Reimagining Soviet Georgia

On today’s episode we explore the emergence and development of Bolshevism in Georgia, from the Russian Empire-wide revolutionary moments of 1905 and 1917, through the era of Menshevik rule in the Democratic Republic of Georgia (1918-1921), to the establishment and first decade of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic 1921-1931.In the discussion, we examine the local roots of Bolshevism in Georgia in the years prior to Sovietization in 1921, as well as the role of youth and youth organizations in pre-Soviet revolutionary processes and mobilizations as well as in early Soviet state and nation building in the Georgian SSR.Our guest is Giorgi BeridzeGiorgi Beridze is a Doctor of Political Science and an invited lecturer at the Department of Political Science at Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University. His doctoral research examined labour policy-making and the role of business elites in Georgia, with particular attention to transformations in policymaking following the signing of the Association Agreement with the European Union in 2014.His research interests include the history of the Marxist movement in Georgia, labour history, labour rights, Europeanization theory, biopolitics, and security studies. From 2023 to 2024, he served as Head of the Department for the Study of the Archives of the Democratic Republic and the Recent History of Georgia at the Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University Library. During this period, his research focused on the history of Social Democracy and the Marxist movement in Georgia before, during, and after the Russian Revolution.His work has been published in several peer-reviewed academic journals, including Europe-Asia Studies, TalTech Journal of European Studies, and Revolutionary Russia. He is also the co-author of several books published in Georgian by Tbilisi State University Press, including works on the First Democratic Republic of Georgia, the history of the Marxist movement in Georgia, and the history of youth protest movements at Tbilisi State University.

This weeks discussion thematically compliments and follows on our previous episode on Marxism and China (episode 64 - give it a listen!).Sitting down with Tings Chak, we examine China’s radical transformations from 1949 until today by centering a few questions: how was the mass alleviation of poverty accomplished in China? Is it an ongoing process? What does “socialist construction” have to do with it? Is China socialist? What kinds of contradictions has Chinese economic development faced? And how has China’s rapid and radical improvement in living standards shaped it’s place in the world? And what does this all mean for the global south in 2026?Tings Chak is the Asia co-coordinator and art director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. She is an editor of Wenhua Zongheng: A Journal of Chinese Contemporary Thought and is currently pursuing her doctorate at Tsinghua University in Beijing.Find Tings on social media at:X: @t_ings @tri_continentalinstagram: @tingschak @thetricontinentalSome links:Poverty alleviation: https://thetricontinental.org/studies-1-socialist-construction/Chinese Revolution historical overview: https://mronline.org/2024/10/01/seventy-five-years-of-the-chinese-revolution/Wenhua Zongheng latest on Trump: https://thetricontinental.org/wenhua-zongheng-2025-2-trump-2-0-global-order/Go To Yan’an: Culture and National Liberation: https://thetricontinental.org/dossier-yanan-forum/

Josef Gregory Mahoney, a scholar of Chinese Marxism teaching and researching in Shanghai, discusses how Marxism reached and was adapted in China. He traces Soviet influences and sharp political splits. He explores Mao-to-Deng continuities, the Cultural Revolution’s complex effects, and Xi’s turn toward green development and new multilateralism.

On today’s episode we discuss internal border delimitation in the early Soviet Union. Our discussion covers a wide geography - from Central Asia to the South Caucasus to the Ukrainian-Russia borderlands. How did internal borders get delimited after the establishment of Soviet power in the 1920s and 30s? What role did borders play in nation building? And how do economic factors shape the border delimitation process?Our guest today is Stephan Rindlisbacher author of the book Borders in Red: Managing Diversity in the Early Soviet Unionhttps://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501780585/borders-in-red/Stephan Rindlisbacher (European University Viadrina Frankfurt, Oder) is a researcher specializing in Eurasian history. In his ongoing projects, he focuses on the early Soviet state’s national policies and their regional implementation. This includes Ukraine, the South Caucasus and Central Asia.

Adam Alimi, a PhD candidate studying Marxist development and Afghan modernity, joins to rethink Soviet-Afghan relations. He discusses how Afghan modernity grew from regional/global influences. He explains why Soviet ties shaped reform and politics, traces roots of Afghan communism, and contrasts Soviet state-led development with later Western interventions.

On today’s episode we explore the role of the historical Ukrainian far-right, specifically the Nazi-collaborationist Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, in the development of post-Soviet Ukraine’s national memory regime. In particular we address a paradox - how did these far right political formations and their historical narratives, despite limited and regionally specific popularity, assume disproportionate influence on Ukraine’s post-Soviet national-memory regime since 1991? What role did the far right nationalist diaspora play? And how do the Russia-Ukraine War as well as the broader normalization of ethno-nationalism in politics and academia reinforce far right memory politics?Our guest today is historian Per Rudling. As a basis for discussion we read his recent article“Repatriating An Edifying Past: The Diaspora Ukrainian Authoritarian Right and Power Over Memory, 1991–2021”Article description:The recent history of the Ukrainian authoritarian far right is one of paradoxes. If one looks at the polls, it has performed poorly; its modest successes have been regional and short-lived. On the other hand, it has been highly successful in terms of shaping memory politics in the country. It has had a disproportional influence on history writing, having invested significant efforts into building an effective structure in the field of memory management. Radical nationalists have also come to staff senior positions as deans and vice chancellors at Ukraine’s top universities, the ministry of education, the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory (UINP), and the archives of the Ukrainian Security Service (HDA SBU). The hard right has gained a disproportionate influence on “soft issues” of identity and the shaping of “national memory” – not only by running the governmental memory institutes, but also by hands-on drafting of memory laws outlawing “disrespect” for the OUN, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), and other historical far-right groups. This study seeks to trace and contextualize the repatriation of the ethnonationalist hard right from emigration and its role in shaping an infrastructure of memory production – in particular, under presidents Yushchenko (2005–2010) and Poroshenko (2014–2019).Per Rudling is associate professor of History at Lund University and author of Tarnished Heroes: The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists in the Memory Politics of Post-Soviet Ukraine (2024) and The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism 1906-1931 (2014)

During the 1950s and 1960s, the Soviet Union began a new era of political engagement with the global south. One feature was development assistance. The Soviet Union embodied, offered and inspired an alternative approach to development, industrialization and modernization across the global south. Countries such as Ghana, Guinea and Mali in the 1950s-60s were governed by nationalists, not Marxists or Communists, and were newly independent from European imperial-colonial control.Soviet specialists assessed the difficult conditions of these post-colonial countries as opening a path for “non-capitalist” development: state led modernization. As opposed to a Western promoted primacy of markets and individuals, “non-capitalist” development would ensure sovereignty and economic growth by shielding against French or British neo-colonial exploitation, improving living standards, empowering the state and strengthening political ties with the socialist world.To discuss all this and more, we welcome historian Alessandro Iandolo, author of the book Arrested Development: The Soviet Union in Ghana, Guinea and Mali 1955-1968Book description:In Arrested Development, Alessandro Iandolo examines the USSR’s role in West Africa during the 1950s and 1960s as an aid donor, trade partner, and political model for newly independent Ghana, Guinea, and Mali.With a strong economy in the 1950s, the USSR expanded its global outreach, supporting economic development in post-colonial Africa and Asia. Many nations saw the Soviet model as a path to political and economic independence. Drawing on extensive Russian and West African archival research, Iandolo explores Soviet ideas, sponsored projects, and their lasting impact.Soviet specialists worked alongside West African colleagues to design ambitious development plans, build infrastructure, establish collective farms, survey mineral resources, and manage banking and trade. These collaborations—and the tensions they created—shed light on how Soviet and West African visions of development intersected. Arrested Development positions the USSR as a key player in twentieth-century economic history, reshaping global approaches to modernization.Alessandro Iandolo is Lecturer in Soviet and Post-Soviet History at University College London.The episode art is a 1960 poster from the Georgian SSR by Giorgi Pirtskhalava that reads: კოლონიზატორებო გაეთრიეთ! - Colonizers, get out!

Severyan Dyakonov, historian of Soviet foreign policy and socialist internationalism, discusses the Soviet Red Cross in India. He explores how humanitarianism was recast as socialist development. Short segments cover Soviet medical missions, many women doctors abroad, cultural diplomacy, archival detective work, and mixed Indian responses to Soviet aid.

We sit down with Adela Hîncu, historian and editor of the volume Texts and Contexts from the History of Feminism and Women’s Rights East Central Europe, Second Half of the Twentieth Century (2024) to discuss feminist thought in post World War 2 socialist East Central Europe.Book description:A compendium of one hundred sources, preceded by a short author’s bio and an introduction, this volume offers an English language selection of the most representative texts on feminism and women’s rights from East Central Europe between the end of the Second World War and the early 1990s. While communist era is the primary focus, the interwar years and the post-1989 transition period also receive attention. All texts are new translations from the original.The book is organised around themes instead of countries; the similarities and differences between nations are nevertheless pointed out. The editors consider women not only in their local context, but also in conjunction with other systems of thought—including shared agendas with socialism, liberalism, nationalism, and even eugenics.The choice of texts seeks to demonstrate how feminism as political thought was shaped and organised in the region. They vary in type and format from political treatises, philosophy to literary works, even films and the visual arts, with the necessary inclusion of the personal and the private. Women’s political rights, right to education, their role in nation-building, women, and war (and especially women and peace) are part of the anthology, alongside the gendered division of labour, violence against women, the body, and reproduction.https://www.aup.nl/en/book/9789633864548/texts-and-contexts-from-the-history-of-feminism-and-womens-rightsopen access pdf: https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/98220/9789633864548.pdfAdela Hîncu is an intellectual historian who focuses on the history of social sciences, Marxist social theory, and women’s political thought in Romania and East Central Europe after the Second World War. Currently a Marie Curie fellow at the Institute of Contemporary History in Ljubljana, she researches the transnational history of social expertize from Eastern Europe from the 1970s to the early 2000s.

On today’s episode we discuss how international and regional communist parties and actors influenced the political development of the Greek Communist Party between 1918-1956, with a special focus on the Soviet Union and the Balkans. Our guest Nikos Marantzidis published his book Under Stalin’s Shadow: A Global History of Greek Communism in 2023.Book description:Under Stalin's Shadow examines the history of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) from 1918 to 1956, showing how closely national Communism was related to international developments. The history of the KKE reveals the role of Moscow in the various Communist parties of Southeastern Europe, as Nikos Marantzidis shows that Communism's international institutions (Moscow Center, Comintern, Balkan Communist Federation, Cominform, and sister parties in the Balkans) were not merely external factors influencing orientation and policy choices.Based on research from published and unpublished archival documents located in Greece, Russia, Eastern and Western Europe, and the Balkan countries, Under Stalin's Shadow traces the KKE movement's interactions with fraternal parties in neighboring states and with their acknowledged supreme mentors in Stalin's Soviet Russia. Marantzidis reveals how, because the boundaries between the national and international in the Communist world were not clearly drawn, international institutions, geopolitical soviet interests, and sister parties' strategies shaped in fundamental ways the KKE's leadership, its character and decision making as a party, and the way of life of its followers over the years.Nikos Marantzidis is Professor of Political Science in the Balkan, Slavic, and Oriental Studies Department at the University of Macedonia and Visiting Professor at Charles University in Prague. He has published extensively on Greek and European Communism and Greek civil war history