Historical Nihilism

An analysis or study of Xi Jinping should perhaps focus more on what the man has been tasked with rather than zooming in on the man himself, although both the personal and professional components of the personality analysis and study of Xi Jinping are important and valuable. The steely, stoic personality of Xi Jinping stems from a background and a personal history that is defined in large part by adversity and hardship. But only a man with that type of background and personal history could be tasked with what Xi has been tasked with, and according to one scholar, Xi has four primary tasks to carry out as long as he rules China, namely, to ensure China’s place and position as a major power in the international system, root out corruption from the Chinese system, consolidate the power of the ‘Chinese Communist Party’ (CCP) over all of China, and shut out any prospects of political and ideological liberalization and “reform.” 

To even entertain or ponder on the prospect of political and ideological liberalization or “reform” as the West would put it would amount to philosophical and political suicide for China. For China, political and ideological liberalization and “reform” would parallel the collapse of the former Soviet Union, given that Xi has attributed the collapse of the former Soviet Union to political and ideological liberalization and reform, with political and ideological liberalization and reform amounting to “historical nihilism.” Xi said:

“Why did the Soviet Union collapse? Why did the Soviet Union lose power? One important cause was various aspects of fierce struggle in the ideological sphere: the complete negation of the history of the Soviet Union, of Soviet Communist Party history, negating Lenin, negating Stalin, carrying out historical nihilism, causing ideological chaos, [ideology] becoming useless for many party organizations, and causing the military to not be under absolute Party leadership. In the end, and as a result, the Soviet Communist Party, a party of such great size, just dissolved; the Soviet Union, a great socialist country, just disintegrated.” 

For Xi, political and ideological liberalization and “reform” is the one and only guaranteed and sure path and way towards the demise of China, given the lessons that Xi has derived from the Soviet experience. Hence, and above all else, political and ideological liberalization and “reform” must be avoided in China. In fact, and in Xi’s view, the only way to ensure China’s rise as a major power in the international system is to avoid political and ideological liberalization and “reform.”

Hence, in order for Xi’s model of domestic governance to work, China must close itself politically and ideologically from the West. In turn, one should ask how this will all rub off on the United States, and how the closing of China both politically and ideologically from the West can be squared with harmonious relations with the United States. Coincidentally and paradoxically, Xi has sought to construct a domestic model of governance that has to somehow coincide with a foreign policy model that theoretically seeks out a new model of relations or “a new era of superpower relations” with the United States. As Xi stated approximately ten years ago:

“The building of a new model of major country relationship between China and the US is unprecedented, but it will be faithfully carried out by the two sides. China and the US should work together to push forward the new model of major-country relationship by increasing dialogues, promoting mutual trust, expanding cooperation and controlling disputes. Both the Chinese and American nations are great nations, and both peoples are great peoples. I believe that, with determination, confidence, patience and wisdom, the two sides will accomplish our goals as long as we keep the overall situation in mind while starting with the daily routine and making constant progress.” 

How China under Xi Jinping harmonizes and brings together its perceived and theoretical model of relations with the United States with its actual and real domestic model of governance remains to be seen.