A friend sent me recently an abbreviated version of Xi Jinping’s January 2013 speech to the members of the Central Committee of CPC (the English translation is here).
"The lack of belief in the system stemmed from the failure of the Soviet Union in the economic arena, and inability to propose a system of participation in the decision-making that appealed to, or was acceptable to, most of its population."
Just as a thought experiment, replacing "Soviet Union" by "USA", raises the question of where the US is heading now and whether it could disintegrate as well. From what I hear and see, a majority of Americans feel left behind by the economy and not represented by the decision-makers.
I don't think so. Xi Jinping's "ideological nihilism" logic only applies to socialist states, not capitalist states (in his speech, he's strictly talking about the USSR and China, two socialist states). The reason why only socialism can suffer from ideological nihilism is because it is the last stage of human development before the true end of History (i.e. communism), while capitalism is a historically specific mode of production (i.e. its whole existence can only be within the confines of History). Since socialism is the end game of History, there are no possible better solutions to it within historicity, hence the phenomenon of nihilism before a regression to capitalism.
In historically specific modes of production, ideology strengthens, not weakens, when they're in their respective declines. The American people nowadays are more - not less - fervently believers of capitalism, precisely because capitalism is declining. Therefore, capitalism is suffering from the polar opposite of ideological nihilism: ideological absolutism/totalitarianism.
I do speak of capitalism and socialism myself sometimes, but I don't think that these 20th century notions will help us solving the problems of today ... I probably say this only because I don't understand the point you want to make.
Thinking about social technology that would help us create an economy that works for everybody and a democracy that takes decision by coordinating everybody in society I do find important ... and I think history shows that neither 20th century capitalism nor 20th century socialism have the answer.
And let us not forget that due to climate change, biodiversity less and overconsumption of natural resources, finding answers is urgent and a matter of survival.
From the point of view of a historically specific mode of production*, there are always two options for humanity: either go back (catastrophe, "back to the stone age", barbarism) or go forward (i.e. abolish itself and create a new, superior mode of production).
If you're from the dominant class of this mode of production, your historical task is always to preserve it at any cost, by all means.
When this mode of production starts to decline (because of entropy), the only option is to justify the preservation of the system through ideology. That's the case with the USA nowadays: never before in American History, there were so many ideologies there (the so-called postmodern ideologies). The USA is living a golden age of the ideology. So, it's the exact opposite of ideological nihilism. The very fact that you, a westerner, said that you need a new "notion" (i.e. an ideology) already speaks for this fact: you're starved for a new ideology, not tired of ideologies.
But when you're not a historically specific mode of production, or a borderline one (i.e. the last historic mode of production), then you don't have the second option mentioned in the first paragraph of this comment: you can only go back but not forward. That means its stagnation does not result in the hope for something better, but only the absolute loss of all hope.
If you read Xi Jinping's speech, he's clearly attributing the phenomenon of ideological nihilism to socialist states, not capitalist states. Ideological nihilism in a socialist state will always result in its reversion to capitalism. Marxist theory corroborates with his reasoning.
Thanks ... maybe I am overinterpreting what you say, but what I get from it is that Marxism will not be of much help for those who are trying to find a way forward for humanity to survive on this planet.
Thanks ... since I wrote that comment, I have been reading Turchin (2023) End Times ... that is the best analysis of these questions I have seen so far ... do you know it?
It is not dissimilar to say African communists aligned to Russia or China. Before they defeated the colonial power they adopted the party script. But once in power it was soon abandoned for personal gain and personal security.
Great post, I think that an interesting question to ask would be when the ideological nihilism started and what were the material and ideal sources of the ideological nihilism.
A long list of Russian intellectuals, among them Solzhenitsyn, Gogol, and Bulgakov, thought Ukraine and Russia were indivisible. Saying that the war in Ukraine was born out of ideological nihilism doesnt pass the most basic smell test.
This post seems oddly incomplete. If "KGB nihilists" are the epitome of "ideological nihilism", how exactly does Putin's steering of Russia back into Great Power status get explained?
Given that Putin is explicitly called out as one of Yeltsin's 4 "KGB ties" Prime Ministers of Russia - the failure to examine that thread further is notable.
1. Andropov wasn't a KGB man. He was party's man in KGB before his accession. The "Preference of KGB over all else" was far from consensus, it was a niche view.
2. Really "nihilistic" phase in Russia was late Yeltsin - early Putin period. That weren't "vegetarian" times (mostly due to the Chechen wars), but relatively mild. Far worse things happened later, when ideological vacuum was filled by imperial chauvinism. So it's not vacuum that leads to atrocities. The worst of atrocities of the XX c. were driven by ideologies, not the vacuum. "Vacuum is bad for the state and the country" is a misleading point (intentionally misleading when used by Xi) . It won't last anyway and the end result depends on what fills the vacuum eventually. In reality vacuum is bad for highly centralized top-down systems. This is true. But speaks nothing of the systems' merits.
It’s interesting to note the ideological differences between Xi Jinping and Putin so at the of the day who wins or do they agree to disagree although one thing they have in common is that they are both against the West.
I can't help but think of the suffering and death caused by 'idealists' leading the US - Reagan, Cheney, etc. Are they better than nihilists? Does the veneer of ideology absolve them of their bad impacts?
"So the GOP lapsed into nihilism. Its leaders regurgitated Trump’s lies. “It’s all theater, it doesn’t matter,” Graham said. When asked about how he would be remembered in history, Giuliani said, “My attitude about my legacy is: f--k it.” And the first lady wore a jacket emblazoned “I Really Don’t Care. Do U?”
They could be this brazen — they could almost get away with destroying American democracy — because a significant percentage of the American people, the folks that we “serious” people keep trying to “understand,” are too lazy and crass and bigoted to care. They just want revenge against the people who propose transgender bathrooms."
I'm intrigued, not by the default nihilism that overcomes an ideology at its end, but by what powers ideologies in their strengths. I'm intrigued by the recurrence of hints towards racial "science".
"We have our Asian traits in our genes, and we are in part an Asian country because of this. And Siberia is at the core of the Russian empire: without Siberia, Russia wouldn’t have become a great country. And the Tatar and Mongol yoke left many traits in our society."
Antony Beevor in this interview https://twitter.com/abc730/status/1532310287881502721 refers to the "casual savagery" of Russians in Ukraine and links the brutality back to vestiges left behind by Mongol invaders of Russia.
The ability to take human genetics apart bit by bit and re-assemble the choice parts must be an enticing prospect for some. What would Marx have made of the latest findings & feats of human genetics & neurochemistry?
Thank you, I have read only a very abridged version of it.
As for Putin's and Russia's motives for the invasion - have you considered taking official Russian reasons at face value and examining them? They are completely pragmatic and devoid of ideology - security, basically. I have to correct myself - Russian government tries to stick some sort of ideology on them, denazification and all, but it just doesn't hold and falls off like wet toilet paper.
I do know the official reasons. Honestly, I think they have all been made up at the last moment. Many of them, IMO, do not make sense. This does not mean that RUS does not have legitimate security interests: no country likes to have a military alliance that it is not a member of expand to its borders.
"The lack of belief in the system stemmed from the failure of the Soviet Union in the economic arena, and inability to propose a system of participation in the decision-making that appealed to, or was acceptable to, most of its population."
Just as a thought experiment, replacing "Soviet Union" by "USA", raises the question of where the US is heading now and whether it could disintegrate as well. From what I hear and see, a majority of Americans feel left behind by the economy and not represented by the decision-makers.
I don't think so. Xi Jinping's "ideological nihilism" logic only applies to socialist states, not capitalist states (in his speech, he's strictly talking about the USSR and China, two socialist states). The reason why only socialism can suffer from ideological nihilism is because it is the last stage of human development before the true end of History (i.e. communism), while capitalism is a historically specific mode of production (i.e. its whole existence can only be within the confines of History). Since socialism is the end game of History, there are no possible better solutions to it within historicity, hence the phenomenon of nihilism before a regression to capitalism.
In historically specific modes of production, ideology strengthens, not weakens, when they're in their respective declines. The American people nowadays are more - not less - fervently believers of capitalism, precisely because capitalism is declining. Therefore, capitalism is suffering from the polar opposite of ideological nihilism: ideological absolutism/totalitarianism.
I do speak of capitalism and socialism myself sometimes, but I don't think that these 20th century notions will help us solving the problems of today ... I probably say this only because I don't understand the point you want to make.
Thinking about social technology that would help us create an economy that works for everybody and a democracy that takes decision by coordinating everybody in society I do find important ... and I think history shows that neither 20th century capitalism nor 20th century socialism have the answer.
And let us not forget that due to climate change, biodiversity less and overconsumption of natural resources, finding answers is urgent and a matter of survival.
From the point of view of a historically specific mode of production*, there are always two options for humanity: either go back (catastrophe, "back to the stone age", barbarism) or go forward (i.e. abolish itself and create a new, superior mode of production).
If you're from the dominant class of this mode of production, your historical task is always to preserve it at any cost, by all means.
When this mode of production starts to decline (because of entropy), the only option is to justify the preservation of the system through ideology. That's the case with the USA nowadays: never before in American History, there were so many ideologies there (the so-called postmodern ideologies). The USA is living a golden age of the ideology. So, it's the exact opposite of ideological nihilism. The very fact that you, a westerner, said that you need a new "notion" (i.e. an ideology) already speaks for this fact: you're starved for a new ideology, not tired of ideologies.
But when you're not a historically specific mode of production, or a borderline one (i.e. the last historic mode of production), then you don't have the second option mentioned in the first paragraph of this comment: you can only go back but not forward. That means its stagnation does not result in the hope for something better, but only the absolute loss of all hope.
If you read Xi Jinping's speech, he's clearly attributing the phenomenon of ideological nihilism to socialist states, not capitalist states. Ideological nihilism in a socialist state will always result in its reversion to capitalism. Marxist theory corroborates with his reasoning.
Thanks ... maybe I am overinterpreting what you say, but what I get from it is that Marxism will not be of much help for those who are trying to find a way forward for humanity to survive on this planet.
Thanks ... since I wrote that comment, I have been reading Turchin (2023) End Times ... that is the best analysis of these questions I have seen so far ... do you know it?
It is not dissimilar to say African communists aligned to Russia or China. Before they defeated the colonial power they adopted the party script. But once in power it was soon abandoned for personal gain and personal security.
Great post, I think that an interesting question to ask would be when the ideological nihilism started and what were the material and ideal sources of the ideological nihilism.
Also, have you read Godfather of the Kremlin?
Yes, an excellent book. Here is my review:
https://braveneweurope.com/branko-milanovic-kleptocracy-and-kakistocracy-in-the-1990s-russia
A long list of Russian intellectuals, among them Solzhenitsyn, Gogol, and Bulgakov, thought Ukraine and Russia were indivisible. Saying that the war in Ukraine was born out of ideological nihilism doesnt pass the most basic smell test.
This post seems oddly incomplete. If "KGB nihilists" are the epitome of "ideological nihilism", how exactly does Putin's steering of Russia back into Great Power status get explained?
Given that Putin is explicitly called out as one of Yeltsin's 4 "KGB ties" Prime Ministers of Russia - the failure to examine that thread further is notable.
1. Andropov wasn't a KGB man. He was party's man in KGB before his accession. The "Preference of KGB over all else" was far from consensus, it was a niche view.
2. Really "nihilistic" phase in Russia was late Yeltsin - early Putin period. That weren't "vegetarian" times (mostly due to the Chechen wars), but relatively mild. Far worse things happened later, when ideological vacuum was filled by imperial chauvinism. So it's not vacuum that leads to atrocities. The worst of atrocities of the XX c. were driven by ideologies, not the vacuum. "Vacuum is bad for the state and the country" is a misleading point (intentionally misleading when used by Xi) . It won't last anyway and the end result depends on what fills the vacuum eventually. In reality vacuum is bad for highly centralized top-down systems. This is true. But speaks nothing of the systems' merits.
Ideological nihilism probably describes the situaiton of the British Tory party today.
Gary Dyall
It’s interesting to note the ideological differences between Xi Jinping and Putin so at the of the day who wins or do they agree to disagree although one thing they have in common is that they are both against the West.
You really don't understand anything about Putin or Russia
I can't help but think of the suffering and death caused by 'idealists' leading the US - Reagan, Cheney, etc. Are they better than nihilists? Does the veneer of ideology absolve them of their bad impacts?
From https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/07/10/this-rant-over-trumps-enablers-provides-only-partial-catharsis/ (Joe Klein on new book by Mark Leibovich)
"So the GOP lapsed into nihilism. Its leaders regurgitated Trump’s lies. “It’s all theater, it doesn’t matter,” Graham said. When asked about how he would be remembered in history, Giuliani said, “My attitude about my legacy is: f--k it.” And the first lady wore a jacket emblazoned “I Really Don’t Care. Do U?”
They could be this brazen — they could almost get away with destroying American democracy — because a significant percentage of the American people, the folks that we “serious” people keep trying to “understand,” are too lazy and crass and bigoted to care. They just want revenge against the people who propose transgender bathrooms."
I'm intrigued, not by the default nihilism that overcomes an ideology at its end, but by what powers ideologies in their strengths. I'm intrigued by the recurrence of hints towards racial "science".
Here's Sergey Karaganov in https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/ukraine/2022/04/russia-cannot-afford-to-lose-so-we-need-a-kind-of-a-victory-sergey-karaganov-on-what-putin-wants -
"We have our Asian traits in our genes, and we are in part an Asian country because of this. And Siberia is at the core of the Russian empire: without Siberia, Russia wouldn’t have become a great country. And the Tatar and Mongol yoke left many traits in our society."
Antony Beevor in this interview https://twitter.com/abc730/status/1532310287881502721 refers to the "casual savagery" of Russians in Ukraine and links the brutality back to vestiges left behind by Mongol invaders of Russia.
The ability to take human genetics apart bit by bit and re-assemble the choice parts must be an enticing prospect for some. What would Marx have made of the latest findings & feats of human genetics & neurochemistry?
Thank you, I have read only a very abridged version of it.
As for Putin's and Russia's motives for the invasion - have you considered taking official Russian reasons at face value and examining them? They are completely pragmatic and devoid of ideology - security, basically. I have to correct myself - Russian government tries to stick some sort of ideology on them, denazification and all, but it just doesn't hold and falls off like wet toilet paper.
I do know the official reasons. Honestly, I think they have all been made up at the last moment. Many of them, IMO, do not make sense. This does not mean that RUS does not have legitimate security interests: no country likes to have a military alliance that it is not a member of expand to its borders.