The leftist forces have an important role and contribution in the Nepali progressive democratic movement. Although their political objectives and goals are not/were not this system and situation. Until a few years ago, especially the oppressed, excluded communities seemed more optimistic about leftist politics. In theory, it is established that the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist forces, i.e. the communists, are revolutionary, progressive, materialistic, free from orthodoxy and non-discrimination. Did the leftist forces fulfill these expectations of the poor, Dalit, and marginalized people? Is there any difference in practice between the leftists and non-leftists? 

Only by looking at the leftist forces in the context of these questions can we review them and give some suggestions for their revival. The biggest weakness of the leftists is their deadly tendency to never introspect and to shift the blame for failure to some invisible and unconfirmed force, which still persists. It is their shortsightedness to see the conspiracy of reactionaries, capitalist brokers, parliamentarians, expansionists, and foreign powers. This is the innate incompetence of the leftist forces.

Marxists claim that – ‘When the proletariat (poor workers) class stands on one side and the bourgeoisie on the other, ultimately class struggle becomes inevitable. As a result, revolution is inevitable and as a result of that revolution, the proletariat will destroy the capitalist structure and establish socialism. (In our case) that revolution will also destroy the caste system.’ Two facts of this argument need to be checked. 

Fact No. 1

Marx never said or wrote this (regarding the caste system). This is just the imaginary argument of Marxist rednecks. In particular, ‘More Marxist than Marx!’ i.e. more revolutionary Marxists than Marx! This famous statement is still applicable to Nepali leftists. 

Fact No. 2  

There was no revolution led by the proletariat in Russia and China. At that time, neither Russia nor China were industrial countries where the proletariat was dominant. In Russia, Tsar Nicholas (1894-1917) became a very autocratic ruler. In the war of 1904-05, Russia suffered a humiliating defeat against Japan. And, the Russian people blamed the Tsar for the defeat. According to the writer M.M. Roy, from a theoretical point of view, the Russian Revolution was not a revolution of the proletariat. ‘It was not a revolution, as Marx had said, that should have begun in a highly developed capitalist country. The Russian Revolution was a delayed bourgeois or at most a mixed revolution in that country.’ That is, in which some things were bourgeois and some were proletarian revolutions.

In both countries, power was seized with the help of the peasants and other classes. It should be noted that if there was a possibility of a proletariat anywhere, it was possible only in the highly developed industrial countries of the West. But even there, the proletariat did not exist, because there was no justification for workers to become proletarians in industrial countries. When they worked, earned income and lived a normal life. When someone earns a living, how can they become proletarians? This is the reason - neither the proletariat was born in any country that became prosperous through industrial means, nor has there been a proletarian revolution in those countries. 

After the revolution imagined by Marx, a terrible nightmare begins, namely the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. Although Marx allowed it for a short time, it never had a natural end in history. A group of special individuals concentrates all power in their hands in the name of the proletariat. They do not want to give up the power they have acquired under any conditions. Marx had said, ‘There will be dictatorship for a short time.’ After that, as soon as it ends, the state will gradually disintegrate, that is, statelessness. However, that short or short time that Marx mentioned did not end in Russia for 75 years and in China even after 77 years. How long is that short time that Marx mentioned? To end the dictatorship in Russia, the communist regime had to be ended. On the other hand, the dictatorial system is still continuing in China. History shows that communism did not come to both countries, but they converted to a capitalist system. 

The inevitability of a democratic revolution was pointed out in Nepal since the establishment of the Communist Party. The Maoists dared to do so in 2052 BS. Although other breakaway groups accuse the Maoist group led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal of being revisionist, a parliamentary party, and ending the Nepali leftist revolution. However, the reality is not like that. The party’s future path had become clear when it started peaceful electoral politics by making the first base, the 12-point agreement. So that it is not possible to bring about a democratic government by accepting the Constituent Assembly elections, it was not possible. Another fact – It is clear from the above-mentioned statement that how flawed and impossible the Marxist revolution is. Therefore, delaying in understanding the signal that the leftist narrative has reached a point where it needs to change will only prove to be foolish.

Former comrade Dr. Baburam Bhattarai and others have concluded that the justification of both capitalism and Marxist socialism has now ended. Capitalism has the evil trait of making the poor more and more destitute and the rich more and more prosperous. Therefore, a deep gap has emerged between the two classes. Crony capitalism is another huge challenge and problem. Similarly, Marxist socialism does not allow people to become rich, including other classical problems. For these and other reasons, the world is looking for a new alternative.

Social democracy is the new alternative now. This ideology accepts private property and a market economy. However, it emphasizes its social control and regulation. Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that advocates representative democracy, a welfare state, social justice, income redistribution and economic regulation within a capitalist framework. It seeks to protect against the flaws of capitalism through equality and social interventionism. The main characteristics of social democracy are as follows –