By Nirmal P. Acharya
Nepal’s Marxist and socialist movements indeed experienced turbulent development during the second half of the 20th century, but were also marked by continuous splits and reorganizations. The causes behind this historical evolution are complex, primarily attributable to internal ideological divisions, external interference, and geopolitical rivalries.
At present, it seems that the socialist movement in Nepal has failed. However, our neighboring country China has achieved remarkable success in its socialist revolution and construction. The socialist system remains an option for Nepal’s future. Let’s compare the Western capitalist system and learn about the Chinese socialist system.
There exist fundamental differences between the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics and Western capitalist systems in their fundamental stance and value pursuits. The underlying logic can be thoroughly understood from the following perspectives:
1. Different Origins and Establishment of Their Fundamental Purposes
China: It originates from the Marxist historical view of the masses and is enshrined in the fundamental laws of the Party and the country.
“Serving the people” epitomizes the fundamental purpose of the Communist Party of China. This idea was first systematically put forward by Comrade Mao Zedong, written into the Party Constitution at the Seventh National Congress of the Communist Party of China, and later incorporated into the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China. Rooted in the basic viewpoint of historical materialism that “the people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history”, it dictates that all work of the Party and the country takes the interests of the people as its starting point and ultimate goal. Far more than a slogan, it constitutes the fundamental hallmark that distinguishes the Communist Party of China from all other political parties.
The West: It emerged from the bourgeois anti-feudal struggles and serves the logic of capital.
The slogans of “democracy and freedom” in the West arose from the Renaissance and Enlightenment Movements, in which the bourgeoisie fought against feudal theocracy and monarchy. Despite their historical progressive significance, their core values are built upon capitalist private ownership and its corresponding economic foundation. The fundamental objective behind their institutional design is to safeguard the bourgeoisie’s political rule and satisfy the need for capital appreciation. As revealed by Marxism, the executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.
2. Fundamental Differences in the Groups They Serve
China: Serving the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the people.
China’s system adheres to a people-centered approach, pursuing common prosperity for all people and well-rounded human development. The Party has no special interests of its own and never represents the interests of any interest group, power clique or privileged stratum. Whether in poverty alleviation, completing the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects, or responding to major public crises, the Party always puts people’s lives, safety and health, as well as people’s aspirations for a better life first. It ensures that the fruits of reform and development benefit all people in a more equitable way.
The West: Serving a small number of capital owners and interest groups.
Under the capitalist system, wealth is highly concentrated in the hands of a few, which determines that its democratic politics is essentially a game of “rule by the 1 percent, for the 1 percent and owned by the 1 percent”. Elections require enormous financial support and have degenerated into a “game for the wealthy”. Policies adopted by elected politicians mainly serve the interests of capitalists. The so-called “equality before the law” often bears little practical significance for ordinary workers amid stark inequalities in the actual possession of economic and political resources. Its democracy is essentially bourgeois democracy.
3. Sharp Contrasts in the Practical Logic and Outcomes of Institutional Operation
China: Whole-process people’s democracy that ensures the people are masters of the country.
China’s democracy is whole-process people’s democracy, which organically integrates Party leadership, the people running the country, and law-based governance. Through a full set of institutional arrangements including the system of people’s congresses, the system of multiparty cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the CPC, and the system of community-level self-governance, people are able to participate in state political life and social governance in a full-chain, all-dimensional and all-covering manner. This model can effectively coordinate the interests of all sides, avoid the predicaments of partisan strife, internal friction and inefficient decision-making seen in the West, pool resources to accomplish major tasks, and truly deliver the will of the people.
The West: Formal electoral democracy with dormant public participation.
Western democracy centers on electoral procedures and advocates separation of powers and multi-party competition. Ostensibly a mechanism for power checks and balances, this model is in essence a game played by different interest groups within the bourgeoisie. Citizens are mostly limited to casting votes; once elections conclude, democracy enters a dormant phase, leaving the public with little sustained influence over subsequent decision-making, administration and oversight. The consequences include social division, policy volatility and governance failures, making it impossible to fundamentally tackle deep-seated social problems such as wealth polarization and ethnic conflicts.
In conclusion, China’s system takes “serving the people” as its fundamental purpose. It is rooted in the people, relies on the people and exists for the people. By contrast, Western systems are essentially designed to serve capital. Beneath the facade of “democracy and freedom” lies the profound domination of politics and society by capital. The fundamental disparities between these two systems in purpose, the groups they serve and practical operation determine that they are bound to follow different development paths and yield vastly different historical outcomes.
To serve the people or to serve capital? This is an issue that Nepalese politics cannot avoid. The struggle will continue around this topic, and history will unfold under the impetus of this topic.
Login to add a comment