Common for Whom? Rethinking the Historic Centre of Tbilisi

Common for Whom?

Rethinking the Historic Centre of Tbilisi Levan Asabashvili 01.11.2020

“Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam”1

How the conceptual figure of historic centre of Tbilisi can be understood? What is its input in the current political, economic and social reality of the capital? What is its symbolic and cultural meaning? Has it always occupied the same place in above mentioned spheres of life as today?

These questions are rarely asked as the supposedly self evident, ready-made answers provided by the dominant ideology are so widely accepted that they remain largely unchallenged.

However strange it might seem, putting these truisms under the question can serve as one of the threads leading to disclosing the outlines of the conceptual framework necessary for the fundamental re-evaluation of the current set of socio-spatial views, values and practices - in other words the spatial paradigm - closely tied to the economic and political system in which we currently find ourselves.

Even though the following discussion is mainly focused on Tbilisi, the historical pattern of formation of the image of its historic centre is broadly common for at least the cities of the former Soviet Union and the socialist block. Furthermore, many parallels can be drawn to the 1

“Furthermore, I consider that Carthage must be destroyed” Latin oratorical phrase popular in the Roman Republic in the 2nd century BC during the letter years of the Punic Wars against Carthage. It is attributed to the Roman senator Cato the Elder (234-149 BC). Ending every speech in the senate with this phrase he stressed his support to the policy of complete elimination of any further threat to the Roman Republic from its ancient rival Carthage, which had been defeated twice before and had a tendency after each defeat to rapidly rebuild its strength and engage in further warfare (Hornblower. S., Spawforth. a., Eidinov. E., 2012. Oxford Classical Dictionary. Oxford University press. Oxford. UK).

cities of western capitalist countries. This is because, as we will see, the forces contributing to the pattern of its formation were parts of the larger transformation taking place on the scale of global political economy. Therefore, amid the political and economic changes of global scale we are witnessing once again, the need for such a radical reexamination is becoming more and more urgent.

In the critical examination of the phenomenon of Tbilisi’s historic centre the issue of Commons (the main topic of the Biennial) as things, material or immaterial, with shared access and ownership is of utmost importance. Indeed, one of the most evident features of the historic centre is its portrayal as a common, nationwide cultural heritage, a colorful space of customs and traditions creating our collective identity, the object of desire and pride. But much more than that, it is presented as an urban totality, or as a renowned Chicago School sociologist Louis Wirth would state, as a way of life (Wirth, 1938), transcending the confines of the geographical area of historic centre and the city itself. As a common and a normative way of life for every decent citizen. In this context another question arises, whether this broader function of the city centre is really common for everyone, in a sense that its symbolic significance or economic performance contributes to the well being of the majority, or is it an ideological cover of class domination so characteristic to the contemporary Georgian society? To uncover answers to the above questions we have to trace back its emergence and formation.

The story goes back to the early 1970ies when political and economic circumstances in the Soviet Union started to change. After the successful economic and social advancement of 1950ies and 60ies the growth of the Soviet economy, as well as its technological advancement showed the first signs of slow down. The scholars of Marxist tradition indicate on structural reasons for prolonged economic problems of the late Soviet Union which, because their very nature were not so easy to resolve and eventually culminated in the dissolution of the system.

Among them are fundamental contradictions in the spheres of central planning and production (namely contradictions in production and appropriation of the surplus), inability to overcome the bureaucratization of the political and administrative system and incapacity of the economy

to transfer from extensive to intensive development patterns while reaching some objective thresholds (Clarke, 1993).

During the two decades after the World War II the living standards for the majority of the Soviet population had been dramatically improved. Among other factors, one of the main contributors for this improvement was a massive housing program. The consumption patterns were broadened and the demand for quality consumer goods and services was raised. However due to the problems in central planning, already from 1970ies the economy could not catch up with this demand. The errors in the central planning, scarcity of consumer goods, together with the increase in the mass of money in the hands of private citizens were causing proliferation of shadow economy and corruption (Kolganov, 2018). In this way the first capitalist relations were emerging in the Soviet society, so that by the start of 1980ies underground economy had considerable place in the lives of Soviet people (Sampson, 1987)).

The bureaucratization of the political and administrative organs taking place from as early as 1930ies, by the end of 1970ies had produced a solid ruling stratum with its intrinsic class interests (Paretskaya, 2010). With the background of growing deficit and economic problems the advantages of this group over everyone else was more and more visible. In this context the skepticism towards the official ideology and socialist ideals were growing within the broader masses of the Soviet society (Kolganov, 2018). One of the reasons for this ideological departure was also the rise of white collar urban middle class, hostile or at least alien to proletarian political subjectivity, with higher living standards and even higher demands (Kotz, 1997).

Intelligentsia as an outstanding caste of the Soviet society with cultural and intellectual hegemony, especially its humanitarian part, had a crucial role in discrediting the socialist ideals (Epstein, 1995). On the other hand, the ruling class, already hesitant to the ideas it portrayed publicly, while still restricted in its accumulation and consumption of luxury, was seeking for a system where it could freely realize and maintain its privileges. Perestroika initiated in mid 1980ies to overcome the crisis with capitalist reforms can also be seen as an effort of creating such environment (Kagarlitsky, 2008). As a result, after turning from Bolshevik and communist

ideals the ruling class and its allies were looking to the western bourgeois societies as an immediate and easily available alternative (Kolganov, 2018).

By this time the western capitalist countries had also experienced more than two decades of post war economic expansion and full employment accompanied by strong involvement of the state in regulating the capital accumulation. Welfare regimes of these countries enabled steady rise in living standards and widening of middle classes (López et al. 2012). However, in the early 1970ies Keynesian economic system entered in a deep crisis expressed in high energy prices, rising unemployment, inflation and declining rate of profit (Pilling, 1986). This event was used by the capitalist class to start radical restructuring of the economy towards what David Harvey calls flexible mode of accumulation, meaning deregulation and financialization of the economy, liberalization of labour markets and deteritorialization of capital (Harvey, 1990). In this way the very fundament of the welfare state was shaken. The restoration of bourgeois class power also involved crushing of organized labour which was successfully accomplished. Marxism of the time was unable to find adequate answers to the crisis as in the years of unobstructed economic growth, assuming that the Keynesian economics solved the problems of capitalist economy, it diverted its attention to elsewhere: to the residual cultural problems, to the identity politics etc. One result of such tendencies was turning away from Marx’s political economy in favor of Marx’s philosophy and humanist ideas (Pilling, 1986). The so called middle class’s revolutions of the late 1960ies played an important role in setting the cultural foundation for the upcoming neoliberal system (Harvey, 1990).

If we try to generalize the events happening in two opposing camps of cold war – the Soviet Union and the capitalist west, we will certainly see many mirroring processes, above all the tendencies of the crisis of state and the process of restoration of class power which went more or less in the parallel regime in both of them (Clarke, 1993). There exists scholarly argument that the crisis in the Soviet Union was partly a reflection of the crisis of global capitalism (Ticktin, 2015). Indeed after 1950ies the Soviet economy was linked to the capitalist world economy mainly through borrowing and trade but also by indirect ways (Tapia, 2014) . The

obvious example is the growing dependence of the economy of the USSR on exports of raw materials from 1970ies, so that the falling oil prices in 1980ies had serious negative consequences on the economic performance of the country (Kolganov, 2018). More indirect but considerable was the cultural and intellectual influence conveyed through propaganda machine.

The West was not sole object for inspiration of the late Soviet upper classes. Looking back to the past had also become main intellectual trend from 1970ies (Clark, 1993) and culminated in the degenerated historicism and nationalisms of the 1980ies. This had exceptional meaning for the small member republics like Georgia. Historian Ronald Grigor Suny calls this emerging ideology “new nationalism” and links this phenomenon to the fundamental contradictions that set the framework for the development of soviet society: simultaneous modernization - shift from an agrarian to an industrial and urban society, “with greater mobility and material wealth, and greater opportunities for education and integration into Russian and European life,” and re-nationalization - “creating a new national culture, preserving and revitalizing local tradition” and promoting national identity (Suny, 1994). In the post Stalinist environment where the political and economic decision making had been relatively decentralized and the control on political expression softened this trend took specific form. As in other Soviet republics, in Georgia, the decentralization had helped to produce the local elites with ethnic political base of support, acquiring independent attitudes and practices and giving rise to a nationalist sentiment with all its sources of mythologized past.

On the one hand the rising welfare expectations, which could not anymore be fulfilled by the existing system and on the other hand the accumulation of private wealth2 were triggering capitalist social relations and ensuring growing skepticism towards official Marxist ideology.

Simultaneously nationalist ideas were gaining more and more supporters. With the worsening

2

Despite the low figures of official average income, in 1970 the average Georgian saving account was twice as much as Soviet (Suny 1994).

of systemic crisis this trend was becoming more and more debilitating. Gradually “the discourse of the nation, with its inherently anti-communist and anti-Russian overtones, was completely appropriated by intellectuals, and communism and communists were announced as alien to Georgianness”(Suny, 1994). Of course this situation was not confined to the peripheries. In the center this tendency was revealing itself with no less strength.

After the optimism and creative enthusiasm of 1960ies for standardization and rationalization of architecture and planning, it was this context where Soviet architects and intellectuals started expressing dissatisfaction with modernist principles introduced after Khruschev’s reforms (Seredyuk 1972). Main concerns were homogeneity and alienating features of modernist architecture of the Soviet urban peripheries caused by standardization and rationalized mass production. Although proposed solutions differed, the attention of considerable part of professionals was directed to the historic city centre where they tried to find inspiration and rediscover methods for culturally more expressive, more “human” architecture and urban space (Nikolaev 1972).

One of the first manifestations of this interest is a 1973 film by Temur Palavandishvili “Mze Shemodgomisa” (The Autamn Sun). One of the two main protagonists, Vakhtang is a painter living in a housing block, in newly built neighborhood of Tbilisi. To support the family he has to paint the state commissioned copies of decorative paintings. In this environment he shows signs of depression and apathy. To save him and his creative potential his wife Eka, a professional city guide of a museum decides to exchange their flat in an apartment in the historic city center. After this Vakhtang’s psychological condition is improved and he starts creative work. Soon his work gets acknowledged by older generation artists.

Besides the main narrative the film is full of details, such as side stories, conversations, scenes and music conveying the value of the forgotten historic city, its customs and traditions while denouncing anonymity and griminess of new mikrorayons. The couple, while strolling in the streets of old Tbilisi discusses the possibility of converting the whole historic city in artist’s

studios. According to Eka, Vakhtang is a first artist to move to the future Montmartre of Tbilisi.

Meanwhile the family with many children who eagerly agreed to move out from the old town in exchange of a new flat belongs to a working class and ethnically most probably is not Georgian, as other neighbors who are continuously present in the courtyard of the house. This fact is presented as an exotic opportunity as the new settlers get various types of services from them.

In exchange the cultured newcomers help to revive old city’s customs and traditions in the community.

Pretty early in time, in 1973, this film sums up the basic cultural and socio-spatial aspirations of the late Soviet Georgian elite. Furthermore the film’s protagonists together, as an upper class family, escaping from modernity and moving in the working class, “village like” exotic neighborhood, Vakhtang as an artist disclosing the aesthetics and soul of old town through his paintings and Eka as a guide of foreign (supposedly European) tourists in the historic centre of the town, define the basic elements of the official urbanism of coming decades spanning up until today. It can be seen as a manifesto of gentrification, touristification and restoration of class dominance over the city centre.

The ideas portrayed in the film took some time to be realized. Historic zone of Tbilisi was officially demarcated and established in 1975. With the leadership of renowned architect Shota Kavlashvili (a chief architect of Tbilisi from 1970) the same year a specialized studio within the institute “Tbilikalakproekti” was created. However, the first major project was launched in 1978 The works were initially aimed at opening a transportation corridor on Baratashvili Street towards the new bridge on the river Mtkvari. Yet, it ended up as a major architectural and, indeed, political event when during the slum clearance for widening of the street ruins of the medieval city wall were uncovered. The approval was achieved ”to show at last in reality to the party and city officials what was meant by long lasting appeal of architects, historians, artists, writers etc. to restore old city” (Mgaloblishvili, 1982). As a result the wall and neighboring buildings were restored or reconstructed much of which was invented and interpreted by the architect and its team. The project gained an unprecedented popular support from different

groups of public. The popularity of the project was so great that it had even become an inspiration for initiating a city festival “Tbilisoba” which involved celebration of old city customs and tradition (Mgaloblishvili, 1982). The emergence of renovated medieval city wall in the centre of Tbilisi, in 1979 not only played an enormous role in setting an agenda for the urbanism of coming decades but also served as an architectural manifestation of newly emerged ideology which was felt in every sphere of public life (Asabashvili, 2018). It is significant that in 1978 as a response to another assimilationist move from Moscow to remove from a constitution of the republic a clause affirming Georgian as an official language along with Russian, a massive student demonstration took place. Attended by many renowned public figures (Suny, 1994) this event was one more manifestation of growing discontent of the local elite towards the central government of the USSR.

This project was followed by several other major reconstruction-restoration projects in the historic protection zone of Tbilisi in 1980ies. In contrast to the inner city reconstruction in the spirit of modernist traditions their methodology was based on celebrating “historic” urban environment, “subtle new interventions”, pedestrian zones, human scale and monuments of cultural heritage. The new reconstruction-restoration projects were realized under high publicity as campaigns and besides preparing the areas for tourist flows (Mgaloblishvili 1981) they were also deemed to be practice fields for architects working on mass housing neighborhoods in the outskirts of the city with the hope that they would “enrich their architectural vocabulary” (Asatiani 1992).

While enjoying big investments and political support, these projects were creating an urban spectacle, a romantic myth of the historic city, the place of theatrical customs and traditions, object of national pride and desire worth of showing to the foreigners. At the same time, investment for building new housing stock was decreasing culminating in massive shortage of living space in the 1980ies (Asabashvili, et al. 2018). The government came up with an original solution to the problem allowing building additional spaces on existing housing blocks so in official statistics these spaces could be registered as a newly built area. The change of focus

from rationalist architecture and urban periphery to historicist architecture and the city center was a reflection of the social and political preferences in the ongoing process of restoration of bourgeois class power later expressed in the policies of Perestroika, dissolution of the Soviet Union and creation of capitalist nation states on its place. Rather than being a simple disciplinary stylistic deviation it represented a fundamental shift of the spatial paradigm – meaning a complex change in sensibility, perception and notion of purposefulness of space far transcending disciplinary boundaries. Although it is a subject for a deeper research and oversimplification can be quite arbitrary, several major opposing conceptions in the field of architecture can be mentioned: The shift of attention was made from the periphery to the centre, from universalism to particularism, from rationalism to essentialism, from formalism to symbolism, from three dimensionalism to facadism, from materiality to disguise, from real to spectacle.

As described above, this shift defined by broader political and economic changes was not isolated in the Soviet Union. It was a synchronized, mutually influenced process occurring on the both sides of iron curtain. In the western architecture and planning 1970ies was also the time of various anti modernist currents (Stroiizdat, 1987) starting from the ideas of Spatial Urbanists like Constant or Yona Friedman to more conservative postmodernists such as Aldo Rossi or Robert Venturi (Asabashvili, 2019). In this period a movement of new urbanism emerged with its strongly anti-modernist methodologies. The city centre also gained a new meaning as the notions of heritage, identity, local community, compactness etc. were counterpoised to modernist planning principles. In the advanced capitalist countries this period also coincides with first waves of inner city rehabilitations and gentrification by upper and middle classes. Neil Smith convincingly linked this process to the flows of capital and land speculation arguing against the “Back to the City” movement’s progressive character (Smith, 1979).

Rehabilitation-reconstruction of Tbilisi’s historic centre by its values, priorities and expectations was alien to socialist idea. However, it was realized in the socialist economy and during the last

two decades of Soviet Union’s existence it had not been subjected to the urban processes attributed to capitalism. Only after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and officially embracing capitalist economy, the historic centre of Tbilisi was able to fully “realize” it’s “potential”. From early 2000s the second wave of investments started and it continues until today. Through this process large islands of the historic centre were subjected to renovation while other spots of the historic centre are left in half ruined condition in desperate living conditions. This created profitable ground for gentrification, real estate and land speculation. The rise of numbers of tourists in recent years further intensified this trend and created excessive share of hospitality and other service sector enterprises.

As a result, on the one hand we have a historic centre as a space for absorption of surplus capital (state and private) by unproductive spheres of economy – tourism and service, land and real estate speculation; as a space of spectacle, social-spatial inequality and decadent colonial culture (through abundance of tourism and service sector units). But on the other hand, in authorized narrative it is presented as both, a space of successful tourist/service enterprises and as a bourgeois sentiment of shared history, collective identity, or the “proper way of life”, transcending the boundaries of the historic centre itself. Therefore, even though in theory it is the common, as space and as concept, shared by everyone and contributing to the well being of the majority, in reality, as shown above, it is defined by class domination. Its emergence in the form it exists now is a result of restoration of class power by Soviet party bureaucracy and its allies within the late Soviet Union, which continued in the specific capitalist system. Therefore its existence in present form only contributes to the conservation of the status quo.

As mentioned above, this status quo is not unique to Georgia or post Soviet space. It is a global phenomenon which emerged in the early 1970ies on the both sides of cold war camps and acquired a mature form after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Today this status quo or global neoliberal capitalism is in a deep crisis. The financial crisis of 2007-2009 has shaken the global capitalist system and unfolded in the chain events which led to questioning very foundations of current world order (Tooze, 2019). The environmental crisis and Covid 19

pandemic are only fuelling this situation (Arnason et al. 2016)(Davis, 2020). Today such mainstream organizations as World Economic Forum and IMF are openly talking about necessity of transforming of capitalist economy (Tate, 2017). Immanuel Wallerstein called this transitional condition a bifurcation the outcome of which depends on the balance of forces involved (Wallerstein, 2004). For now the only thing we know for sure is that the world will not be the same as before.

In many ways neoliberalism dragged the world in a condition resembling 19th century liberal capitalism. The dramatic increase of income inequality, abolition of welfare systems and decrease of living standards (with exponential share of housing shortages among the reasons), precarious work and worsening of working conditions, transformation of the “big state” with the functions of economic planning and social engineering to the “minimal” regulatory state, unregulated flows of capital and uneven development, bourgeois democracy and reanimation of world imperialism are the problems felt all over the world that makes it comparable to the capitalist system before the big depression (Tooze, 2019). The same features are the main indicators of the current crisis. Accordingly, the popular demands globally call to the move in opposite direction. This means reestablishing redistributive welfare systems, returning the control of labour force over the capital, equipping the state with the functions of economic command and social engineering, reviving mass democracy and resistance to global imperialism.

If we look closer to the history of architecture and planning the modernist project was born and realized out of the similar global challenges in the early and mid 20th century (Swenarton et al.

2015), although the world proletariat was much more crystallized and organized by that time.

However, notwithstanding all the obvious structural differences, but at the same time facing the current social-spatial challenges, this fact opens up possibility for architects to think about new modernist project as an answer to the current crisis and as a vision of the possible way out.

The socialist modernism in this respect offers an immense experience and knowledge. To realize this, one of the most important tasks is to start rethinking the dominant spatial

paradigm associated with the currently decaying breed of capitalism and world order. Among other concepts the figure or the myth of the historic city centre is one of the main creations of this paradigm and one of the main obstacles of the new project. This is where the reference to Cato the Elder can be made on the necessity of an imminent threat – Carthage, to be destroyed. Certainly, this “destruction” doesn’t imply physical flattening but dismantling and desacralization on the conceptual level. However, this undertaking can still be dangerous in a current situation when without having positive alternative regarding the city centre majority of political left is in a defensive position. A new project, in order not to be overtaken by capital’s interests, needs a total politicization of architecture - blurring boundaries between them and the socialist political organization with an offensive urban program with the potential of radical reshaping our reality.

Bibliography ●

Asabashvili, L. (2018). In Search of Identity for Old Tbilisi - Anti Modernist Turn. in: Kurtishvili, I. Cachola Schmal, P. eds. Hybrid Tbilisi, Reflection on Architecture in Georgia. Berlin, DOM Publishers

●

Asabashvili, L. (2019). Mziuri, Anti-Modernism, Megastructure. Urban Reactor. [online. available at: www.urbanreactor.org]

●

Asabashvili, L., Nikolaishvili, G., Zazanashvili, N. (2018) Housing Policy in Georgia, Case of Tbilisi. Urban Reactor, Tbilisi.

●

Asatiani, N. (1992). Architecture of Tbilisi in 1970-1980. Georgian Art. ARS Georgica. [online. available at: http://www.georgianart.ge/index.php/ka/2010-12-03-16-25-41/197--1970-1980-.html?fbclid=IwAR2hNsmEwov86-CDJAkcGY4h5IJAa2JHGRcHYb2_OM0GTM1dydJCqIIIkc]

●

Arnason, J., & Hrubec, M. (Eds.). (2016). Social Transformations and Revolutions: Reflections and Analyses.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press

●

Clark K. (1993). Changing Historical Paradigm in Soviet culture’ in Lahusen T. and Kuperman G. (eds.) Late Soviet Culture From Perestroika to Novostroika. Durham and London: Duke University Press, pp. 289-306.

●

Clarke, S. (1993). What About The Workers? Workers and Transition to Capitalism in Russia. London: Verso.

●

Davis, M. (2020). The Monster Enters: COVID-19, Avian Flu and the Plagues of Capitalism. New York; London

●

Derluguian, G. (1993). Rouge et Noire: Contradictions of the Soviet Collapse. Telos, 1993(96), pp.13-25.

●

Epstein, M. (1995) After the Future: The Paradoxes of Postmodernism and Contemporary Russian Culture.

Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, pp. 188-210.

●

Fernandez, N. (1997). Capitalism and Class Struggle in the USSR: A Marxist Theory. Aldershot: Ashgate.

●

Harvey, D. (1990) The Condition of Postmodernity. Cambridge MA and Oxford Uk: Blackwell, pp. 66-98.

●

Harvey D. (1990) ‘Flexible Accumulation through Urbanization Reflections on "Post-Modernism" in the American City’, Perspecta, (26), pp. 251-272.

●

Haynes., M. (2002). Marxism and the Russian Question in the Wake of Soviet Collapse. Historical Materialism, volume 10:4. p. 317–362

●

Hobsbawm, E. (2011). The Age Of Extremes. London: Abacus.

●

Kagarlitsky, B. (2008) Empire of the Periphery Russia in the World System. London and Ann Arbor MI: Pluto Press, pp. 283-304.

●

Kolganov. A. I. (2018). Way To Socialism. Moscow: URSS. P. 367-373

●

Kotz. D., Weir. F. (1997). Revolution From Above The Demise of the Soviet System. London and New York: Routledge. P. 52-54.

●

Lahusen, T. (1993). Late Soviet Culture: From Perestroika to Novostroika. Durham: Duke Univ. Press.

●

López, A. and Weinstein, B. (2012). The Making Of The Middle Class. Durham: Duke University Press.

●

Mgaloblishvili N. (1981) ‘Tasks of Urban Planners of Georgia’, Architektura SSSR, (4), pp. 20-25.

●

Mgaloblishvili N. (1982) ‘Reconstruction of the Streets in Old Part of Tbilisi’, Architektura SSSR. (7-8), pp.110-113.

●

Nikolaev, E. (1972). Classical Moscow. Moscow, Stroyizdat.

●

Paretskaya, A. (2010). The Soviet Communist Party and the Other Spirit of Capitalism. Sociological Theory, 28(4), pp.377-401.

●

Pilling, G. (1987). The Crisis of Keynesian Economics A Marxist View. London & Sydney. Croom Helm.

●

Sampson, S. (1987). The Second Economy of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 493, 120-136

●

Seredyuk, I. (1972). Informative Value of Aesthetic Means of Modern Architecture. Architektura SSSR. (2), pp. 13-16.

●

Smith, N. (1979). Toward a Theory of Gentrification A Back to the City Movement by Capital, not People.

Journal of the American Planning Association, 45:4, 538-548

●

State committee on Civil Engineering and Architecture by the Gosstroy USSR, Central Research-Scientific Institute of Theory and History of Architecture. (1987) Architecture of the West. Moscow: Stroiizdat, (4), pp. 7-15.

●

Suni, R. G. (1994) The Making of the Georgian Nation. 2nd edn. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, pp. 292-335.

●

Swenarton, M., Avermaete, T. and Heuvel, D. (2015). Architecture And The Welfare State. London: Routledge.

●

Tapia JA. (2014) From the Oil Crisis to the Great Recession: Five crises of the world economy. Paper presented at the 2014 ASSA-AEA Meeting in Philadelphia.

●

Tate, Z. (2017). Capitalism is Losing Support. It is Time for a New Deal. Weforum. [Online. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/capitalism-losing-support-we-need-a-new-deal/]

●

Ticktin, H. (2015). Origins Of The Crisis In The U.S.S.R. New York: Routledge

●

Tooze, A. (2019). How a Decade of Financial Crisis Changed the World. Penguin Books.

●

Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-Systems Analysis: an Introduction. Durham: Duke University Press.

●

Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a Way of Life. American Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 1-24.