Podcasts about soviet economy

In 1935, miner Alexei Stakhanov became a hero of labor in the Soviet Union, and the Stakhanovite movement began. But what was touted as an organic step forward to greater productivity by Stalin was truly a carefully planned PR effort. Research: Applebaum, Anne. "Holodomor". Encyclopedia Britannica, 2 Jan. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/event/Holodomor Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "kulak". Encyclopedia Britannica, 24 Nov. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/topic/kulak Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Stakhanov". Encyclopedia Britannica, 10 Jun. 2008, https://www.britannica.com/place/Stakhanov Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Industrialization, 1929-34.” https://www.britannica.com/place/Soviet-Union/Industrialization-1929-34 Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Lavrenty Beria". Encyclopedia Britannica, 19 Dec. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lavrenty-Beria Kotkin, Stephen. “Stalin: Waiting for Hitler, 1929-1941.” Penguin. 2017. “Soviet leaders' gifts go on show.” BBC News. Nov. 15, 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6150746.stm Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Khrushchev's secret speech". Encyclopedia Britannica, 18 Feb. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/event/Khrushchevs-secret-speech Costea, Bogdan and Peter Watt. “How a Soviet miner from the 1930s helped create today's intense corporate workplace culture.” The Conversation. June 29, 2021. https://theconversation.com/how-a-soviet-miner-from-the-1930s-helped-create-todays-intense-corporate-workplace-culture-155814 “Heroes of Labor.” Time. Dec. 16, 1935. https://web.archive.org/web/20071016224729/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,755449,00.html “Khrushchev and the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party, ” U.S. Department of State. Office of the Historian. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/khrushchev-20th-congress Knight, Amy. “Beria: Stalin's First Lieutenant.” Princeton University Press. 1995. Newman, Dina. “Alexei Stakhanov: The USSR's superstar miner.” https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35161610 Overy, Richard. “The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia.” Norton. 2006. Remnick, David. “Soviets Chronicle Demise of Beria.” The Washington Post. Feb. 29, 1988. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/02/29/soviets-chronicle-demise-of-beria/f3793536-d798-44a1-943c-287b99f88340/ Schmemann, Serge. “In Soviet, Eager Beaver's Legend Works Overtime.” New York Times. Augst 31, 1985. https://www.nytimes.com/1985/08/31/world/in-soviet-eager-beaver-s-legend-works-overtime.html SIEGELBAUM, LEWIS H. “Stakhanovism and the Politics of Productivity in the USSR, 1935-1941.” Cambridge University Press. 1988. SIEGELBAUM, LEWIS H. “THE MAKING OF STAKHANOVITES, 1935-36.” Russian History, vol. 13, no. 2/3, 1986, pp. 259–92. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24655836 “Stalin at the Conference of Stakhanovites.” Seventeen Moments in Soviet History. Michigan State University. https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1936-2/year-of-the-stakhanovite/year-of-the-stakhanovite-texts/stalin-at-the-conference-of-stakhanovites/ Davies, R. W., and Oleg Khlevnyuk. “Stakhanovism and the Soviet Economy.” Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 54, no. 6, 2002, pp. 867–903. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/826287 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Soviet Union stands out in history as the first time a workers' state began the task of planning the economy. In this talk, Adam Booth uncovers the dynamics and laws of the Soviet economy, explaining the objective forces which propelled the policies of the Bolsheviks, and later the Stalinist bureaucrats. Through understanding the Soviet economy, we can see the potential of economic planning today, as well as a glimpse of what a future communist society might look like.

In the second episode of our series on Stalinism, we try to get a better sense of what everyday life was like outside of repression.  In particular, we'll focus on Stalin's attempt to industrialize the Soviet Union, to transform it in the span of five to ten years from a backwards country to a futuristic society through central planning and collectivization.  The episode argues that it was this push for modernity that led ordinary citizens to justify/accept the extraordinary violence and repression of the 1930s.  Topics discussed include: the Moscow Metro (9:53), the Soviet Economy (17:15), the Five Year Plans (25:10), Alexei Stakhanov (30:13), Soviet work culture (32:02), Magnitogorsk (35:49), shortages (55:07),  and the (Soviet) civilizing mission (102:01).

In 1979, the Soviet Union was the world's leading producer of oil, pumping 11.5 million barrels of oil each day. At the end of our last video on this, the Soviet Union finished the 1960s as the second biggest oil producing nation in the world. Even so, the country's most plentiful bounties of oil and natural gas were still yet to come, hiding beneath Siberia's frozen swamps and lakes. In this video, we look at how the Soviet Union became an energy superpower and how that contributed to the country's eventual dissolution.

In 1979, the Soviet Union was the world's leading producer of oil, pumping 11.5 million barrels of oil each day. At the end of our last video on this, the Soviet Union finished the 1960s as the second biggest oil producing nation in the world. Even so, the country's most plentiful bounties of oil and natural gas were still yet to come, hiding beneath Siberia's frozen swamps and lakes. In this video, we look at how the Soviet Union became an energy superpower and how that contributed to the country's eventual dissolution.

Lend-Lease Act ustawa federalna z 11 marca 1941 roku podpisana przez prezydenta Roosevelta miałą kolosalne znaczenie dla zwycięstwa sowieckiego w II wojnie światowej, chociaż często jego wkład jest podważany. Przedstawimy konkretne argumenty i statystyki, które udowodnią, że to w dużej mierze dzięki alianckiemu wsparciu Sowieci zwyciężyli Niemców. Jestescie ciekawi? Posłuchajcie!Kontakt: kontakt.beczkaprochu@gmail.com Dla dodatkowych korzyści rozważ wsparcie naszej działalności na patronite: https://patronite.pl/beczkaprochu

Hosted by Andrew Keen, Keen On features conversations with some of the world's leading thinkers and writers about the economic, political, and technological issues being discussed in the news, right now. In this episode, Andrew is joined by Chris Miller, author of Chip War: The Fight for the World's Most Critical Technology. Chris Miller is Assistant Professor of International History at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He also serves as Jeane Kirkpatrick Visiting Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Eurasia Director at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and as a Director at Greenmantle, a New York and London-based macroeconomic and geopolitical consultancy. He is the author of three previous books—Putinomics, The Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy, and We Shall Be Masters—and he frequently writes for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The American Interest, and other outlets. He received a PhD in history from Yale University and an AB in history from Harvard University. Currently, he resides in Belmont, Massachusetts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode 113:This week we're continuing Russia in Revolution An Empire in Crisis 1890 - 1928 by S. A. Smith[Part 1]Introduction[Part 2-5]1. Roots of Revolution, 1880s–1905[Part 6-8]2. From Reform to War, 1906-1917[Part 9-12]3. From February to October 1917[Part 13 - 17]4. Civil War and Bolshevik Power[Part 18 - 22]5. War Communism[Part 23]6. The New Economic Policy: Politics and the EconomyNew Economic Policy and AgricultureNew Economic Policy and IndustryNew Economic Policy and Labour[Part 25 - This Week]6. The New Economic Policy: Politics and the EconomyThe Inner Party Struggle - 0:30The Party State - 25:46Instituting Law - 40:20[Part 26?]6. The New Economic Policy: Politics and the Economy[Part 27 - 30?]7. The New Economic Policy: Society and Culture[Part 31?]ConclusionFigure 6.1 - 4:33Soviet leaders in 1919. From left, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, Mikhail Kalinin.[see on www.abnormalmapping.com/leftist-reading-rss/2022/2/15/leftist-reading-russia-in-revolution-part-25]Footnotes:54) 1:33V. P. Vilkova (ed.), VKP(b): vnutripartiinaia bor'ba v dvadtsatye gody: dokumenty i materialy, 1923g. (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2004).55) 2:05.56) 2:53Gimpel'son, Formirovanie, 177.57) 5:38Moshe Lewin, Lenin's Last Struggle (London: Faber, 1969).58) 11:05For an interesting interpretation of the inner-party conflict that sees it as rooted in an underlying difference between ‘revivalist' and ‘technicist' types of Bolshevism, see Priestland, Stalinism, ch. 2.59) 12:06Richard B. Day, Leon Trotsky and the Politics of Economic Isolation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973).60) 13:07Stephen F. Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888–1938 (New York: Knopf, 1973).61) 14:31David R. Stone, Hammer and Rifle: The Militarization of the Soviet Union 1926–1933 (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2000).62) 15:24G. L. Olekh, Krovnye uzy: RKP(b) i ChK/GPU v pervoi polovine 1920-x godov: mekhanizm vzaimootnoshenii (Novosibirsk: NGAVT 1999), 92–3.63) 18:08Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928 (London: Penguin, 2015), 432.64) 18:31Harris, ‘Stalin as General Secretary, in Davies and Harris (eds), Stalin: A New History, 63–82 (69).65) 20:!2Excellent biographies of Stalin include Robert Service, Stalin: A Biography (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2004); Oleg V. Khlevniuk, Stalin: New Biography of a Dictator (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2015).66) 22:14I. V. Stalin, ‘The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists', .67) 23:27James Harris, ‘Stalin and Stalinism', The Oxford Handbook of Modern Russian History, Oxford Handbooks Online,1–21 (6).68) 24:18Alfred J. Rieber, ‘Stalin as Georgian: The Formative Years', in Davies and Harris (eds), Stalin: A New History, 18–44.69) 24:34E. A. Rees, Political Thought from Machiavelli to Stalin (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2004), 222.70) 25:17 ‘Stalin i krizis proletarskoi diktatury', .71) 27:09R. W. Davies, The Industrialization of Soviet Russia, vol. 3: The Soviet Economy in Turmoil (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 1929), xxiii.72) 27:55Heinzen says 70,000 were employed in the Commissariat of Agriculture by the end of the decade. Heinzen, Inventing, 2.73) 29:13Michael Voslenskii, Nomenklatura: The Soviet Ruling Class (New York: Doubleday, 1984); Harris, ‘Stalin as General Secretary', 69.74) 31:15Shkaratan, Problemy, 272.75) 32:00Golos Naroda, 199.76) 32:50Graeme Gill, Origins of the Stalinist Political System (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 118.77) 34:28Sheila Fitzpatrick, Education and Social Mobility in the Soviet Union, 1921–1934 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).78) 38:31E. A. Wood, The Baba and the Comrade: Gender and Politics in Revolutionary Russia (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997).79) 39:10Wendy Z. Goldman, Women, the State and Revolution: Soviet Family Policy and Social Life, 1917–1936 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 111.80) 39:35Olekh, Krovnye uzy, 90.81) 40:09Golos naroda, 152.82) 41:19Nikita Petrov, ‘Les Transformations du personnel des organes de sécurité soviétiques, 1922–1953', Cahiers du monde russe, 22:2 (2001), 375–96 (376).83) 41:47S. A. Krasil'nikov, Na izlomakh sotsial'noi struktury: marginaly v poslerevoliutsionnom rossiiskom obshchestve (1917—konets 1930-kh godov) (Novosibirsk: NGU, 1998), table 4.84) 42:33V. K. Vinogradov, ‘Ob osobennostiakh informatsionnykh materialov OGPU kak istochnik po istorii sovetskogo obshchestva', in ‘Sovershenno sekretno': Liubianka- Stalinu o polozhenii v strane (1922–1934), vol. 1, part 1: 1922–23 (Moscow: RAN, 2001), 31–7685) 43:42Roger Pethybridge, One Step Backwards, Two Steps Forward: Soviet Society and Politics in the New Economic Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990).86) 44:44Solomon, Soviet Criminal Justice.87) 45:38Neil B. Weissman, ‘Local Power in the 1920s: Police and Administrative Reform', in Theodore Taranovski (ed.), Reform in Modern Russian History (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center and Cambridge University Press, 1995), 265–89.88) 45:59Neil Weissman, ‘Policing the NEP Countryside', in Sheila Fitzpatrick, A. Rabinowitch, and R. Stites (eds), Russia in the Era of NEP (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), 174–91 (177); R. S. Mulukaev and N. N. Kartashov, Militsiia Rossii (1917–1993gg.) (Orël: Oka, 1995), 43.89) 46:48Joan Neuberger, Hooliganism: Crime, Culture and Power in St Petersburg, 1900–1914 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993).90) 47:09Tracy McDonald, Face to the Village: The Riazan Countryside under Soviet Rule, 1921–1930 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011), 90.91) 47:41David A. Newman, ‘Criminal Strategies and Institutional Concerns in the Soviet Legal System: An Analysis of Criminal Appeals in Moscow Province, 1921–28', Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA (2013), 183.

Hosted by Andrew Keen, Keen On features conversations with some of the world's leading thinkers and writers about the economic, political, and technological issues being discussed in the news, right now. In this episode, Andrew is joined by Chris Miller, author of Chip War: The Fight for the World's Most Critical Technology. Chris Miller is Assistant Professor of International History at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He also serves as Jeane Kirkpatrick Visiting Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Eurasia Director at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and as a Director at Greenmantle, a New York and London-based macroeconomic and geopolitical consultancy. He is the author of three previous books—Putinomics, The Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy, and We Shall Be Masters—and he frequently writes for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The American Interest, and other outlets. He received a PhD in history from Yale University and an AB in history from Harvard University. Currently, he resides in Belmont, Massachusetts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Friday, March 4, 2022 Hoover Institution, Stanford University   It should come as no surprise that history is at the heart of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Russian President Vladmir Putin in July of last year argued as much in his essay, “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians.” But few if any Ukrainian or Western historians regard Putin's argument as anything other than propaganda. Join us for a Historical Conversation with two distinguished scholars as we explore the end of the Cold War, NATO expansion, the rise of Vladmir Putin, and the events leading to today's conflict. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS Mary Sarotte is the Kravis Distinguished Professor at Hopkins-SAIS, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a visiting faculty fellow at Harvard's Center for European Studies. She is the author of Not One Inch, which uses new evidence and interviews to show how, in the decade that culminated in Vladimir Putin's rise to power, the United States and Russia undermined a potentially lasting partnership. Chris Miller is Assistant Professor of international history at The Fletcher School at Tufts University and co-director of the school's Russia and Eurasia Program. His upcoming book, Chip War, explores how Soviet shortcomings in microchip production helped usher the end of the Cold War. He is author of We Shall Be Masters: Russia's Pivots to East Asia from Peter the Great to Putin (2021), Putinomics: Power and Money in Resurgent Russia(2018) and The Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy (2016). ABOUT THE MODERATOR Niall Ferguson is the Milbank Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a senior faculty fellow of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. He is the author of sixteen books, including Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe. He is a renowned historian of finance, war, and international relations, having written The Pity of War, The House of Rothschild, Empire, Civilization, and Kissinger, 1923–1968: The Idealist, which won the Council on Foreign Relations Arthur Ross Prize. ABOUT THE PROGRAM This talk is part of the History Working Group Seminar Series. A central piece of the History Working Group is the seminar series, which is hosted in partnership with the Hoover Library & Archives. The seminar series was launched in the fall of 2019, and thus far has included six talks from Hoover research fellows, visiting scholars, and Stanford faculty. The seminars provide outside experts with an opportunity to present their research and receive feedback on their work. While the lunch seminars have grown in reputation, they have been purposefully kept small in order to ensure that the discussion retains a good seminar atmosphere.

Russia's position between Europe and Asia has led to differing conceptions of “what Russia is” to its leaders. Russia's vast holdings east of the Urals have often inspired those who led Russia to look eastward for national glory, whether through trade, soft power, or outright force. Yet these Russian “pivots to Asia” often ended soon after they began, with outcomes far more limited than what those who launched them hoped to achieve. Chris Miller's We Shall Be Masters: Russian Pivots to East Asia from Peter the Great to Putin (Harvard University Press, 2021) studies many attempts to chart an Asian policy—from bold imperial dreams of a thriving Russian Far East to Soviet efforts to inspire the developing world through soft power—and why all these policies ended up disappointing their drafters. In this interview, Chris and I talk about Russia's engagement with the Far East, stretching from its initial forays on the Pacific Coast of North America through to the present day. We talk about why “pivots to Asia” are so hard: both for the Russians, and perhaps for other great powers considering the same policy. Chris Miller is an assistant professor of international history at The Fletcher School at Tufts University and co-director of the school's Russia and Eurasia Program. He is the author of Putinomics: Power and Money in Resurgent Russia (University of North Carolina Press, 2018) and The Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy (University of North Carolina Press, 2016). He has previously served as the associate director of the Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy at Yale, a lecturer at the New Economic School in Moscow, a visiting researcher at the Carnegie Moscow Center, a research associate at the Brookings Institution, and as a fellow at the German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Academy. He can be followed on Twitter at @crmiller1. You can find more reviews, excerpts, interviews, and essays at The Asian Review of Books, including its review of We Shall Be Masters. Follow on Facebook or on Twitter at @BookReviewsAsia. Nicholas Gordon is an associate editor for a global magazine, and a reviewer for the Asian Review of Books. He can be found on Twitter at @nickrigordon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/east-asian-studies

Russia's position between Europe and Asia has led to differing conceptions of “what Russia is” to its leaders. Russia's vast holdings east of the Urals have often inspired those who led Russia to look eastward for national glory, whether through trade, soft power, or outright force. Yet these Russian “pivots to Asia” often ended soon after they began, with outcomes far more limited than what those who launched them hoped to achieve. Chris Miller's We Shall Be Masters: Russian Pivots to East Asia from Peter the Great to Putin (Harvard University Press, 2021) studies many attempts to chart an Asian policy—from bold imperial dreams of a thriving Russian Far East to Soviet efforts to inspire the developing world through soft power—and why all these policies ended up disappointing their drafters. In this interview, Chris and I talk about Russia's engagement with the Far East, stretching from its initial forays on the Pacific Coast of North America through to the present day. We talk about why “pivots to Asia” are so hard: both for the Russians, and perhaps for other great powers considering the same policy. Chris Miller is an assistant professor of international history at The Fletcher School at Tufts University and co-director of the school's Russia and Eurasia Program. He is the author of Putinomics: Power and Money in Resurgent Russia (University of North Carolina Press, 2018) and The Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy (University of North Carolina Press, 2016). He has previously served as the associate director of the Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy at Yale, a lecturer at the New Economic School in Moscow, a visiting researcher at the Carnegie Moscow Center, a research associate at the Brookings Institution, and as a fellow at the German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Academy. He can be followed on Twitter at @crmiller1. You can find more reviews, excerpts, interviews, and essays at The Asian Review of Books, including its review of We Shall Be Masters. Follow on Facebook or on Twitter at @BookReviewsAsia. Nicholas Gordon is an associate editor for a global magazine, and a reviewer for the Asian Review of Books. He can be found on Twitter at @nickrigordon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/asian-review

Russia's position between Europe and Asia has led to differing conceptions of “what Russia is” to its leaders. Russia's vast holdings east of the Urals have often inspired those who led Russia to look eastward for national glory, whether through trade, soft power, or outright force. Yet these Russian “pivots to Asia” often ended soon after they began, with outcomes far more limited than what those who launched them hoped to achieve. Chris Miller's We Shall Be Masters: Russian Pivots to East Asia from Peter the Great to Putin (Harvard University Press, 2021) studies many attempts to chart an Asian policy—from bold imperial dreams of a thriving Russian Far East to Soviet efforts to inspire the developing world through soft power—and why all these policies ended up disappointing their drafters. In this interview, Chris and I talk about Russia's engagement with the Far East, stretching from its initial forays on the Pacific Coast of North America through to the present day. We talk about why “pivots to Asia” are so hard: both for the Russians, and perhaps for other great powers considering the same policy. Chris Miller is an assistant professor of international history at The Fletcher School at Tufts University and co-director of the school's Russia and Eurasia Program. He is the author of Putinomics: Power and Money in Resurgent Russia (University of North Carolina Press, 2018) and The Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy (University of North Carolina Press, 2016). He has previously served as the associate director of the Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy at Yale, a lecturer at the New Economic School in Moscow, a visiting researcher at the Carnegie Moscow Center, a research associate at the Brookings Institution, and as a fellow at the German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Academy. He can be followed on Twitter at @crmiller1. You can find more reviews, excerpts, interviews, and essays at The Asian Review of Books, including its review of We Shall Be Masters. Follow on Facebook or on Twitter at @BookReviewsAsia. Nicholas Gordon is an associate editor for a global magazine, and a reviewer for the Asian Review of Books. He can be found on Twitter at @nickrigordon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/russian-studies

Russia's position between Europe and Asia has led to differing conceptions of “what Russia is” to its leaders. Russia's vast holdings east of the Urals have often inspired those who led Russia to look eastward for national glory, whether through trade, soft power, or outright force. Yet these Russian “pivots to Asia” often ended soon after they began, with outcomes far more limited than what those who launched them hoped to achieve. Chris Miller's We Shall Be Masters: Russian Pivots to East Asia from Peter the Great to Putin (Harvard University Press, 2021) studies many attempts to chart an Asian policy—from bold imperial dreams of a thriving Russian Far East to Soviet efforts to inspire the developing world through soft power—and why all these policies ended up disappointing their drafters. In this interview, Chris and I talk about Russia's engagement with the Far East, stretching from its initial forays on the Pacific Coast of North America through to the present day. We talk about why “pivots to Asia” are so hard: both for the Russians, and perhaps for other great powers considering the same policy. Chris Miller is an assistant professor of international history at The Fletcher School at Tufts University and co-director of the school's Russia and Eurasia Program. He is the author of Putinomics: Power and Money in Resurgent Russia (University of North Carolina Press, 2018) and The Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy (University of North Carolina Press, 2016). He has previously served as the associate director of the Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy at Yale, a lecturer at the New Economic School in Moscow, a visiting researcher at the Carnegie Moscow Center, a research associate at the Brookings Institution, and as a fellow at the German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Academy. He can be followed on Twitter at @crmiller1. You can find more reviews, excerpts, interviews, and essays at The Asian Review of Books, including its review of We Shall Be Masters. Follow on Facebook or on Twitter at @BookReviewsAsia. Nicholas Gordon is an associate editor for a global magazine, and a reviewer for the Asian Review of Books. He can be found on Twitter at @nickrigordon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Russia's position between Europe and Asia has led to differing conceptions of “what Russia is” to its leaders. Russia's vast holdings east of the Urals have often inspired those who led Russia to look eastward for national glory, whether through trade, soft power, or outright force. Yet these Russian “pivots to Asia” often ended soon after they began, with outcomes far more limited than what those who launched them hoped to achieve. Chris Miller's We Shall Be Masters: Russian Pivots to East Asia from Peter the Great to Putin (Harvard University Press, 2021) studies many attempts to chart an Asian policy—from bold imperial dreams of a thriving Russian Far East to Soviet efforts to inspire the developing world through soft power—and why all these policies ended up disappointing their drafters. In this interview, Chris and I talk about Russia's engagement with the Far East, stretching from its initial forays on the Pacific Coast of North America through to the present day. We talk about why “pivots to Asia” are so hard: both for the Russians, and perhaps for other great powers considering the same policy. Chris Miller is an assistant professor of international history at The Fletcher School at Tufts University and co-director of the school's Russia and Eurasia Program. He is the author of Putinomics: Power and Money in Resurgent Russia (University of North Carolina Press, 2018) and The Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy (University of North Carolina Press, 2016). He has previously served as the associate director of the Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy at Yale, a lecturer at the New Economic School in Moscow, a visiting researcher at the Carnegie Moscow Center, a research associate at the Brookings Institution, and as a fellow at the German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Academy. He can be followed on Twitter at @crmiller1. You can find more reviews, excerpts, interviews, and essays at The Asian Review of Books, including its review of We Shall Be Masters. Follow on Facebook or on Twitter at @BookReviewsAsia. Nicholas Gordon is an associate editor for a global magazine, and a reviewer for the Asian Review of Books. He can be found on Twitter at @nickrigordon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

Russia's position between Europe and Asia has led to differing conceptions of “what Russia is” to its leaders. Russia's vast holdings east of the Urals have often inspired those who led Russia to look eastward for national glory, whether through trade, soft power, or outright force. Yet these Russian “pivots to Asia” often ended soon after they began, with outcomes far more limited than what those who launched them hoped to achieve. Chris Miller's We Shall Be Masters: Russian Pivots to East Asia from Peter the Great to Putin (Harvard University Press, 2021) studies many attempts to chart an Asian policy—from bold imperial dreams of a thriving Russian Far East to Soviet efforts to inspire the developing world through soft power—and why all these policies ended up disappointing their drafters. In this interview, Chris and I talk about Russia's engagement with the Far East, stretching from its initial forays on the Pacific Coast of North America through to the present day. We talk about why “pivots to Asia” are so hard: both for the Russians, and perhaps for other great powers considering the same policy. Chris Miller is an assistant professor of international history at The Fletcher School at Tufts University and co-director of the school's Russia and Eurasia Program. He is the author of Putinomics: Power and Money in Resurgent Russia (University of North Carolina Press, 2018) and The Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy (University of North Carolina Press, 2016). He has previously served as the associate director of the Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy at Yale, a lecturer at the New Economic School in Moscow, a visiting researcher at the Carnegie Moscow Center, a research associate at the Brookings Institution, and as a fellow at the German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Academy. He can be followed on Twitter at @crmiller1. You can find more reviews, excerpts, interviews, and essays at The Asian Review of Books, including its review of We Shall Be Masters. Follow on Facebook or on Twitter at @BookReviewsAsia. Nicholas Gordon is an associate editor for a global magazine, and a reviewer for the Asian Review of Books. He can be found on Twitter at @nickrigordon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Recently, I watched a video by a popular YouTube channel about the economy of the Soviet Union. I have long been interested in how Soviet society worked. But sadly that particular video failed to scratch the itch. It felt a bit watered down. So I figured I would make my own. For generations, the Soviet Union grew faster than every other developing country except one. But once that strategy ran its course, the Soviets failed to adapt and things fell apart. It is a challenge that every country has to face at one time or another in the process of its development. In this video, I want to look at the rise and decline of the Soviet Economy.

Recently, I watched a video by a popular YouTube channel about the economy of the Soviet Union. I have long been interested in how Soviet society worked. But sadly that particular video failed to scratch the itch. It felt a bit watered down. So I figured I would make my own. For generations, the Soviet Union grew faster than every other developing country except one. But once that strategy ran its course, the Soviets failed to adapt and things fell apart. It is a challenge that every country has to face at one time or another in the process of its development. In this video, I want to look at the rise and decline of the Soviet Economy.

Monday, May 24, 2021 Hoover Institution, Stanford University The USSR had thrived during the nuclear revolution of the 1950s, matching America's ability to produce powerful missiles and destructive warheads. But accuracy eluded the USSR. Precision strike was produced by miniaturizing computing power, so it was limited by the capacity of the computer chips crammed into the nose of each missile. The Soviets faced fundamental challenges in their ability to fabricate tiny circuits. Their guidance systems were therefore always substantially less accurate. In the 1970s, President Jimmy Carter had authorized multiple new highly accurate weapons systems taking advantage of Silicon Valley's most advanced integrated circuits. By the 1980s, when these systems began to be deployed, the USSR had no response. Soviet defense officials feared that a precision conventional strike from the U.S. might even disable the USSR's nuclear forces. Ronald Reagan inherited a Soviet leadership convinced that it had already lost the arms race because it could not produce the computational power needed for precision weaponry. Chris Miller is assistant professor of international history at The Fletcher School at Tufts University and co-director of the school's Russia and Eurasia Program. He is author of We Shall Be Masters: Russia's Pivots to East Asia from Peter the Great to Putin (2021), Putinomics: Power and Money in Resurgent Russia (2018) and The Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy (2016).  He has previously served as the associate director of the Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy at Yale, a lecturer at the New Economic School in Moscow, a visiting researcher at the Carnegie Moscow Center, a research associate at the Brookings Institution, and as a fellow at the German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Academy. ABOUT THE PROGRAM https://www.hoover.org/research-teams/history-working-group    This talk is part of the History Working Group Seminar Series. A central piece of the History Working Group is the seminar series, which is hosted in partnership with the Hoover Library & Archives. The seminar series was launched in the fall of 2019, and thus far has included six talks from Hoover research fellows, visiting scholars, and Stanford faculty. The seminars provide outside experts with an opportunity to present their research and receive feedback on their work. While the lunch seminars have grown in reputation, they have been purposefully kept small in order to ensure that the discussion retains a good seminar atmosphere.

My guest today is Christopher Miller. He’s Assistant Professor of International History at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, where he is co-director of the school’s Russia and Eurasia Program. He is author of  the books Putinomics: Power and Money in Resurgent Russia (2018) and The Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy (2016). He’s also … Episode 153: Thinking Historically About the Surveillance State Read More » The post Episode 153: Thinking Historically About the Surveillance State first appeared on Historically Thinking.

  My guest today is Christopher Miller. He’s Assistant Professor of International History at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, where he is co-director of the school’s Russia and Eurasia Program. He is author of  the books Putinomics: Power and Money in Resurgent Russia (2018) and The Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy (2016). He’s […]

In this episode, Kristen R. Ghodsee reads selections from Kollontai's 1926 speech, “Marriage and Everyday Life.” By this time Vladimir Lenin was dead and Kollontai was already serving as a diplomat in Norway. She came back to the Soviet Union to participate in the discussions surrounding the proposed Family Code which was to replace the original 1918 Family Code that Kollontai had a big hand in shaping. By 1925, the Bolshevik leaders were retreating from their commitments to sexual equality and focusing instead on building the Soviet Economy. Kollontai fought hard to force the state to support women and children, but the project was too expensive and the population was exhausted from the chaos and instability that followed the initial liberalization of divorce laws. Mentioned in this episode is Wendy Goldman's excellent book: Women, the State and Revolution: Soviet Family Policy and Social Life, 1917-1936 (Cambridge University Press, 1993)The intro music is a Russian version of The Internationale More info about the host can be found at: www.kristenghodsee.comAlso see: AlexandraKollontai.com – A Website for All Things Kollontai

The publication of the seventh book of the Industrialisation of Soviet Russia series represents the culmination of a 70-year project that can be traced back to Edward Hallett Carr’s classic series The History of Soviet Russia. In this final volume, The Industrialisation of Soviet Russia Volume 7: Soviet Economy and... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The publication of the seventh book of the Industrialisation of Soviet Russia series represents the culmination of a 70-year project that can be traced back to Edward Hallett Carr’s classic series The History of Soviet Russia. In this final volume, The Industrialisation of Soviet Russia Volume 7: Soviet Economy and the Approach of War, 1937-1939 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), its authors – R.W. Davies, Mark Harrison, Oleg Khlevniuk, and Stephen G. Wheatcroft – describe the Soviet economy at the end of an era of tumultuous change. Overshadowing developments during this period were the purges that decimated not just the Communist Party leadership but the nomenklatura and lower level managers in many sectors, as well as millions of ordinary citizens. Though the economy suffered from this disruption, it did not alter the fundamental institutions of the Soviet economy, which were increasingly shaped primarily by the demands of internal and external security. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The publication of the seventh book of the Industrialisation of Soviet Russia series represents the culmination of a 70-year project that can be traced back to Edward Hallett Carr’s classic series The History of Soviet Russia. In this final volume, The Industrialisation of Soviet Russia Volume 7: Soviet Economy and the Approach of War, 1937-1939 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), its authors – R.W. Davies, Mark Harrison, Oleg Khlevniuk, and Stephen G. Wheatcroft – describe the Soviet economy at the end of an era of tumultuous change. Overshadowing developments during this period were the purges that decimated not just the Communist Party leadership but the nomenklatura and lower level managers in many sectors, as well as millions of ordinary citizens. Though the economy suffered from this disruption, it did not alter the fundamental institutions of the Soviet economy, which were increasingly shaped primarily by the demands of internal and external security. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The publication of the seventh book of the Industrialisation of Soviet Russia series represents the culmination of a 70-year project that can be traced back to Edward Hallett Carr’s classic series The History of Soviet Russia. In this final volume, The Industrialisation of Soviet Russia Volume 7: Soviet Economy and the Approach of War, 1937-1939 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), its authors – R.W. Davies, Mark Harrison, Oleg Khlevniuk, and Stephen G. Wheatcroft – describe the Soviet economy at the end of an era of tumultuous change. Overshadowing developments during this period were the purges that decimated not just the Communist Party leadership but the nomenklatura and lower level managers in many sectors, as well as millions of ordinary citizens. Though the economy suffered from this disruption, it did not alter the fundamental institutions of the Soviet economy, which were increasingly shaped primarily by the demands of internal and external security. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

About the Book: "Putin Watches Russian Economy Collapse along with His Economic Stature,” blared a headline in Time in late 2014. Yet three years have passed since the price of oil crashed in 2014, halving earnings on the product which once funded half of Russia's government budget. That same year, the West imposed harsh economic sanctions on Russia's banks, energy firms, and defense sector, cutting off many of Russia's largest firms from international capital markets and high-tech oil drilling gear. Many analysts—in Russia as well as abroad—thought that economic crisis might threaten Vladimir Putin's hold on power. It doesn't look that way now. Today, Russia's economy has stabilized, inflation is at historic lows, the budget is nearly balanced, and Putin is coasting toward reelection on March 18, giving him a fourth term as president. Putin has recently overtaken Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev as the longest-serving Russian leader since Stalin. How did he do it? This talk will examine Putin's economic policies and how they have supported his domestic and foreign policies. About the Author: Chris Miller is Assistant Professor of International History at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. He is also Eurasia Research Director at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He is the author of Putinomics: Power and Money in Resurgent Russia (2018) and The Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy (2016). He received his PhD from Yale University and his AB from Harvard University.

In 1973 the North Koreans realising that they were not making any progress with South Korea on formalising Peace, wrote a letter to the US House of Representatives and the US Senate asking for a Peace Treaty and they have never received a reply, so here we are today - why no reply? Well the answer is quite simple - it has nothing to do with North Korea - and Peter gives a documented quote from Condoleezza Rice. US Secretary of State 2005–09. Saying what it does do, is expose the extreme cynicism of the situation and the complete lack of respect for other human life if you are not American.    Quote - “the North Koreans are like some sort of road kill on the highway of history …” What is really going on is about America - and the US containment of China - policy. Most people do not know that there was no peace treaty signed by North Korea and the USA - so a ceasefire was arranged - as both sides knew that they could not prevail. Evidently this still irks the US military.   Peter still reckons that up until 1971 - they were still keen to have a go at ousting the other - but US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger went to China and President Nixon a year later, changed the geopolitical map - and North Korea suddenly realised that if another war happened that they may not now be able to rely on China  so - after weighing this US China dialogue - they decided to ask South Korea to have a peace treaty and get closer together again. - and though they had some talks and it was thought a good idea - nothing really happened (and every year up until today - the successive Kim’s have in their New Year speech proposed and asked for a Peace Treaty.)   Hence the above overture to the USA. Peter Wilson of the NZ DPRK Society   - New Zealand - Democratic People’s Republic of Korea  Society - (Also known as North Korea.) Backgrounder Peter Wilson is a freelance consultant who worked for the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Food and Agricultural Organisation, including alongside the UN in the UN Development Program - where previously he had worked for long term projects like 2 years in Papua New Guinea and 4 years in the Philippines - implementing long term projects and that eventually morphed into short term projects - like project planning and supervising and troubleshooting. He ended up working twice for the UN in North Korea the first time being in 1997. Media Programing For decades North Korea is a country that the media has always portrayed as an: impoverished rogue state; secretive state; the world’s most isolated and Orwellian state; the whole rotten carcass of the North Korean state; a nuclear weapons state; instability within the rogue state; Stalinist state/the last Stalinist state; a failed state with nuclear weapons/ nuclear weapons state; the state as a religious cult; the world’s most closed state; police state; failed state. Peter says that in the study of the media’s description of North Korea’s state of well being - that every different adjective is used as a prefix before ending in the words ‘North Korea’ and when compared with South Korea there is no such prefix used in front of the words South Korea.  Which shows huge amounts of bias. So that we have all been conditioned to see North Korea in a decidedly negative way.  However when he looks at where the articles in the media come from they are Bloomberg, Reuters (head office New York) Time New York Times, Washington Post - they are all American sources and reflects the Washington line - And Peter states that Washington looks at the world through a different type of prism from what we in NZ look through. And it is true. (Yet, the fact that Donald Trump calls these above publications (that include CNN) being fake news agencies - brings Peter to laugh about the ironies of existence). The situation of North Korea Having worked for a small UN Agency 20 years ago in Pyongyang called the International Fund for Agricultural Development - Peter had access to virtually the whole of North Korea in 1997 - where he witnessed first hand the plight of the famine at that time. Though it was bad - it was nowhere as near as horrendous as the Western media portrayed and that the reason why this drought lead famine was due to continuous bad weather and climatic conditions and the fact that North Korea was kept out of the international system - due to the USA locking them out of the International Monetary Fund - which meant they could not belong to the World Bank - or to the regional development banks like the Asian Development Bank  - That Peter says that the Americans one day, must have blinked and North Korea became a member of the International Fund for Development - which is just a tiny extension, as a multilateral financial institution. Peter has spent the last 40 years of his entire professional career having worked in 21 different Asian countries especially in all the poorest and problem areas which in 1997 took him to North Korea - because they were at the height of their food crisis. It was a US$50 million project dealing in fertiliser and improved crop production of which Peter was involved in $13 million of that - for increasing production of small livestock such as ducks, geese, sheep and goats. When he first went there he had little knowledge about that country - probably less that the average person today knows - mainly because today we are getting more news coverage. However what little he didn’t know really did not stand upon to that he really saw on the ground. That life in North Korea is very different as to what is portrayed by the media - in this case the US media. His most recent visit was last month, August 2017 having worked there on two occasions and on the 5 other occasions he has visited he has represented the NZ DPRK society.  This time he came back a little bit staggered. The Economy is Growing Fast He said the economy was booming! He estimated at least three times the numbers of cars on Pyongyang streets since he was last there exactly two years ago. The shops are bursting with consumer goods. Their military deterrence missile/nuclear programme has accelerated. It was brought home to him that sanctions are totally farcical. They just don't work! From all we are told by the media, North Korea is an aggressive threat to the world. They are not. North Korea's crime is to stand up to the United States and not allow US Corporations to trade there! The South Korean Central Bank’s latest study maintains the North Korean economy grew at least 3.9% last year - However Peter thinks that the growth could be a lot more than this 3.9%, due to the way the GNP is assessed by the South Koreans. Peter says that over his numerous times of visiting that he can easily see that the standards of living are increasing and it is quite different from what is portrayed in our media i.e they are not having to eat grass! As Peter has been working in a large number of Asian countries for 40 years, that to be effective he said you have to understand the system - where the power is - who is up who - and if you don’t understand that political context - plus the social context you will not get what’s going on in these countries. So in having to visit many strange situations, assess them all and then be productive -  that was the factors that he dealt with. This interview covers: US Black Basketball player Dennis Rodman and his frequent visits to North Korea to assist in sporting skills and opening more understanding. That Rodman wants to play peace-keeper between Trump and Kim That Peter in 1997 was asked to be on the ground to see exactly what the drought was like and the famine that the Western media told us about. He says it was a privilege to be selected for this UN assessment trip which as an extension of the World Food Program and Food and Agricultural Organisation. They were awake to this as there definitely, was a problem. So this team - possibly the first Western team ever was able to travel extensively right through the country because for the aid money to go to North Korea, the United Nations had to know the seriousness of this event. But what they were looking at didn’t actually gel with what North Korea was telling the world -because people were not dying by the thousands (or eating grass) and though there was hunger there were not nearly as serious - a problem as we had heard from the Western media - and Peter was able to see that there was not a huge increase in the deaths of elderly and children. Climate: the ground in North Korea is frozen hard for 6 months a year and that only 15% of the land can be used for arable farming. The North Koreans say they have 172 frost free days a year - they don’t say that they have so many sunshine days a year, or so many rainy days like we do in NZ. So for 6 months of the year they have to work really hard through this time to grow enough food - but as North Korea is a very mountainous country with only 15% arable land they just can not produce enough food in that small area - and they utilise whatever space they can. Peter says that historically they have to work really diligently, and though their agriculture is technically very good - he says they have to make sure that they have enough food for the coming winter. The Failure of the Soviet Economy affected North Korea This is where the deconstruction of the Soviet Union comes in, in the early 1990’s - for when it deconstructed the USSR - North Korea and also Cuba had always been subsidised by the Soviets, and as they were going broke - they were not able to give food to their ex client states (like Cuba too).  That when the bad weather hit North Korea - there was a major shortfall. Because they could not source cheap diesel and fertiliser and when it came to food - especially grain, it all stopped because they had no trading system with the West at all.   So that when Russia finally emerged out of the USSR it was broke - and needing hard currency themselves wanted payments for goods in hard currency  e.g US$ - but North Korea had none of that either. So the North Koreans actually exaggerated their circumstances a little and they were able to receive free food from Oxfam and the other charity agencies. Which he said was quite clever of them. Peter then states that to this day - certain overseas mouth pieces state that two to three million people died - but he says - that’s not true - and that sure, there were some deaths - maybe 250,000 over many years maybe up to 750,000 people, Peter says that there may have been 3 to 400,000 premature deaths that happened.  Note NZ contributed aid at that time However when George Bush 2 came to power he swapped the game plan and instead sent food to Africa. So the North Koreans still need to now top up their food requirements - grain wise and they they have been able to buy this on the international market as they have the cash. What is not known is that the US put the first sanctions on North Korea in 1950 and they are proposing to do it even more. - but it is clearly not working … as the North Koreans are making their own consumer goods as well. Consumers Goods & Military development is accelerating So North Korea’s military development has accelerated and so has their standard of living and the economy is growing and the sanctions just don’t work. Nuclear Tests, Missile tests ands Satellite systems Containment of ChinaThe reason why America does not want a peace treaty of any sort is, because it's all to do the US containment policy of China. The US wants forward defence in South Korea and Japan, and as far away from the United States of America, however Kim is bringing home to the Pentagon and the State Department - that he has the technology to build missiles that will one day be able to reach the heartland of the US, but North Korea is yet not in the arena of placing a nuclear warhead on a missile. Meanwhile across the radio waves, TV, satellite systems and the internet the US is ramping up North Korea as the bandit nation that will definitely send an intercontinental missile to America or any of its allies - and this story has been fanned by the US corporate media - and the South Korean people have bought it - plus the Japanese public and 99.5% of the whole world - have been taken in by this continuous rhetoric. US wanting to be the Dominant Country on Earth (With hundreds of bases globally the US wants to be the only dominant player on planet earth. They are not looking for partners other than the Anglo American alliance, with Israel somehow inserting itself into the equation as well. China is still in the ascendancy and is overtaking America in most areas of production and trade and modernising its military very rapidly. Thus China is seen as the greatest threat). General Wesley Clark Youtube  (Mentioned in this interview by Tim) The reason the refugee crises came to Europe over the last number of years was given by General Wesley Clark about 10 days after 911 when he went to the Pentagon and was told by another General that the US was going to take down about 7 Middle Eastern countries. And this has basically happened and is still happening under cover of the Arab Spring revolutions. Syria being the latest and then - on to Iran. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw      The Neo Cons in the US are the ones directing these actions. Plus, an unconscious humanity not taking any responsibility throughout the West to address the Neo-Con agenda. Peter mentions William Blum - ex CIA agent who tells about the list of 57 countries since WW2 that the USA has been involved in attempting and in most cases changing a regime to whom they wanted . https://williamblum.org/ The fact that is: of all the countries that have stood up to the USA - it is North Korea. Which regrettably makes them more hated by Uncle Sam who uses all means of propaganda that can be trained on them by US corporations to constantly demonise this country.  Note NZ was demonised when it became Nuclear Free and thus was ejected out of ANZUS, by the US. Rejection by the US Government - again. In January last year - the North Koreans made a proposal to the United States - and said that if you halt your war-games with South Korea - they will freeze their nuclear development program - and this will give us the space to talk - Washington said NO.    Because of the US military controlled Governmental intransigence - this has driven China and Russia even more closer together. Plus, Putin has come out supporting this freeze - but to no avail. New Zealand's Role  The Helen Clark Labour Government many years ago opened up diplomatic contact with North Korea and was consistent in remaining in contact - however the National Government under Sir John Key has cut this link  - and there has been no contact for 3 years and Peter states that it is Wellington’s fault, because Pyongyang wants to talk. Being  ShunnedAt the time of Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama’s 2nd Presidential election the North Koreans sent a letter to him asking for the cessation of hostilities stating that they wanted a Peace Treaty. Asking for: Recognition of their  sovereignty - Wanting the lifting of sanctions - Wanting all foreign troops out of the Korean Peninsular - Finally asking to talk about an implemented and Internationally agreed upon Nuclear Free Korean Peninsular - The answer from Obama - nothing …. Peter states that today this is still the North Korean Policy of wanting a Peace treaty Finding Neutral Nations to broker an agreement (Where is NZ?) Norway is seen as a country with the courage and the vision to get out into the world and forge peace and bring people to the table - whereas NZ shies away from any ‘major global engagement’ and for reason we do not understand. Ache in Indonesia, Palestine, Sri Lanka are mentioned as having Norwegian involvement and Peter tells of meeting a diplomat from Norway by chance in Pyongyang and asking him why not North Korea seeing Norway's has been so worldly active? With the diplomat saying the reason there is no action on the Korean peninsular is because the USA would not be happy. Other Subject Matter Covered. The North Korean Voting System Covering of the Leadership of the three Kim's since the 1950’s and why only them? Peter stating that they are following a Confucian model and it is not really that different from China or Vietnam and or Laos.  That North Korea, also sees flaws in these systems - saying that the rural people in both China and Vietnam are being left out of the equation. The North Korean’s are making their own business model and not following exactly what China or Vietnam are doing - they are doing their own version of business - because they know that the people in the cities in China are doing well but as above the people in the countryside are not and the North Korean Government want to even the playing field. They are conscious of this inequality in Vietnam as they see it as worse than that of China - and Peter says they look him straight in the eye and they’ll tell him “it is no better in the West - where the rich are getting richer and the poor remain poor.” They say that they are still looking for a better way - whilst still holding to their socialist ideals being egalitarian and they are modernising and getting ready to interact with the global economy and have a fairer society for their people. Listen to Peter … Education English is now being taught in Primary, Secondary & Universities Whereas in 1997, it was only being taught in universities so as to teach diplomats and so forth.. Agricultural food production 30% of food is now traded by sole traders - where as many years ago it was all run by the state. Health and Medicine hospitals are very good - well trained personnel. They were using interactive TV technologies communicating with other doctors and nurses in the other towns and cities. Housing in the last 20 years - Peter surmises that nearly the whole country has rebuilt or modernised all it’s housing and apartment blocks, in the 20 years he has been visiting the country - where in 1997 it was just a country of square concrete grey block houses - but today huge changes and now there are some architecturally stunning apartment blocks been built. Peter encourages whatever new New Zealand Government that gets elected to restore relations with North Korea, just like Helens Clark’s Labour Government did prior to this previous National administration. Notes: There was only 54 minutes to cram as much as we could into this interview. US Activist Gloria Steinem and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maireed  Maguire  an Irish Peace Activist - Marched  for  Peace in  Pyongyang  23rd May 2015 Peter Wilson   NZ DPRK Society   http://asaa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/asian-currents-13-08.pdf The article entitled "The Demonisation of North Korea." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QaNA9eSQVE      18 minute video ( with Anchor NZ butter)   https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=387&v=yPYxrmxOvcQ   fly over better than thought      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/92073468/terence-obrien-baptism-of-fire-for-brownlee The orchestrated “Korean crisis” is not about North Korea. It is an orchestration that lets Washington put nuclear missile bases on China’s border, just as the orchestrated “Iranian crisis” was the excuse for putting nuclear missile bases on Russia’s borders.  Paul Craig Roberts: Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury for Economic Policy and ex Associate Editor of the Wall St Journal. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org

One of the most interesting questions of modern history is this: Why is it that Communist China was able to make a successful transition to economic modernity (and with it prosperity) while the Communist Soviet Union was not? In his excellent book The Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy: Mikhail...

One of the most interesting questions of modern history is this: Why is it that Communist China was able to make a successful transition to economic modernity (and with it prosperity) while the Communist Soviet Union was not? In his excellent book The Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy: Mikhail... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

One of the most interesting questions of modern history is this: Why is it that Communist China was able to make a successful transition to economic modernity (and with it prosperity) while the Communist Soviet Union was not? In his excellent book The Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy: Mikhail Gorbachev and the Collapse of the USSR (UNC Press, 2016), Chris Miller offers a convincing explanation for the divergent paths of these two Marxist-Leninist powers. Miller shows that Mikhail Gorbachev knew well about the on-going Chinese experiment, and he modeled much of what he attempted to do on it. Yet, as Miller argues, Gorbachev faced much stiffer political and ideological opposition than the Chinese leader, Deng Xiaoping, did. In the USSR, the Party was stronger and there were powerful institutional-economic interests standing in his way. In addition, Soviet socialism had “worked” for masses of ordinary citizens in a way that Chinese socialism had not; many “Soviet people” believed in the Soviet system and were very skeptical about the idea of adopting a new economic order. Caught between powerful elites and relatively satisfied regular folks, both of whom were beholden to the old ways, Gorbachev’s reforms didn’t really stand a chance. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

One of the most interesting questions of modern history is this: Why is it that Communist China was able to make a successful transition to economic modernity (and with it prosperity) while the Communist Soviet Union was not? In his excellent book The Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy: Mikhail... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

One of the most interesting questions of modern history is this: Why is it that Communist China was able to make a successful transition to economic modernity (and with it prosperity) while the Communist Soviet Union was not? In his excellent book The Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy: Mikhail Gorbachev and the Collapse of the USSR (UNC Press, 2016), Chris Miller offers a convincing explanation for the divergent paths of these two Marxist-Leninist powers. Miller shows that Mikhail Gorbachev knew well about the on-going Chinese experiment, and he modeled much of what he attempted to do on it. Yet, as Miller argues, Gorbachev faced much stiffer political and ideological opposition than the Chinese leader, Deng Xiaoping, did. In the USSR, the Party was stronger and there were powerful institutional-economic interests standing in his way. In addition, Soviet socialism had “worked” for masses of ordinary citizens in a way that Chinese socialism had not; many “Soviet people” believed in the Soviet system and were very skeptical about the idea of adopting a new economic order. Caught between powerful elites and relatively satisfied regular folks, both of whom were beholden to the old ways, Gorbachev’s reforms didn’t really stand a chance. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

One of the most interesting questions of modern history is this: Why is it that Communist China was able to make a successful transition to economic modernity (and with it prosperity) while the Communist Soviet Union was not? In his excellent book The Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy: Mikhail Gorbachev and the Collapse of the USSR (UNC Press, 2016), Chris Miller offers a convincing explanation for the divergent paths of these two Marxist-Leninist powers. Miller shows that Mikhail Gorbachev knew well about the on-going Chinese experiment, and he modeled much of what he attempted to do on it. Yet, as Miller argues, Gorbachev faced much stiffer political and ideological opposition than the Chinese leader, Deng Xiaoping, did. In the USSR, the Party was stronger and there were powerful institutional-economic interests standing in his way. In addition, Soviet socialism had “worked” for masses of ordinary citizens in a way that Chinese socialism had not; many “Soviet people” believed in the Soviet system and were very skeptical about the idea of adopting a new economic order. Caught between powerful elites and relatively satisfied regular folks, both of whom were beholden to the old ways, Gorbachev’s reforms didn’t really stand a chance. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

One of the most interesting questions of modern history is this: Why is it that Communist China was able to make a successful transition to economic modernity (and with it prosperity) while the Communist Soviet Union was not? In his excellent book The Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy: Mikhail... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

One of the most interesting questions of modern history is this: Why is it that Communist China was able to make a successful transition to economic modernity (and with it prosperity) while the Communist Soviet Union was not? In his excellent book The Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy: Mikhail Gorbachev and the Collapse of the USSR (UNC Press, 2016), Chris Miller offers a convincing explanation for the divergent paths of these two Marxist-Leninist powers. Miller shows that Mikhail Gorbachev knew well about the on-going Chinese experiment, and he modeled much of what he attempted to do on it. Yet, as Miller argues, Gorbachev faced much stiffer political and ideological opposition than the Chinese leader, Deng Xiaoping, did. In the USSR, the Party was stronger and there were powerful institutional-economic interests standing in his way. In addition, Soviet socialism had “worked” for masses of ordinary citizens in a way that Chinese socialism had not; many “Soviet people” believed in the Soviet system and were very skeptical about the idea of adopting a new economic order. Caught between powerful elites and relatively satisfied regular folks, both of whom were beholden to the old ways, Gorbachev’s reforms didn’t really stand a chance. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices