In this wide reaching discussion, we sit down with historian Alex Marshall. Using his own works such as "The Caucasus under Soviet Rule" (2010) and the edited volume "Global Impacts of Russia's Great War and Revolution: The Arc of Revolution, 1917-24" (2019) as jumping off points, we discuss everything from how Soviet history is written and persistent historiographic debates, to why the Soviet past is still relevant to the left and how current political shifts influence how questions about the Soviet Union are asked and why. Framing the whole discussion is liberalism's terminal crisis, and what this means for history writing about the Soviet Union, the historical and political imagination of the left and more.

Alex Marshall is a senior lecturer of History at the University of Glasgow. His books include "The Caucasus Under Soviet Rule" (2010) and the edited volume "Global Impacts of Russia's Great War and Revolution: The Arc of Revolution, 1917-24" (2019). He is currently working on a manuscript about Soviet Second Secretary during the Cold War, Mikhail Suslov.

On today's episode we explore the ins and outs of the 1936 Soviet Constitution - also known as the "Stalin Constitution" - how it was written, what it guaranteed, what led to its drafting, how it affected life in the USSR as well as the social, political and economic contexts surrounding its drafting.

We pay particular attention to how the tensions between central authority in Moscow, regional actors and popular sovereignty created a unique context for the practice and development of Soviet democracy, federalism and constitutionalism, complicating black and white narratives of Soviet political centralization.

Our guest is Samantha Lomb - author of Stalin’s ConstitutionSoviet Participatory Politics and the Discussion of the 1936 Draft Constitution - here is a description of the book:

"Upon its adoption in December 1936, Soviet leaders hailed the new so-called Stalin Constitution as the most democratic in the world. Scholars have long scoffed at this claim, noting that the mass repression of 1937–1938 that followed rendered it a hollow document. This study does not address these competing claims, but rather focuses on the six-month long popular discussion of the draft Constitution, which preceded its formal adoption in December 1936. Drawing on rich archival sources, this book uses the discussion of the draft 1936 Constitution to examine discourse between the central state leadership and citizens about the new Soviet social contract, which delineated the roles the state and citizens should play in developing socialism. For the central leadership, mobilizing its citizenry in a variety of state building campaigns was the main goal of the discussion of the draft Constitution. However, the goals of the central leadership at times stood in stark contrast with the people’s expressed interpretation of that social contract. Citizens of the USSR focused on securing rights and privileges, often related to improving their daily lives, from the central government."

Dr. Lomb works at Vyatka State University in Kirov, Russia. She received her PhD in history from the University of Pittsburgh in 2014. Her first book, Stalin’s Constitution: Soviet Participatory Politics and the Discussion of the 1936 Draft Constitution, was published in 2017. Currently she is working on a book manuscript about collective farm life in the 1930s and a research project on repression. On the topic of collectivization, she has published an article "Moscow is Far Away: Peasant Communal Traditions in the Expulsion of Collective Farm Members in the Vyatka–Kirov Region 1932–1939" in Europe Asia Studies in 2022 and a book chapter called “Nashi/ne Nashi, Individual Smallholders, Social Control, and the State in Ziuzdinskii District, Kirov Region, 1932–9” in Social Control under Stalin and Khrushchev: The Phantom of a Well-Ordered State, edited by Immo Rebitschek and Aaron B. Retish (University of Toronto Press: August 2023). She was also the editor of Win or Else: Soviet Football in Moscow and Beyond, 1921–1985, written by Larry Holmes, published in 2024.

On today's episode we welcome architect and researcher Levan Asabashvili to discuss the emergence and development of public housing in the Georgian SSR and what happened to Georgia's housing stock after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

We also explore how Soviet-wide architectural trends in different periods (early Soviet, Stalinist, post-World War 2) manifested in the Georgian SSR and how architecture aligned with ideology, economics and nationhood, with special attention to housing in the Georgian case. We also discuss the role housing played in the emergence of the Soviet middle classes in the late Soviet period and the implications this had for the Soviet Union's collapse.

Throughout the discussion, references are made to images of buildings, all of which can be found here:

https://georgiaphotophiles.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/tbilisi-public-architecture-timeline/

Levan Asabashvili is an architect and researcher based in Tbilisi. He studied architecture at the Tbilisi State Academy of Arts and later at Delft University of Technology. Levan is a co-founder of Urban Reactor, a collective focused on exploring the built environment, and has been involved in establishing the Georgian branch of do.co.mo.mo, an international organization dedicated to documenting and preserving modernist architecture. He also works with Architecture Workshop on design projects and is currently pursuing a PhD at Georgian Technical University, where his research focuses on Soviet architecture and the social, political, and economic factors that have shaped architectural movements.

Read Levan's article "AT THE ROOTS OF POST-SOVIET ARCHITECTURE" here:

https://danarti.org/en/article/at-the-roots-of-post-soviet-architecture---levan-asabashvili/10

On today's episode we examine how broader shifts in the global order, globalization and geopolitical trends since the end of the Cold War led to the current European security crisis and political context for the Russo-Ukraine War. We also explore how this context shapes Georgia's geopolitical and security environment, and is sowing the seeds for more open discussions about what geopolitical neutrality and explicit multi-vectorism could mean for Georgia.

With guest co-host Beka Natsvlishvili, we welcome Richard Sakwa on to Reimagining Soviet Georgia.

Richard Sakwa is Emeritus Professor of Politics at the University of Kent, U.K.

His research interests include: political developments in Russia, international politics and the Second Cold War, multipolarity and global realignments, prospects for socialism, problems of European and global order, the English School and international systems.

A description of Sakwa's recent book The Lost Peace: How the West Failed to Prevent a Second Cold War (2023, Yale University Press) below:

The end of the Cold War was an opportunity—our inability to seize it has led to today’s renewed era of great power competition
 
The year 1989 heralded a unique prospect for an enduring global peace as harsh ideological divisions and conflicts began to be resolved. Now, three decades on, that peace has been lost. With war in Ukraine and increasing tensions between China, Russia, and the West, great power politics once again dominates the world stage. But could it have been different?
 
Richard Sakwa shows how the years before the first mass invasion of Ukraine represented a hiatus in conflict rather than a lasting accord—and how, since then, we have been in a “Second Cold War.” Tracing the mistakes on both sides that led to the current crisis, Sakwa considers the resurgence of China and Russia and the disruptions and ambitions of the liberal order that opened up catastrophic new lines of conflict.
 
This is a vital, strongly argued account of how the world lost its chance at peace, and instead saw the return of war in Europe, global rivalries, and nuclear brinksmanship.

Since the 1970s, historian Sheila Fitzpatrick has made invaluable contributions to our understanding of the Soviet Union. As a key figure in the "revisionist school" of Soviet history, Fitzpatrick along with other historians opposed entrenched Cold War era narratives about the USSR including (but not limited to) the "totalitarian thesis". Fitzpatrick in particular added texture and complexity in her studies of the Soviet Union by focusing on social history, perspectives "from below" and daily life as well as social and economic advancement & upward mobility during Stalinism. On today's episode, we welcome Sheila Fitzpatrick on as a guest to reflect on the development of Soviet history since the 1970s, her work and what the Soviet past looks like today.

Sheila Fitzpatrick is a historian of the Soviet Union and modern Russia. Her books The Cultural Revolution in Russia, 1928-31 (1978), Education and Social Mobility in the Soviet Union, 1921-34 (1979) and The Russian Revolution (1982) were foundational to the field of Soviet social history. She taught for many years at the University of Chicago, before returning to Australia, the country of her birth. Her book, White Russians, Red Peril: A Cold War History of Migration was published by Black, Inc., Melbourne, in 2021; followed by The Shortest History of the Soviet Union in 2022. She is currently working on a monograph, Displacement: Repatriation and Resettlement of Russian and Soviet Displaced Persons after the Second World War, and a biography of Lenin’s wife, Nadezhda Krupskaya, under contract to Princeton University Press. She is currently a professor at the Australian Catholic University.

On today's episode we discuss the book Blue Collar Empire: The Untold Story of US Labor's Global Anticommunist Crusade with author Jeff Schuhrke.

Blue-Collar Empire explores how the CIA used American unions to undermine workers at home and subvert democracy abroad through the shocking story of the AFL-CIO’s global anticommunist crusade—and its devastating consequences for workers around the world.

Unions have the power not only to secure pay raises and employee benefits but to bring economies to a screeching halt and overthrow governments. Recognizing this, in the late twentieth century, the US government sought to control labor movements abroad as part of the Cold War contest for worldwide supremacy. In this work, Washington found an enthusiastic partner in the AFL-CIO’s anticommunist officials, who, in a shocking betrayal, for decades expended their energies to block revolutionary ideologies and militant class consciousness from taking hold in the workers’ movements of Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

Jeff Schuhrke is a labor historian, journalist, union activist, and assistant professor at the Harry Van Arsdale Jr. School of Labor Studies, SUNY Empire State University in New York City. He is a frequent contributor to In These Times and Jacobin, and his scholarship has been published at Diplomatic History and Labor: Studies in Working-Class History.

Episode image: President Richard Nixon gestures toward labor leader George Meany during a speech at the 1971 AFL-CIO convention. (Wally McNamee / Corbis via Getty Images)

Writing histories of communism and "really existing socialism" have been fraught with political tension for decades. On the one hand, sectarian debates in the global left too often overlooked the nuances of really existing socialism and cutting edge academic research in order to align with specific ideological orientations.

On the other hand, and far more consequential, Cold War-era anti-communism (and the collapse of the Soviet Union that followed) engendered generations of historians - both professional and not - with an implicit hostility to communism as an intellectual starting point. While many historians have directly opposed anti-communist History writing, and successfully shaped and contributed to academic and popular discussions, anti-communism persists in the academy and popular discourses globally.

So how should we assess and understand "anti-communism" and its relationship with History? And how do popular memory politics, nationalist imaginations, global political shifts, archival access and academic trends play into it? And what does all this mean for the left and socialist politics today?

On today's episode we discuss all this and more with Stefan Gužvica, using his recent article in Jacobin on the notorious "Black Book of Communism" as a starting point. You can read the article here:

⁠https://jacobin.com/2025/01/black-book-communism-courtois-history⁠

Stefan Gužvica is assistant professor at the Department of History of the Higher School of Economics in Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation. He is the author of Before Tito: The Communist Party of Yugoslavia during the Great Purge, 1936–1940. He is currently working on a book based off his doctoral dissertation defended at the University of Regensburg in 2022, titled "Sickle without a Hammer: Revolution and Nation-Building in the Balkans, 1900s–1930s."

(episode image is a French anti-communist poster circa 1950/51 entitled "Caucasian Dance" produced by the movement "Peace and Freedom". In the background, accompanying Stalin on balalaikas, are the leaders of the French Communist Party at the time: Marcel Cachin, Jacques Duclos, André Marty, and Maurice Thorez)

After World War 2, during the period of developed socialism, a rich ecosystem of Marxist intellectuals and academics emerged in the Georgian SSR. Universities and scientific institutes in Tbilisi, Kutaisi, Telavi, and Batumi were home to sociologists, philosophers, anthropologists, historians and other academics who took part in Soviet wide and international discussions and debates on different aspects of Marxist theory or Marxist inspired academic research.

Since the collapse of the USSR in 1991, this "lost pantheon" of Georgian Marxism has been politically undermined, intellectually marginalized and socially forgotten. But who were these Soviet Georgian Marxists? What were their ideas? What were they writing about and researching in the period of developed socialism, the late USSR? And how did Soviet Georgian Marxists fit into Soviet-wide and broader international academic networks and debates? And why is reclaiming and reengaging with Soviet Georgian Marxists important today?

On today's episode we welcome Bakar Berekashvili to begin this discussion on Marxism in Soviet Georgia, what it tells us about Georgia's Soviet experience and how it relates to academia, politics and more in Georgia since 1991.

In the coming weeks we will be releasing a series of shorter episodes on individual Soviet Georgian Marxists....stay tuned!

Bakar Berekashvili is Professor of Political Science and Sociology at the Georgian American University in Tbilisi. He has been a Visiting Scholar at the University of Iceland in Reykjavik, at the Institute of Contemporary History in Ljubljana, at the Masaryk University in Brno and at the Spanish National Research Council in Madrid. His research and teaching interests include qualitative research, critical sociology, Marxist thought in Soviet Union, Soviet Union (life and social order), post-socialist politics and society, ruling class, problems of democracy, social & political theory, political sociology, power and ideology.

On October 20th 2024, Moldova held a presidential election and a referendum, supposedly on the question of integration into the EU. The referendum passed with a slight majority – 50.35% vs 49.65%. Two rounds of a presidential election were also held in the country, with the EU favored candidate Maia Sandu winning.

While many observers have interpreted the results as indicative of the country being divided between a pro-EU and pro-Russian faction and Russia’s meddling in the elections, the situation is far more complex.

Vitalie Sprînceană is a sociologist, journalist and urban activist based in Chisinau. Moldova. He is also a co-editor at PLATZFORMA.MD, a web platform for social, economic and political criticism. He is interested in and argues for inclusive democratic public spaces, social justice, free knowledge, plurality of worldviews and practices. His research interests are: sociology, globalization, history of ideas, literary and cultural criticism, history of Soviet Moldova.

Read his recent article on the EU Referendum in Moldova here:

https://transform-network.net/blog/commentary/moldovas-referendum-on-what/

Check out the Moldova based web platform Platzforma here:

https://platzforma.md/

Since the collapse of the USSR and Georgia's independence in 1991, anti-soviet memory politics have played an intractable role in Georgian politics. On the one hand, they are a rhetorical allegory without limits - nearly anything and everything negative can be associated with the soviet past. Yet on the other hand, they also played a crucial role in nation building, becoming especially institutionalized after the 2003 Rose Revolution. In the lead up to the parliamentary elections on October 26th 2024, politicians still make regular reference to the USSR. But where do anti-soviet memory politics in Georgia come from? Why do they persist? How exactly are they reproduced? And for what? Is the USSR simply a metaphor for Russia? Or a means to demonize socialism and reinforce market orthodoxy? Or both?

To discuss all this and more, we sat down with frequent co-host and guest, Beka Natsvlishvili.

Beka Natsvlishvili is a director of the Institute for a Fair Economy. He is also the Georgian team lead for a platform economy research project in collaboration with the University of Oxford. His teaching experience includes lectures on political economy, globalization, and political sociology at the Georgian-American University, and previous engagements at Caucasus University and the University of Georgia. Beka previously served as a Member of Parliament and Deputy Chair of the Committee for European Integration, and as a Member of the Tbilisi Municipal Council, where he chaired the land legalization commission. With over two decades of academic and professional experience, he holds a Master of Arts (Magister Artium) from Wilhelm University of Münster and has extensive expertise in political economy, trade unions, and social research.