Xi’s Rakhmetov: Revolutionary Symbolism for a Non-Revolutionary Agenda
Framing China through rigid ideological binaries distorts its global role and strategic intent. Xi’s invocation of Rakhmetov in Kazan exemplifies how Western narratives sometimes mistake China’s rhetoric for action. While ideology influences Beijing’s discourse, its international actions are primarily shaped by economic, geopolitical, and domestic realities. Misreading these dynamics risks fostering confrontation over engagement.
Last October, in a speech to BRICS leaders in Kazan, Russia, President Xi Jinping referenced What Is to Be Done?, a 19th-century novel by Russian socialist Nikolai Chernyshevsky. By invoking Rakhmetov, a character emblematic of revolutionary idealism, Xi triggered alarm in Western capitals. Some commentators went so far as to claim that his reference amounted to "a call for global resistance to the American-led world order" and an effort to "rally the developing world for an intensified struggle against American power."
Such interpretations are overly reductive, fixating on concerns about Beijing’s strategic intent while ignoring the broader context of Xi’s message. Rather than signalling a call for world revolution, it was a call for BRICS nations to remain united and resilient in the face of global instability and mounting challenges. Xi, after all, was invoking Rakhmetov as a paragon of perseverance and stoicism, rather than embracing the character’s revolutionary politics. While China’s rise—and the broader emergence of the developing world—undoubtedly challenges Western dominance in global affairs, this is different from an ideological call to arms.
This incident reflects a broader issue: framing China as an ideological caricature oversimplifies its global role and often contradictory international behaviour. More generally, narratives that force international actors and dynamics into binary categories, like "democracy versus authoritarianism" or "friends versus foes," tend to reinforce confrontational and moralistic mindsets, fostering conflict instead of cooperation.
To be sure, ideology remains an important factor in Beijing’s international behaviour. Both China and the United States use ideological narratives to shape their global image. For China, ideological framing serves a dual approach: it portrays Beijing as a stabilising force that promotes development partnerships and defends multilateralism, while also advocating for reforms to the existing world order. This helps China present itself as an alternative to US-led western domination, appealing to developing nations by invoking shared struggles against imperialism and inequality.
Domestically, Xi’s tightening of ideological reins reinforces this narrative by linking China’s international success to the supposed superiority of its political system, as well as its revolutionary and cultural heritage. This tightening, however, has eroded intellectual freedom and diversity in China.
Still, while ideology is part of China’s story, it neither singularly nor predominantly drives Beijing’s international actions. Instead, these actions are driven by a combination of domestic pressures, economic imperatives, geopolitical concerns, and ideological considerations.
Xi’s invocation of Rakhmetov underscores the tension between Beijing's ideological rhetoric and the international realities that it confronts.
The use of revolutionary symbolism to further a non-revolutionary agenda is particularly striking. These contradictions are especially apparent in China’s relations with BRICS nations, where economic and strategic self-interest bind the grouping together. China’s leadership within BRICS is anchored in its economic and diplomatic power, not in ideological alignment, revolutionary credentials, or even shared history—despite Beijing’s claims to the contrary.
China’s revolutionary rhetoric, often unintelligible or anachronistic to much of the world, remains a core element of Beijing's discourse. While such rhetoric and symbols may resonate with some sectors of the Communist Party elite—they risk alarming Western nations and perplexing even China’s close international partners.
By dispelling myths and misconceptions—including through examining the tension between Beijing’s rhetoric and actions—we can develop a more nuanced understanding of China as a global actor, one that captures its full complexity. Such understanding lays the foundation for reducing geopolitical tensions and fostering the international cooperation urgently needed today.