Reimagining Soviet Georgia

In terms of post-Soviet memory politics, arguably no figure is more controversial than interwar Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera. Since the Maidan uprising in 2014, his memory along with that of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army and Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists have been mobilized by both far right nationalists and the Ukrainian state - to varying degrees of success - to create a counter-memory to that of both the Soviet past and the current memory regime of the Russian Federation. This process has had a dual effect - simultaneously emboldening a nationalist memory politics through the sanitization and deification of World War II era nazi collaborators like Bandera, but also encouraged the nationalist-revanchist memory regime of the Russian Federation and it's pointed demonization of Ukrainian nationalism and Bandera specifically. This dynamic has shrouded the actual historical record of Bandera and Ukrainian nationalism in not only misconceptions , but given the political context has dis-encouraged critical engagement with the History itself. For this reason we welcome historian Grzegorz Rossolinksi Liebe on to Reimagining Soviet Georgia, author of the excellent Stepan Bandera: The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist, Fascism, Genocide, and Cult to discuss Bandera, Ukrainian interrwar nationalism and memory politics in service of clarifying the history on its own terms. Book description below: The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist is the first comprehensive and scholarly biography of the Ukrainian far-right leader Stepan Bandera and the first in-depth study of his political cult. In this fascinating book, Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe illuminates the life of a mythologized personality and scrutinizes the history of the most violent twentieth-century Ukrainian nationalist movement: the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and its Ukrainian Insurgent Army.Elucidating the circumstances in which Bandera and his movement emerged and functioned, Rossolinski-Liebe explains how fascism and racism impacted on Ukrainian revolutionary and genocidal nationalism. The book shows why Bandera and his followers failed—despite their ideological similarity to the Croatian Ustaša and the Slovak Hlinka Party—to establish a collaborationist state under the auspices of Nazi Germany and examines the involvement of the Ukrainian nationalists in the Holocaust and other atrocities during and after the Second World War. The author brings to light some of the darkest elements of modern Ukrainian history and demonstrates its complexity, paying special attention to the Soviet terror in Ukraine and the entanglement between Ukrainian, Jewish, Polish, Russian, German, and Soviet history. The monograph also charts the creation and growth of the Bandera cult before the Second World War, its vivid revivals during the Cold War among the Ukrainian diaspora, and in Bandera's native eastern Galicia after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

The Democratic Republic of Georgia - also known as the First Republic - existed between 1918-1921.

Under the control of veterans of the decades long social democratic movement both in the South Caucasus and the Russian Empire at large, these Georgian social democrats led by Noe Jordania were allied with the Menshevik wing of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. While the Georgian social democrats had for years shared a lot in common with Bolsheviks ideologically and in terms of tactics of struggle (known as the "most Bolshevik of the Mensheviks") they found themselves in a peculiar situation, after splitting with Lenin and the Bolsheviks (who had achieved revolution after October 1917, but now were embattled in Civil War) by 1918. As committed internationalists and Marxists, the Georgian social democrats initially viewed the political future of Georgia within a reformed Russia. Yet, a number of contingent circumstances pushed them to declare national independence and develop an independent national state separate from Soviet Russia and other fledgling South Caucasus states. They found friends in the European-wide Second International. Karl Kautsky and other anti-Soviet social democrats visited Georgia in 1920 and offered not only support to the "peasant republic" but promoted ideals of its virtues, regardless of the on the ground reality, in Europe as a utopian alternative to Bolshevism. The external pressures of WWI and the Russian Civil War, along with long standing political differences with the Bolsheviks, shaped the nationalizing process in Georgia and moved the "First Republic" away from comprehensive social democracy into a nationalizing state reliant on the military and political patronage of European powers. Violent conflict with the non-Georgian population, a lack of clarity of the borders, and other issues made this nationalizing process conflictual, unstable, and in contradiction to the political ideals of many of the Georgian social democrats themselves - Bolshevik and Menshevik alike.

Today, the memory of the First Republic tends to either romanticize and exaggerate the extent of social democratic reform or alternatively overlook the honest Marxist convictions and socialist measures undertaken by the ruling Georgian social democrats between 1918-1921. Because the period of the First Republic is overwhelmingly remembered as a time of independence, the contingent aspect of said independence and the political reluctance by the Georgian social democrats to initially pursue it gets entirely lost.

To discuss all this and more we welcome Francis King to discuss his article (link below) "Improbable Nationalists? Social Democracy and National Independence in Georgia 1918-21"

I recommend all listeners to read this article before listening to the episode:

https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/69894/1/Socialist_History_54_proof_2_pages_35_60.pdf

For decades, historian Lewis Siegelbaum has taught and written on the Soviet Union. While many historians of labor and the working class in the USSR narrowly focused on moments of resistance, Siegelbaum investigated other aspects of working class existence such as the meaning of Soviet working class identity, the labor process, factory life and consumption practices. Siegelbaum spent years studying and writing on Donbas miners both during the late Soviet period and through the collapse of the USSR. His most well known work, Cars for Comrades was a study of the Soviet automobile. The automobile functioned as a useful prism through which to understand many complexities of late Soviet socialism. Cars were in high demand and their use was encouraged by the Soviet state. Their production and ever expanding ownership represented an achievement of Soviet industrialization and the economy at large.

On this episode, we sit down with Lewis Siegelbaum and discuss labor and workers in the USSR, Soviet miners, the automobile, as well as what it was like teaching Soviet history during the height of the Cold War and what lessons Soviet history holds for the Left today, thirty years after its collapse.

In this episode we discuss the histories, complexities and legacies of socialist Yugoslavia and non-alignment with contributor Gal Kirn and editor Paul Stubbs of the recently released book Socialist Yugoslavia and the Non-Aligned Movement: Social, Cultural, Political and Economic Imaginaries.

This discussion is a fascinating deep-dive into socialist Yugoslavia's system of self-management, its unique relationship with the Third World, nationhood, post-communist memory politics and more!

How the Soviet Union came to an end in 1991, after its nearly seventy year existence, is a process and event still mired in controversy and debate. Historians, politicians, citizens of the post-Soviet world and beyond understand this epochal event in drastically different ways -  was it the result of internal contradictions of the Soviet system? Did pressure from the capitalist world force the USSR into an arms race that led to economic ruin? Was the Soviet Union consciously dismembered by elites from the national republics? Did Gorbachev undermine his own political goals or was the rise of Boris Yeltsin to blame for the failures of perestroika and glasnost? Did the West, and principally the United States, actively push the USSR towards collapse or earnestly try to save it at the last moment? Or both?

And what does all of this mean for post-Soviet Georgia? Former First Secretary of the Georgian Communist Party Eduard Shevardnadze was at the center of it all as the final Foreign Minister of the USSR, only to return to Georgia and become president of the country in 1995. His unique role in the process of the USSR’s collapse, along with the close connections in the West he made along the way directly influenced the trajectory of nation building in post-Soviet Georgia.    

On today’s episode, Sopo Japaridze, Beka Natsvlishvili and Bryan Gigantino discuss all of this and more with historian Vladislav Zubok author of the book Collapse: the Fall of the Soviet Union .

In this engaging and insightful conversation with Claire Kaiser, we discuss her new book Georgian and Soviet: Entitled Nationhood & the Specter of Stalin in the Caucasus.


Here's a description of the book:

Georgian and Soviet investigates the constitutive capacity of Soviet nationhood and empire. The Soviet republic of Georgia, located in the mountainous Caucasus region, received the same nation-building template as other national republics of the USSR. Yet Stalin's Georgian heritage, intimate knowledge of Caucasian affairs, and personal involvement in local matters as he ascended to prominence left his homeland to confront a distinct set of challenges after his death in 1953.

Utilizing Georgian archives and Georgian-language sources, Claire P. Kaiser argues that the postwar and post-Stalin era was decisive in the creation of a "Georgian" Georgia. This was due not only to the peculiar role played by the Stalin cult in the construction of modern Georgian nationhood but also to the subsequent changes that de-Stalinization wrought among Georgia's populace and in the unusual imperial relationship between Moscow and Tbilisi. Kaiser describes how the Soviet empire could be repressive yet also encourage opportunities for advancement—for individual careers as well as for certain nationalities. The creation of national hierarchies of entitlement could be as much about local and republic-level imperial imaginations as those of a Moscow center.

Georgian and Soviet reveals that the entitled, republic-level national hierarchies that the Soviet Union created laid a foundation for the claims of nationalizing states that would emerge from the empire's wake in 1991. Today, Georgia still grapples with the legacies of its Soviet century, and the Stalin factor likewise lingers as new generations of Georgians reevaluate the symbiotic relationship between Soso Jughashvili and his native land.

This episode explores how, through the process of developing a model of socialism applicable in the Third World, local actors interacted with the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact countries, China and the West. These political and economic interactions shaped not only the trajectory of these specific countries but of socialism globally. Our guest is Jeremy Friedman to discuss all of this and more with his new and excellent book Ripe for Revolution: Building Socialism in the Third World (2022). 

Highly lauded and acclaimed architect Vladimir (Lado) Alexi-Meskhishvili  (1915-1978) worked on the designs of some of Soviet Georgia's most iconic buildings.

A partial list includes:

Sanatorium “Imereti”, Tskaltubo (1957),  

Tbilisi Sports Palace, Tbilisi (1961), 

Restaurant “Iori”, Tbilisi (1962), 

Lower floor of Freedom Square metro station, (then “Lenin Square”), Tbilisi, (1967)

Agricultural Institute of Georgia, Tbilisi (1970)

The Victory Memorial of Vake-Park, Tbilisi (1970) 

Chess Palace and Alpine Club, Tbilisi (1973)

The Central Postal Service and Telegraph, Tbilisi (1980)

On this episode, we discuss life and legacy of Meskhishvili as well as architecture as an art and practice in Soviet Georgia with our guest, freelance researcher, curator and writer Nini Palavandishvili.

Palavandishvili co-curated a current exhibition entitled Lado Alexi-Meskhishvili, Architect on the Edge of Epochs

Her research focuses on Mid-century modernist architecture, monumental and decorative art, their role in a time of creation, and current interpretations. In 2018-2020 in collaboration with the Georgian National Committee of the Blue Shield, Nini worked on the Conservation and adaptation plan for the Tbilisi Chess Palace and Alpine Club building.

Among other publications, her most recent is:
Art for Architecture - Georgia. Soviet Modernist Mosaics from 1960 to 1990  


. 

On this episode we have a wide ranging conversation with the illustrious historian Candan Badem who his an expert on the South Caucasus and in particular the borderlands between the Ottoman Empire and Imperial Russia in the 19th and early 20th centuries prior to the Russian Revolution. He has written on The Ottoman Empire in the Crimean War of the 1850s, Russian imperial administration in the city of Kars (present day Turkey) and much more.

We discuss Candan's scholarship, the complex history of the Turkish-South Caucasus borderlands through the pre-Soviet, Soviet and post-Soviet eras, historiography and archives, as well as his experience growing up in Ardahan near the Soviet Georgian border in the 1980s and how this experience shaped his own understandings of the USSR and socialism.

Since 2016 Candan has been in exile from Turkish academia due to his political stances and is currently teaching in Sweden. 

Anastas Mikoyan was an incredible figure. An Armenian old Bolshevik whose career spanned decades all the way from active involvement in the Baku Commune of 1918 to playing a central role in the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Mikoyan's role as First Deputy Premier under Khrushchev and architect of de-Stalinization and thaw-era nationality policies meant his career of policy making influenced the trajectory of the entire Soviet Union. He also maintained close political and personal ties to the goings on in his native Armenia.

Our guest to discuss Mikoyan, Soviet Armenia and much more is Dr. Pietro A. Shakarian -  a Lecturer in History at the American University of Armenia in Yerevan, and a historian of Armenia, Russia, and the Caucasus, with a particular focus on Soviet Armenia during the era of Khrushchev's Thaw.

An article by Dr. Shakarian -

"Yerevan 1954: Anastas Mikoyan and Nationality Reform in the Thaw, 1954–1964"

https://www.peripheralhistories.co.uk/post/yerevan-1954-anastas-mikoyan-and-nationality-reform-in-the-thaw-1954-1964

On today's episode we welcome Samuel Moyn, professor of Law and History at Yale, to discuss the political history of human rights and in particular how this relates to the Cold War, Soviet collapse, and neoliberalism as a politics in the post-Cold War era.

Here's an article by Samuel Moyn based on his book Not Enough: Human Rights in an Unequal World

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/human-rights-are-not-enough/


And here is a description of his book Not Enough :

The age of human rights has been kindest to the rich. Even as state violations of political rights garnered unprecedented attention due to human rights campaigns, a commitment to material equality disappeared. In its place, market fundamentalism has emerged as the dominant force in national and global economies. In this provocative book, Samuel Moyn analyzes how and why we chose to make human rights our highest ideals while simultaneously neglecting the demands of a broader social and economic justice.

In a pioneering history of rights stretching back to the Bible, Not Enough charts how twentieth-century welfare states, concerned about both abject poverty and soaring wealth, resolved to fulfill their citizens’ most basic needs without forgetting to contain how much the rich could tower over the rest. In the wake of two world wars and the collapse of empires, new states tried to take welfare beyond its original European and American homelands and went so far as to challenge inequality on a global scale. But their plans were foiled as a neoliberal faith in markets triumphed instead.

Moyn places the career of the human rights movement in relation to this disturbing shift from the egalitarian politics of yesterday to the neoliberal globalization of today. Exploring why the rise of human rights has occurred alongside enduring and exploding inequality, and why activists came to seek remedies for indigence without challenging wealth, Not Enough calls for more ambitious ideals and movements to achieve a humane and equitable world.

On this episode, we have a discussion with political geographer Dr. Gerard Toal about the 2008 August War that embroiled Georgia, Russia and South Ossetia in conflict, along with the contingencies and background that led to the fighting and what this event can tell us or not tell us about Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Dr. Toal wrote a book in 2016 entitled "Near Abroad: Putin, The West and the Contest Over Ukraine and The Caucasus" - here's a description of the book below:

"Before Russia invaded Ukraine, it invaded Georgia. Both states are part of Russia's "near abroad"--newly independent states that were once part of the Soviet Union and are now Russia's neighbors. While the Russia-Georgia war of 2008 faded from the headlines in the wake of the global recession, the geopolitical contest that created it did not. In Near Abroad, Gerard Toal moves beyond the polemical rhetoric that surrounds Russia's interventions in Georgia and Ukraine to study the underlying territorial conflicts and geopolitical struggles. Central to understanding are legacies of the Soviet Union collapse: unresolved territorial issues, weak states and a conflicted geopolitical culture in Russia over the new territorial order. Toal explains the road to invasion and war in Georgia and Ukraine, thereafter, and provides an account of real life geopolitics, one that emphasizes changing spatial relationships, geopolitical cultures and the power of media images. Not only a penetrating analysis of Russia's relationships with its regional neighbors, Near Abroad also offers an analysis of how US geopolitical culture frequently fails to fully understand Russia and the geopolitical archipelago of dependencies in its near abroad.

In this interview with French political scientist Laure Neumayer, we discuss how a particular form of anti-communist memory politics were mobilized and utilized by "memory entrepreneurs" in Europe following the Cold War. A particular interpretation of the socialist past was put up against  official European memory of the 20th century as the EU enlarged into Eastern Europe. A mixture of anti-communist nationalists, former dissidents and liberals wanted a pan-European identity to be rewritten in a way that criminalized communism as it had after World War II criminalized Nazism.  

Here's a description of Laure Neumayer's 2019 book The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space After The Cold War:


Memory has taken centre stage in European-level policies after the Cold War, as the Western historical narrative based on the uniqueness of the Holocaust was being challenged by calls for an equal condemnation of Communism and Nazism.

This book retraces the anti-communist mobilisations carried out by Central European representatives in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and in the European Parliament since the early 1990s. Based on archive consultation, interviews and ethnographic observation, it analyses the memory entrepreneurs’ requests for collective remembrance and legal accountability of Communist crimes in European institutions, Pan-European political parties and transnational advocacy networks. The book argues that these newcomers managed to strengthen their positions and impose a totalitarian interpretation of Communism in the European assemblies, which directly shaped the EU’s remembrance policy. However, the rules of the European political game and recurring ideological conflicts with left-wing opponents reduced the legal and judicial implications of this anti-communist grammar at the European level.

In this episode we sit down with anthropologist Erin Koch to have a conversation about the shifts in medical practices, treatments as well as epidemic management from the Soviet period to Post-Soviet period in Georgia through a discussion of her 2013 book Free Market Tuberculosis: Managing Epidemics in Post-Soviet Georgia. The shift to a market economy after the collapse of the Soviet Union radically transformed health care and epidemic management in Georgia resulting in drastic consequences for patient care and public health.

Here's a description of Erin Koch's book Free Market Tuberculosis: Managing Epidemics in Post-Soviet Georgia:

"The Soviet health care infrastructure and its tuberculosis-control system were anchored in biomedicine, but the dire resurgence of tuberculosis at the end of the twentieth century changed how experts in post-Soviet nations--and globally--would treat the disease. As Free Market Tuberculosis dramatically demonstrates, market reforms and standardized treatment programs have both influenced and undermined the management of tuberculosis care in the now-independent country of Georgia. The alarming rate of tuberculosis infection in this nation at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Asia cannot be disputed, and yet solutions to attacking the disease are very much debated.

Anthropologist Erin Koch explores the intersection of the nation's extensive medical history, the effects of Soviet control, and the highly standardized yet poorly regulated treatments promoted by the World Health Organization. Although statistics and reports tell one story--a tale of success in Georgia--Koch's ethnographic approach reveals all facets of this cautionary tale of a monolithic approach to medicine."

One of the Soviet Union's most well known directors Mikhail Kalatozov was born as Mikhail Kalatoziashvili in Tiflis in 1903. Before releasing his more famous works such as Soy Cuba (1964) and The Cranes Are Flying (1957), or winning an award at the 1958 Cannes Film Festival, he along with Nutsa Gogoberidze (Soviet Georgia's first female director) co-directed their first film together - a documentary called Their Kingdom (1928). For decades Their Kingdom was lost in Moscow archives and was only recently rediscovered. The film is an early Soviet critique of the Menshevik controlled Democratic Republic of Georgia (1918-21) (also known as the First Republic). The portion of the film that was recently restored was recently shown at a film festival in Tbilisi showcasing early Soviet Georgian films and we were lucky enough to watch it.

This episode begins with Sopo Japaridze reflecting on the film Their Kingdom and is followed by an interview with scholar Salome Tsopurashvili. Salome is currently a professor at Ilia State University in Tbilisi, and author of an upcoming book that explores women and film in 1920s Soviet Georgia.

On today's episode we sit down with prolific historian Dr. Gerald Horne to discuss the intimate political relationship in the 20th century between the Soviet Union, the Communist Party of the USA and Black political struggle in the United States. We discuss a number of topics including African American Marxists such as Paul Robeson - who Dr. Horne has written a biography on - as well as the role the Soviet Union's political support of Civil Rights in the United States had in strengthening the movement for black civil rights.

Dr. Horne holds the Moores Professorship of History and African American Studies at the University of Houston. His research has addressed issues of racism in a variety of relations involving labor, politics, civil rights, international relations and war. He has also written extensively about the film industry. Dr. Horne received his Ph.D. in history from Columbia University and his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley and his B.A. from Princeton University.

Kristen Ghodsee and Mitchell Orenstein have recently released a new book entitled "Taking Stock of Shock: The Social Consequences of the 1989 Revolutions" - this week we have both authors on as guests to discuss their new book, their methodological process, how to make sense of the social consequences of socialist collapse and how it relates to Georgia.

You can check out their new book's website here;

https://www.takingstockofshock.com/

And here's the book's description:

"After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, more than 400 million people suddenly found themselves in a new reality, a dramatic transition from state socialist and centrally planned workers' states to liberal democracy (in most cases) and free markets. Thirty years later, postsocialist citizens remain sharply divided on the legacies of transition. Was it a success that produced great progress after a short recession, or a socio-economic catastrophe foisted on the East by Western capitalists? Taking Stock of Shock aims to uncover the truth using a unique, interdisciplinary investigation into the social consequences of transition—including the rise of authoritarian populism and xenophobia. Showing that economic, demographic, sociological, political scientific, and ethnographic research produce contradictory results based on different disciplinary methods and data, Kristen Ghodsee and Mitchell A. Orenstein triangulate the results. They find that both the J-curve model, which anticipates sustained growth after a sharp downturn, and the "disaster capitalism" perspective, which posits that neoliberalism led to devastating outcomes, have significant basis in fact. While substantial percentages of the populations across a variety of postsocialist countries enjoyed remarkable success, prosperity, and progress, many others suffered an unprecedented socio-economic catastrophe. Ghodsee and Orenstein conclude that the promise of transition still remains elusive for many and offer policy ideas for overcoming negative social and political consequences."

In this episode we sit down with Tbilisi-based researcher and lecturer Archil Sikharulidze, who specializes in securitization, Georgia-Russia relations and more, to discuss the hurdles that dominant forms of nationalism pose to doing research on critical yet politically sensitive topics in Georgia.

His most recent article here on Georgian identity and the West is available here:

https://www.commonspace.eu/opinion/opinion-alternative-view-georgias-european-identity-and-past-history

On today’s show we welcome Anastasia Shesterinina to discuss her excellent new book Mobilizing in Uncertainty: Collective Identities and War in Abkhazia which, using hundreds interviews and extensive field research, explains how and why Abkhaz did or did not mobilize to fight in the war with Georgia in the early 1990s, and how to many Abkhaz as the war was beginning  it came as an unexpected surprise leading to the uncertain and uneven mobilization of a collective identity both immediately preceding and  during the 1992-1993 war with Georgia.  

Our guests for today's episode are author, educator and journalist Vijay Prashad as well as world literature professor and author Ian Almond. 

With Vijay Prashad, we discuss the basic idea of one of his recent books Red Star Over the Third World (2019, Pluto Press) - how the 1917 Russian Revolution and then the seventy year existence of the Soviet Union directly inspired Third World Marxism and anti-colonial struggles during the 20th century, as well as what this century of Soviet internationalism and the collapse of the socialist world mean today.

With Ian Almond we explore how 20th century Soviet internationalism and it's anti-communist opposite both influenced and manifested themselves in the global literary imagination and more.

We discuss the book Familiar Strangers: The Georgian Diaspora and the Evolution of Soviet Empire with the author Erik Scott and much more.

In the book, Scott discusses the unique opportunities Soviet Georgians were afforded due to their position within Soviet society as a coherent, institutionalized nationality. Unlike other histories that touch on Georgia, or nationality within the USSR, Scott's book tries and complicates the narrative by focusing on Soviet Georgians as a diaspora within the Soviet Union and participated in a dynamic of domestic internationalism - a multinational cultural-political connectedness within the USSR. In particular, Scott focuses on how Georgians in Moscow were able to benefit from and excel within the Soviet system because of their Georgianness. He also problematizes the idea of nationhood as a purely territorial concept, especially within how Soviet society was built and constructed. In the case of Georgians, their active participation as Georgians was a critical dimension of the Soviet project, not only in the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic but in the all-Soviet capital Moscow, and beyond. 

On today’s episode, we sat down with Georgia based writer and researcher Katie Sartania. In April of this year, Katie wrote an excellent article entitled “Struggle and Sacrifice: Narratives of Georgia’s Modern History” which critically interrogates the role of Georgian nationalism and independence in the post-Soviet period, and how narratives of independence politically overshadow pressing social concerns in the country.  We discuss not only her article and the legacies of Georgian nationalism, but also what it means to do historical research in Georgia today and the ways that the pressures of nationalism can come into conflict with critical historical inquiry.

You can read the above mentioned article here: 

https://carnegieeurope.eu/2021/04/27/struggle-and-sacrifice-narratives-of-georgia-s-modern-history-pub-84391 

On today’s episode, Sopo Japaridze and Beka Natsvlishvili have an engaging discussion with philosopher Keti Chukhrov. Keti was born in Soviet Georgia in the 1970s and since then has gone on to write articles and books touching subjects such as art criticism, philosophy, political theory and more.

Sopo, Beka and Keti discuss the premise of her recent book Practicing the Good: Desire and Boredom in Soviet Socialism. Keti’s book is a much needed intervention into anti-capitalist discourse. Her thorough knowledge of both Soviet philosophy and Marxists from the West allow her to grapple directly with the philosophical and political tensions between how those anti-capitalists in the West imagined communism, how their own ideals reproduced capitalism and how those same ideals or ideas functioned (or didn’t) within Soviet society.  Keti’s work is not only refreshing but takes to task common understandings of the USSR from the Left. 

Her book description is as follows:

“This book, a philosophical consideration of Soviet socialism, is not meant simply to revisit the communist past; its aim, rather, is to witness certain zones where capitalism’s domination is resisted—the zones of counter-capitalist critique, civil society agencies, and theoretical provisions of emancipation or progress—and to inquire to what extent those zones are in fact permeated by unconscious capitalism and thus unwittingly affirm the capitalist condition.

By means of the philosophical and politico-economical consideration of Soviet socialism of the 1960 and 1970s, this book manages to reveal the hidden desire for capitalism in contemporaneous anti-capitalist discourse and theory. The research is marked by a broad cross-disciplinary approach based on political economy, philosophy, art theory, and cultural theory that redefines old Cold War and Slavic studies’ views of the post-Stalinist years, as well as challenges the interpretations of this period of historical socialism in Western Marxist thought.”

During the Russian Civil War, between May 1918 and February 1921, the Democratic Republic of Georgia – known as the First Republic  - was a nominally independent state controlled by social democrats. These Georgian social democrats were Mensheviks. Formally, Menshevism and Bolshevism were two distinct wings of the empire wide Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. In the decades leading up to 1918, Menshevism and Bolshevism in Georgia had more politically in common than not.

Over time strategic and political differences set them apart. Georgian Menshevism, led by Noe Zhordania and others, blended a particular vision of Georgian nationhood and national liberation with their Marxist politics. In 1921, as Bolsheviks began consolidating power around Georgia,  the Red Army invaded with the help of local Georgian Bolsheviks, and the First Republic was no more.

In Georgia today the First Republic exists as an important reference point of Georgian independence and sovereignty and the only example of modern Georgian nationhood. However, the Marxist politics of its founders and the intimate political upbringing they shared with Bolsheviks is often either ignored or disregarded. So what does the First republic really mean for Georgia today? How should it be remembered and understood?

In this episode, Bryan Gigantino and Sopo Japaridze discuss all this and more with  Stephen Jones.

Stephen Jones is a historian and political scientist, and a self- described socialist, who has been studying and writing on Georgia since the 1970s. He is an expert on Georgia’s First Republic authoring the now classic 2005 study on the topic Socialism in Georgian Colors: The European Road to Social Democracy as well as an excellent study on post-Soviet Georgia entitled Georgia: A Political History Since Independence.

Ronald Grigor Suny’s decades long career as a historian transformed historiography of the Soviet Union by centering the nation and nationality. He did this with special attention to the nations of the South Caucasus - Armenia, Azerbaijan and of course, Georgia. Suny’s analysis focused on how nationhood is a constructed product of history, and imagined, not a primordial, essential, ethnic community.

Suny’s newest book Stalin: Passage To Revolution is a look at the early part of Josef Stalin’s life in the years leading up to the 1917 Russian Revolution. The book interrogates the world that made Stalin -  early 20th century social democracy in the South Caucasus. This is the multinational movement and milieu  spanning Baku, Tiflis and Batumi, in which the young seminarian from Gori, Soso Jughashvill politically matured through writing articles, planning expropriations and organizing workers, becoming Josef Stalin a revolutionary Marxist and bolshevik.

On today’s episode myself and Sopo Japaridze interview historian Ronald Grigor Suny to discuss his new book Stalin: Passage To Revolution, social democracy in Georgia, Soviet history and more.

We here at Reimagining Soviet Georgia held a reading group on the book, so we invited our friend, comrade and fellow reading group member Julia Damphouse on for a short conversation and reflection on the Stalin: Passage to Revolution

Julia is a member of the editorial board for the english language translation of the complete works of Rosa Luxemburg, and the reading groups coordinator at Jacobin Magazine.

Immediately following the Suny interview, Sopo and Julia  discuss their reflections on the book and why it is worth the 700 page undertaking.

During the late USSR, thousands of people from Soviet Georgia relocated to both Leningrad and the all-Soviet capital, Moscow. Many left Soviet Georgia to study in universities, for job placements or other career opportunities. Some of these people stayed, while others returned. Some went to Leningrad and Moscow as traders of fruits or flowers, using trade networks and access to desirable goods in Georgia to forge out comfortable livings for themselves.

We spoke with Jeff Sahadeo about his book “Voices From the Soviet Edge” which uses oral histories to explore the experiences and memories of these Soviet migrants from the Caucasus and Central Asia. In particular he explains to us what the experiences of the Georgian migrants were, what their lives were like, what the Soviet experience meant to them, and how life in the Soviet Union was remembered as one of freedom, stability and better days.

We also discuss the subject of professor Sahadeo's new research project on water and rivers in Soviet and post-Soviet Georgia. As Georgia is home to thousands of rivers, in the Soviet era they became hugely important to modernization projects and city planning. Towards the end of the USSR, environmental concerns relating to dams in Georgia were issues nationalists seized upon. In Georgia today, the construction of dams and hydroelectric power plants are as contentious as ever -  overseen by multinational corporations which demonstrate a formidable shift  from how Soviet-era projects were undertaken.

In Episode 1, Part II we interview Beka Natsvlishvili, professor and former MP in Georgia to discuss the use of anti-Soviet memory politics in Georgia and the implications this has on political development and debate in the country. Beka shares his own experiences in both the university setting and as a politician in Georgia to shed light on the real uses and misuses of Georgia's Soviet experience and why a reconsideration of Georgia's Soviet past is important for developing a coherent left wing politics today.

Episode 1 - The State of Soviet History in Georgia

In this episode we explore how Soviet History and its legacies in Georgia are generally understood and approached today in academia, politics, the NGO sector and society at large.

In Part I we interview Timothy Blauvelt - professor of History at Ilia State University in Tbilisi, Georgia. Teaching in Georgia for almost 19 years he has produced a range of varied scholarship relating to both Soviet history and in particular Georgia and the South Caucasus on patronage networks in Abkhazia, the 1956 protests in Tbilisi against de-Stalinization, attitudes in Georgia towards the Russian language, and has an upcoming book entitled Clientalism and Nationality in an Early Soviet Fiefdom: The Trials of Nestor Lakoba to be released this year.

We discuss with Timothy the roles and relationship between university research and NGO research on the Soviet past in Georgia as well as Timothy’s own research on Soviet Georgia and Abkhazia as well as the socio-political and academic environments in which this research is received.

In Part II we interview Beka Natsvlishvili, professor and former MP in Georgia to discuss the use of anti-Soviet memory politics in Georgia and the implications this has on political development and debate in the country. Beka shares his own experiences in both the university setting and as a politician in Georgia to shed light on the real uses and misuses of Georgia's Soviet experience and why a reconsideration of Georgia's Soviet past is important for developing a coherent left wing politics today. 

Welcome to the first, introductory podcast of Reimagining Soviet Georgia!

We are a new, multigenerational, multilingual, Tbilisi based collective. Our goal is to reexamine and rearticulate the history of Soviet Georgia by producing and supporting critical research, including oral and written histories, and a podcast for both Georgian and English speaking audiences.

By documenting the perspectives and stories of Georgia’s aging Soviet generation, exploring underused archives and working with a new generation of historians untainted by Cold War anti-communism, it will be possible to tell the story of Soviet Georgia on an array of platforms with the honesty and openness it has yet to be fully afforded.

Why is Reengaging with Georgia’s Soviet experience important? Why now?

As the nuance of the Soviet past has been under sustained public political assault since Georgian independence in 1991, the Soviet Union and Georgia’s experience within it has been reduced to a caricature of its complex self, seen wholly through the lens of crude anti-communism and ethnonationalism. Even worse, this caricature is used as the ideological and political basis of Georgian politics, creating fertile ground for orthodox libertarianism and a cult of neoliberalism to capture the political imagination of the populace.

The Soviet Union in Georgia is presented in public discourse as a time which was bleakly totalitarian, composed solely of gulags and defined solely by political repression. Even worse, propagandistic projects like Tbilisi’s “Museum of Soviet Occupation” - a permanent exhibition - work to conceive of Georgia’s Soviet story as a continuation of a two century long “Russian occupation”. Or the 2010 passing of the "Liberty Act" which effectively banned the public display of Soviet-era, Communist symbols, thereby making any balanced public appraisal of the historical experience of Soviet Georgia impossible.

Projects and laws such as these erase the realities of the Soviet system in Georgia, including the dynamics of Soviet multiethnic life, legacies of Georgian Bolshevism or the benefits and possibilities afforded to Georgians given their comparatively privileged position within the Soviet Union. Georgians who helped build the Soviet Union and the ways in which the Soviet Union built and developed Georgia are actively erased. Even worse, by framing all of Georgia’s contemporary problems being solely caused by the Soviet experience, or due to some persistence of a “soviet mentality”, creative and effective political solutions become further and further out of reach.

These politics stand in stark contrast to what those of us – both Georgian and non-Georgian alike - with deep interests in the Soviet Union and, in particular, Georgia and the South Caucasus, have experienced in Georgia. Many people we have spoken to wholly reject reductive anti-Soviet sentiments. Miners in Chiatura, refugees from Abkhazia in Tskaltubo, taxi drivers in Kutaisi, market workers in Tbilisi, or small café owners in Batumi - remember the Soviet era as a time of stability and possibility, and the post-Soviet era as marked by profound loss. This opposes how politicians, think tanks, and Western governments alike try and frame the USSR as a system wholly marked by repression and unfreedoms. This is a political tool to them of course, but it is profoundly cynical and dishonest to the history of modern Georgia.

Our hope is to give a platform to the voices of those across the country for whom the memory of the USSR is not seen as a regressive detour in the larger history of Georgia but as a better time. We hope to compliment these oral histories with research and writing that will piece together a clearer picture of Georgia’s Soviet story, and of Georgia within the global historical trajectory.