communist nostalgia’, however, clearly encompasses more than non-democratic principles, such as more or less harmless personal memories of life under communism. Perhaps it is only natural for the post-communist citizen to express some kind of sympathy for the old order, considering
the realities of the democratization processes. A simultaneous political and economic transformation has been no walk in the park.
At the same time, one should perhaps not underestimate the potential danger of ‘communist nostalgia’. We have also found here that nostalgia travels together with non-democratic attitudes If nostalgia is the result of disappointment in the democratic system’s ability to produce output, and, at the same time, this kind of discontent is increasing, it may in the end constitute a substantial challenge to democracy as ‘the only game in town’ in post-communist Europe.

[Odovacar]

Garbarsardar:
I will not start a dispute here about empire building, that is off-topic. (Just let us say, that during their greatest height such eastern empires as Turkey for example had no great economy. While in England it was against the rights to make new taxes without the parlament (Richard II has fallen from power because he robbed nobleman out of their wealth unlegally) but in despotic realms the ruler could make everything. Must people had just no interest in making someting lasting result for the empire. The english empire hadn't conquered much territory around 1590 but already posessed the greatest fleet of the ocean. What for? To make money and to robb others. Force was used but just as a tool, it was not the ceal. Despotic empires meanwhile focused on conquering mere territories. Not the empire made economy boom, the economy made an empire -this is how I see things. The spanish empire was greater in territories and in land army than England, yet it has dispersed by the ages. The spanish empire didn't made any economy. In reality it has destroyed spanish economy. Then why should the enlish empire make economy alone? what english empire? When we can speak about english empire then already it was an economy-made empire.
Around the American Revolution some whigs in the parlament argued that Usa should be left alone, no one cares what happen there,and people like John Wilkes was directly against the war, saying that americans should be free to forge their own destiny. Small hannoverian armies were fighting against the USA, England showed no much effort to hold it for long. )

Ok. now about neo-communism. I think this was by no means really communism. If we see what Marx says about communism, (for example in the Economocal-philosophical manuscript of 1844) then it makes us impossible to see USSR as a commmunist state. In reality it was a state-capitalism which ruled there.
The communism is the last stage of socialism, where the capitalist society's base, the capital, is no more, and the workers themselves organize their own work and the production dealings. But while USSR existed the world was capitalist with some exception countries where capitalism couldn't evolve over the earliest stages. The world revolution never came. That is why the soviet leaders were kept talking about building and not having the socialism.
So, when we wish the return of communism, we only wish a different capitalism, a state-governement which raises the level of our everyday life, but at the same time removes freedom. It is clear it cannot be revert. Cannot be made again.
The system is broken, the peoples want freedom, the USSR which supported everywhere the communism is no more. The economocal alliance of the communist states is over, so no support would go to a governement which takes over the factory from their owners and turn it to state posession. This whole longing for communism is just a sad dream, just an early stage of a democratic evolution. Which can lead a people to democracy as well to a totalitarian system.

[Tiwaz]

British success, and tool of that success, might be very simple. They were an island.

Britain was able to build greatest fleet because overall others did not usually have resources to fight both land and naval war. Britain had no land borders to defend so they could put their effort more fully to fleet.

Fact that later on this advantage made it possible for them to conquer new colonies is kind of lucky byproduct of their principle of putting defence of nation out at sea.

[Garbarsardar]

...and I give you the new PM of Mongolia:

Former PM 'wins Mongolian poll'


A former Communist prime minister of Mongolia has won Sunday's presidential election, state media say.
Nambaryn Enkhbayar beat three other contenders by polling more than 50% of the vote and thus avoiding the need for a run-off, Mongol Radio reported.

The official results are expected later on Monday, but Mr Enkhbayar said his main rival had already conceded defeat.
Before the poll, there were rallies for a more transparent electoral system in the capital, Ulan Bator.

Protesters also demonstrated against alleged corruption.
International observers who visited polling stations on Sunday did not report any irregularities.
Turnout in the presidential election was reported to be high.
Mr Enkhbayar of the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party (MPR) was an undisputed favourite to get the largely ceremonial job.

He said on Monday that his main rival Mendsaikhanii Enkhaikhan of the Democratic Party called him to congratulate with the victory.
"He suggested that we work together. I replied that I am really looking forward to working together with all the contenders," Mr Enkhbayar was quoted as saying by Reuters news agency.

"Mongolia is such a small country, we need people to work together," he said.
However, some analysts say that Mr Enkhbayar's victory could affect an uneasy power-sharing arrangement reached between the MPRP and the democrats.
The poll came less than a year after last June's bitterly disputed parliamentary elections.



Despite robust economic growth, Mongolia still faces deep poverty and social problems.
It is estimated that nearly a third of its 2.5m people live in poverty.
The former client state of the now defunct Soviet Union is also struggling to build itself up after decades of reliance on Moscow.
For now though, analysts say the political landscape shows little sign of the kind of instability that's been shaking Central Asia's former Soviet republics of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.

linky