How to Arrange Our Brave New World?
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2025 1:59 am
So, we have a big, big society. Everyone in this society holds many, many views, and some of these views operate entirely within ideologies. There is no color or form that has not sparkled on a banner.
The task of any self-respecting person of the 18th–20th-century model of consciousness is to leave behind a book—not just one that changes the mind of an intellectual, but one that leaves behind an ideology. Every Plato writes his Republic, and every one of them denies the others, because, of course, he writes it in the most correct way—be it the most scientific, the most moral, or even the most transcendent, sitting on morphine.
As a result, there is a massive spawn of states that, naturally, declare war on one another. And within these states, different groups of people, who happened to read one book before the others, declare civil wars against each other. Now, wars are fought not just for resources or faith but for an idea. And isn’t that wonderful? Happiness is to wrap yourself in a beautiful flag, put on a stylish greatcoat, and become a romantic hero.
But surely, there must be some kind of correct ideology? Well, alright—maybe not a correct one, but what, is there no absolute truth? And how are we supposed to live without ideology? Well, that’s impossible. We need to unite somehow, and to unite, we need something to gather around...
Yes, I agree—people can’t just suddenly unite and live in a perfect world of perpetual noon. And I’m not even saying that ideologies are unnecessary—rather, the problem needs to be framed differently. But perhaps we can strive for this, not by leaving behind revolution after revolution in different variations, but by completely abandoning the idea that society must evolve through the overthrow of old truths or the imposition of our own truths on another state.
Instead, here’s what we should do: accept the world in all its dialectical nature. There is a great society, groups, and many individuals, each with their own world, their own vision of how to "...arrange" things. And each one gives birth to an antithesis to another’s thesis. And when this reaches a more complex level of organization, it leads to conflict, and only over time do we arrive at a synthesis of ideas and a new thesis. Then this thesis also becomes obsolete—but well, Hegel can explain that part better.
Rather than ascribing to poor Hegel the properties of some pseudo-scientific dialectical materialism, or instead of simply accepting the normality of wars and revolutions, we should take a different path and recognize their horror. After all, what could be more terrible than a murder committed in the name of an idea? What could be worse than violence? As children, we used to wonder: why do we even need wars?
And now, we try to justify war with anything and at any cost. Because what? That’s right:
"The end justifies the means—come on,
Kill, rape, slander, betray,
For the bright, bright, bright, bright future."
— Egor Letov
So, we have thesis-antithesis-synthesis. And yet, it seems to me that the solution to all our misfortunes lies in eliminating violence and war in those little gaps—the ones I have so gently marked as "-" between the words.
That’s all. Of course, we live in an era where ideologies have immense inertia. We have not yet fully emerged from the age of modernity, nor have we fully undergone its deconstruction through postmodernism, but we can already begin to build our new hope. This does not mean that if you are attacked and are forced to be a nation, you should lay down your arms and be a pacifist while a great empire tries to swallow you.
It simply means that after war, we must strive to prevent future wars. And how do we do that?
Well, let’s start with the deconstruction of ideologies. During war, the most important thing is to dismantle the enemy’s ideology. But at the same time, we must not fall into a total ideology ourselves. And most importantly, we must not think that by destroying a state and its ideology from a position of power, we will suddenly change the world. The ideas outlined above must enter society not through revolution, authority, or forced restructuring, but rather through evolution, art, freedom—through the softest ideologies (yet ones capable of defense).
I think something like "libertarianism, minarchism, liberalism (as long as it does not slide into fascism—neither to the left nor to the right) might help" (I phrase it this way because it’s hard to predict historical processes with certainty). We must change each person from within, transform their inner world, give them the most diverse and most contradictory knowledge, and teach them how to think.
And there is hope. In the 17th century, we realized that women have an inner world (what a shock, right?). In the 18th century, that peasants do. In the 19th, that children do. We abolished slavery and serfdom, emancipated women, and conquered many diseases. The list is long—only it doesn’t have to grow through suffering.
And I do not claim that beauty, morality, and knowledge will necessarily and immediately change the world. It’s just that art, education, and the ability to think are the best things we have—if they are to be opposed to violence.
And yes, the problem with these ideas is that they are not as contagious, not as concrete, not as militant, and not as direct. It is harder to form an aesthetic and rhetoric around them. It will be more difficult to come up with a flag onto which they can be pinned. And someone inattentive will say that this is just "We are for all things good and against all things bad," without seeing anything beyond that.
And that is precisely why art and freedom are so important.
---
Translated from Ukrainian by Nikita Shadura
The task of any self-respecting person of the 18th–20th-century model of consciousness is to leave behind a book—not just one that changes the mind of an intellectual, but one that leaves behind an ideology. Every Plato writes his Republic, and every one of them denies the others, because, of course, he writes it in the most correct way—be it the most scientific, the most moral, or even the most transcendent, sitting on morphine.
As a result, there is a massive spawn of states that, naturally, declare war on one another. And within these states, different groups of people, who happened to read one book before the others, declare civil wars against each other. Now, wars are fought not just for resources or faith but for an idea. And isn’t that wonderful? Happiness is to wrap yourself in a beautiful flag, put on a stylish greatcoat, and become a romantic hero.
But surely, there must be some kind of correct ideology? Well, alright—maybe not a correct one, but what, is there no absolute truth? And how are we supposed to live without ideology? Well, that’s impossible. We need to unite somehow, and to unite, we need something to gather around...
Yes, I agree—people can’t just suddenly unite and live in a perfect world of perpetual noon. And I’m not even saying that ideologies are unnecessary—rather, the problem needs to be framed differently. But perhaps we can strive for this, not by leaving behind revolution after revolution in different variations, but by completely abandoning the idea that society must evolve through the overthrow of old truths or the imposition of our own truths on another state.
Instead, here’s what we should do: accept the world in all its dialectical nature. There is a great society, groups, and many individuals, each with their own world, their own vision of how to "...arrange" things. And each one gives birth to an antithesis to another’s thesis. And when this reaches a more complex level of organization, it leads to conflict, and only over time do we arrive at a synthesis of ideas and a new thesis. Then this thesis also becomes obsolete—but well, Hegel can explain that part better.
Rather than ascribing to poor Hegel the properties of some pseudo-scientific dialectical materialism, or instead of simply accepting the normality of wars and revolutions, we should take a different path and recognize their horror. After all, what could be more terrible than a murder committed in the name of an idea? What could be worse than violence? As children, we used to wonder: why do we even need wars?
And now, we try to justify war with anything and at any cost. Because what? That’s right:
"The end justifies the means—come on,
Kill, rape, slander, betray,
For the bright, bright, bright, bright future."
— Egor Letov
So, we have thesis-antithesis-synthesis. And yet, it seems to me that the solution to all our misfortunes lies in eliminating violence and war in those little gaps—the ones I have so gently marked as "-" between the words.
That’s all. Of course, we live in an era where ideologies have immense inertia. We have not yet fully emerged from the age of modernity, nor have we fully undergone its deconstruction through postmodernism, but we can already begin to build our new hope. This does not mean that if you are attacked and are forced to be a nation, you should lay down your arms and be a pacifist while a great empire tries to swallow you.
It simply means that after war, we must strive to prevent future wars. And how do we do that?
Well, let’s start with the deconstruction of ideologies. During war, the most important thing is to dismantle the enemy’s ideology. But at the same time, we must not fall into a total ideology ourselves. And most importantly, we must not think that by destroying a state and its ideology from a position of power, we will suddenly change the world. The ideas outlined above must enter society not through revolution, authority, or forced restructuring, but rather through evolution, art, freedom—through the softest ideologies (yet ones capable of defense).
I think something like "libertarianism, minarchism, liberalism (as long as it does not slide into fascism—neither to the left nor to the right) might help" (I phrase it this way because it’s hard to predict historical processes with certainty). We must change each person from within, transform their inner world, give them the most diverse and most contradictory knowledge, and teach them how to think.
And there is hope. In the 17th century, we realized that women have an inner world (what a shock, right?). In the 18th century, that peasants do. In the 19th, that children do. We abolished slavery and serfdom, emancipated women, and conquered many diseases. The list is long—only it doesn’t have to grow through suffering.
And I do not claim that beauty, morality, and knowledge will necessarily and immediately change the world. It’s just that art, education, and the ability to think are the best things we have—if they are to be opposed to violence.
And yes, the problem with these ideas is that they are not as contagious, not as concrete, not as militant, and not as direct. It is harder to form an aesthetic and rhetoric around them. It will be more difficult to come up with a flag onto which they can be pinned. And someone inattentive will say that this is just "We are for all things good and against all things bad," without seeing anything beyond that.
And that is precisely why art and freedom are so important.
---
Translated from Ukrainian by Nikita Shadura