After the election results of 21 Falgun, a debate has started in Nepal - has the situation of the Communist Party of Nepal become like that of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in West Bengal? Is the Communist Party about to end in Nepal too? The CPI (Marxist) ruled West Bengal for 34 years (1977-2011). Despite being defeated by Mamata Banerjee's Trinamool Congress (TMC) in the 2011 elections, it became an opposition party by winning 40 seats. But in the 2016 elections, it won 26 seats in an alliance with the Indian National Congress. Although it was weak until now, it still existed. But in the 2021 elections, it could not win a single seat. It ended in the parliamentary field. Currently, the CPI (Marxist) does not have a single seat in the 294-member assembly. However, it is still running the government in Kerala. It is also present in the Tripura assembly. Against this backdrop, the question has arisen, are the communist parties of Nepal - CPN-UML, Nepali Communist Party and other communist parties - also ending? Have they gone to the West Bengal model?

The easy answer to this is – the Communists of Nepal are not finished, and they are not finished now. In this election too, if the UML won 25 seats directly and proportionally, the NCP won 17. Adding both, it will be 42 seats, and the popular vote will be about 21 percent. For this Communist Party to end up in the West Bengal model, we will have to wait for two more periodic elections. But this is a depiction of a bad situation. The Communist Party may return to its previous state or be reestablished stronger. Therefore, no one has an objective answer to this question, everyone has a subjective answer. In this article too, there has been little debate on what the situation of the Communist Party is. Rather, there has been an attempt to debate more on how relevant the name Communist is. Is there really a Communist Party? If not, why not call it the Left? Of course, now if we want to make the Communist force relevant in Nepal, why not move forward by reevaluating the name itself.

First, let's start the debate with the Communist Party. Until today, we have understood communists as those parties that consider Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, and Maoism as their ideologies. Their founders are Karl Heinrich Marx, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov Lenin, and Mao Zedong, whom the communists of Nepal also consider. The goal of communism is to end private ownership of property and create a classless society. At the time when Karl Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto in London in 1848, the first industrial revolution in Europe (1760-1840) had brought great inequality there. To end it, the working class created a revolutionary ideological identity, which became communist. At that time, there were only two classes in society, the bourgeoisie and the working class, that is, the owners and the working class. To end the situation where the owners were always rich but the workers were getting poorer, it was thought that the dictatorship of the proletariat would be established, and by doing so, that class would also be uplifted and society would become classless. This is an ideology in which land, industry, and factories in society are collectively owned by the state or society, not individually.  

But the society of Marx 234 years ago does not exist today, and the class of that time does not exist in society. There is a working class, but there is no proletariat. That is, the proletariat has also risen. When society itself changed, that ideology also sought creative use. And, the name also sought modification. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to call it the Communist Party, it is better than a leftist party. Secondly, the dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer possible. In practice, neither the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is possible, nor that of the proletariat. In fact, today is not the time for anyone to be a dictator. Yes, the 'deep state' and technology billionaires have a great influence on world power, this has changed. Therefore, we must get rid of the noise of classical communism. In fact, from Marx to Mao, there was a change. Just as Marx gave the idea, Lenin implemented it in the revolution, and Mao adapted it to a different context.   

Just as this communist ideology created by Marx practiced in a way that suited the country, the communist parties of Nepal have also used it domestically. They seem to have freed themselves from classical communist thinking, but their complete fascination with the communist name remains. Their argument here is that the ranks in the party are large because of the communist name, after all, in practice we are leftists. So, there have been attempts to disrupt it, but they failed. For example, despite being the second leader after Prachanda, Baburam Bhattarai left the Maoists in Asoj 2072 and formed the 'New Power, Nepal' party in Jestha 2073, calling it an alternative party. But he completely failed in that new practice. Today, he is counted among the leaders who want the most parties. At that time, he claimed that he had formed a party for development-oriented politics, saying that it was not from the old ideology. Even during this election, Maoists including Janardan Sharma have tried to create a new experiment by forming a 'Progressive Democratic Party', but this time they too were not successful. The sign of success and failure is not only in the name, but also in the leadership and organization.

Second, the issue of the economy. Policies such as state control over the means of production, industry and land, and nationalization of industry are no longer valid. State control and regulation over the basic facilities that a citizen receives is necessary, but they may not be owned by the state. For example, in the People's Republic of China ruled by the Chinese Communist Party, land is not owned by individuals, in cities and urban areas it is owned by the state, in rural communities by the community, although there is a right to use land, and the right to private property is still there. Today's world does not end with the capitalism that communists say, but rather, communists will use that same capitalism to chart the journey to socialism. This is what the communists of Nepal have done. Therefore, the communists of Nepal are not really communists, they are leftists. The leftist party advocates for reducing inequality and establishing social justice within capitalism. The classes within the communist ideology have changed and now become classes within the leftist strata. They are not the workers and peasants, but the urban middle class, youth, and minorities.

Third, the current world is not fundamentally a world of ideology or ideology. When it is not a world of ideas and arguments, then no one is a supporter of a radical ideology. Therefore, no one wants to be a prisoner of a rigid liberal ideology. Everyone seeks flexibility in ideas, and even more so, creative flexibility according to the times. Rigidity does not last. Both extreme revolutionism and dictatorship do not work in the world. Francis Fukuyama said that liberal democracy is the last system, but today there has been a change in that too. Today's world is not even divided into camps like pure communism or pure capitalism, countries have become practical. For example, China, India, and America. Rather, those ideas and arguments have transformed and manifested themselves in new forms. They are seen as populism, nationalism, opportunism. Today's global politics is adopting this character and moving towards control over resources, access to technology and data. It is challenging for progressive forces to move forward in their political journey without being part of this trend.      

So, why keep the name communist in Nepal now? 

Now the CPN-UML does not need to keep Marxism and Leninism as a separate term. UML is a leftist party in terms of practice. Madan Bhandari has democratized the communist party through the people's multi-party democracy (Jabaj), in that sense, UML is still a leftist party in practice, not a communist party. Therefore, UML should now move forward by naming Nepal Multi-Party People's Party or Multi-Party People's Party, Nepal. In short, Nepal is better than the Jabaj party. Now there is no need to keep Karl Marx and Lenin in the name and on the wall. After Karl Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto, the party or idea called communist gained importance all over the world. It evolved from the basic foundation of community ownership and transformed into communist ideology.

But the history of the word leftist is completely different. During the French Revolution, on September 11, 1789, the leftist and rightist were classified based on the seating arrangement of the National Assembly there. At that time, the royalists and conservatives sat on the right side of the assembly, while the progressives and anti-monarchists sat on the left. That is how the division between leftists and rightists began. Communism is an ideology, but leftism is not an ideology. Rather, it is a broad thinking. Social justice, redistribution, equality, and state control of certain status are included within leftism. That is why it is said that all communists are leftists, but not all leftists are communists. For example, within the leftist model, there are social democracy, democratic socialism, and progressive liberalism, which do not reject capitalism. They try to reform it and bring equality through regulation. Not all leftists are communists, because there are different streams within the leftist movement.

Another, communism did not come first, leftism came first. In a way, Marx and Engels developed this leftist movement into a revolutionary ideology. Therefore, the characteristics of the left are present in all communists, but the characteristics of the communists are not present in all leftists. For example, Sweden and Norway are social democratic leftists, not communists. These countries have practiced the model of social welfare using capitalism and have eliminated inequality. China, Vietnam, Cuba, and Laos are communists, but their economic model is mixed. They have set a goal to reach socialism by using capitalism as a weapon.

In the case of Nepal, the Nepali Congress is a center-left party, while the RPP is a right-wing party. Nepal's UML and Maoists are not communist parties but leftist parties, because the constitution that leads from capitalism to socialism was written with their help. In the case of Nepal, those who call themselves communists have already transformed into leftist forces. This transformation is not accidental but has arisen from historical, ideological and practical necessity. But they have not stopped calling themselves communists. The constitution itself defines Nepal as a socialist-oriented nation, it recognizes private property rights, accepts multi-party democracy and adopts a mixed economy. In that sense, our communists are leftist democratic communists. If a name change is necessary for some reason, the global environment is no longer favorable for the communist party. Communist forces are under attack from the West. They do not believe that they are leftists. Although communist parties are emerging in Europe through elections, even in their small capacity, it seems to be manifested there on the basis of votes against the regime. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, strict communism weakened, and socialism with Chinese characteristics gained influence.

Now let's return to the same debate.

Once there is a fundamental change in essence, it should be addressed in form. For example, the economic, social, and foreign relations policies adopted by the UML are correct, they have been democratized. In practice, they must have gone astray somewhere. In that sense, to bring the party back to its former status, the developed character of global and domestic society, a technologically built propaganda mechanism, and innovation are necessary. Losing one election does not end the party, and neither is a single person responsible for the party's loss. The party must understand the demands of the time.