Nepal: Semi-Feudal or Capitalist?
Kisan Maharjan
The Question – and this a most pertinent question – on the minds of the Revolutionary Communists of Nepal is that of the conditions of Nepal: whether Nepal remains a semi-feudal society, with semi-feudal relations of production, or whether Nepal has been transformed into a capitalist society. Whether the bourgeois-democratic revolution has been completed or not. Whether the superstructure of society too has been transformed or whether the consciousness of the masses remains feudal or whether this has been sublated by a neoliberal consciousness that is found amongst the masses of the imperialist countries. The latter being just as essential in the analysis, since we understand consciousness to be a reflection of material reality, thus, a capitalist mindset would be indicative of a capitalist nature in society. This is the question that faces the revolutionaries of Nepal; it is necessary to have a correct stance on this issue.
It is necessary, first, to make clear what is meant exactly by the terms ‘capitalism’ and ‘semi-feudalism’. After all, no such evaluation about the relations of production or the nature of society generally, can be conducted, without making clear what is meant by these terms. Firstly, it must be understood what is meant by capitalism, though a detailed analysis of the precise mechanisms of capitalism would take a dissertation of over a thousand pages (such a thing already exists, Capital); what capitalism is can be understood with a degree of exactitude without requiring such a dissertation. Capitalism is a mode of production and appropriation with the following characteristics:
- Private ownership over the means of production by the bourgeoisie
- Generalized commodity production
- Wage labor as the primary labor process of society
Next, it is important to explain what semi-feudalism is, and how it differs from feudalism. To do this, it is necessary, first, to define feudalism. Feudalism is a mode of production and appropriation, just like capitalism, with the following characteristics:
- Land ownership and thereby wealth in concentrated in the hands of a landlord class
- Means of Production are owned by a landless peasant class who work and live on the land, but do not own it
- The surplus produced by the peasants are paid to the landlord as rents
Within a feudal society, the primary antagonism is that between the landlord class and peasant class, however, this is not the only antagonism. There also exist antagonisms between the landlord and nascent the bourgeoisie. The existence of this nascent bourgeoisie and a corresponding nascent class of wage laborers shows us how there exists the embryo of capitalist society within feudal society. Through successive processes of primitive accumulation and finally the hammer blow against feudalism – the bourgeois-democratic revolution – can this germ of capitalist society blossom and develop into mature capitalism. Semi-feudalism, thus, can be said to be the condition where the germ of capitalist society has undergone some development within feudal society; yet feudal conditions have not totally been swept away by the bourgeois-democratic revolution; where the landlord class still clings on to a great deal of power.
General Development Out of Feudalism in Nepal:
In Nepal, until the 50s of the previous century, the laboring masses of peasants were crushed under the heel of the Rana Autocracy. This form however did not suit feudalism, and there existed a contradiction between the various feudal lords, particularly between the House of Shah and the House of Rana. The Ranas, to strengthen their position, made various agreements with the British Imperialists allowing for the flow of British finance capital to Nepal, this led to the birth of semi-colonial conditions in Nepal; where, Nepal maintained nominal independence but was effectively a colony of the British Imperialists. One instance of this is Clause 6 of the Nepal-Britain Treaty of 1923, which stated “No Customs duty shall be levied at British Indian ports on goods imported on behalf of the Nepal Government for immediate transport to that country(…)”; this clause effectively allowed Britain to export British commodities and British finance capital to Nepal freely, and is one instance of the unequal treaties made by the feudal state. This is an early expression of the continued suppression of the Nepali National Bourgeoisie, as this treaty effectively allowed the British to outcompete Nepali enterprise and strengthen British monopoly finance capital.
Yet in the end, the British imperialists abandoned the Ranas and the contradictions between the landlords swiftly bubbled to the surface. These then finally erupted into a qualitative development in 1950. Where, one segment of the landlord class, represented by the House of Shah allied with the petite-bourgeoisie and haute bourgeoisie, represented by the Nepali Congress, along with the proletariat and peasants represented by the Nepali Communist Party; led a struggle against the more reactionary segment of the landlords led by the House of Rana. After the victory of this struggle, the landlord class had to make various concessions to the bourgeoisie, this led to a definite transformation of the conditions of Nepal from feudal to semi-feudal.
Some of these concessions, particularly political concessions made to the bourgeoisie, however, were chipped away by the landlord class. At this time, the landlords were the masters of this society, thus, Nepal was principally semi-feudal. The contradictions between the various aspects of society, but principally, the contradiction between the landlords and bourgeoisie, continued to deepen and intensify at this time. Many developments occurred during the subsequent decades. The condition of the Nepali Communist Movement became fractured and split. The two principal lines, the two banners carried by sections of the communist movement became: The banner of electoralism, parliamentarism and royalism upheld by those revisionists that would constitute the CPN (UML); the banner of revolution and smashing of the dictatorship of the compradors and landlords was upheld by those Marxists that would constitute the CPN (Maoist). The Revisionist Social Fascists then degenerated into the most stalwart defenders of the feudal system and the monarchy, the nucleus of this system.
In this period, the rising bourgeoisie, which could not unleash its productive potential under the dictatorship of the landlords, began to prepare by developing its strength and biding its time. In this time, the bourgeoisie were making preparations for their struggle with the feudal lords, they continued operating within the constricting semi-feudal relations imposed Panchayat system, which was the effective domination of the landlord classes, and their primacy. Nepal, at this time too, was both semi-feudal and semi-colonial, but the semi-feudal aspect was the principal oppression. However, the comprador/bureaucrat bourgeoisie did not find this condition acceptable, and this led to a deepening of the contradictions between the two ruling classes.
This contradiction erupted into the “People’s Movement” of 1990, which was a struggle of the compradors against the landlords. The compradors temporarily allied themselves with the petite bourgeoisie, peasants, and proletariat against the landlords; the landlord class gave further concessions to the comprador bourgeoisie, leading to a more egalitarian division of power amongst the pre-existing class dictatorship. At this time, the landlords were still the principal aspect of the class dictatorship of the landlord and comprador/bureaucrat classes. The antagonism between the proletariat, peasants, petite bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie on the one hand and the landlord, comprador/bureaucrat bourgeoisie on the other throughout this period sharply intensified. This intensification continued as the masses of people who trusted the comprador bourgeoisie to lead genuine change during the “People’s Movement” were promptly betrayed; as the ruling classes consolidated their own position and continued the wholesale exploitation of the oppressed classes. These developments and others led to a qualitative leap, a transformation made possible by the masses as the motive force of history, with their revolutionary wrath, being honed and strengthened by the revolutionary vanguard party. The revolution had begun.
The various successes and progressive developments made during the revolutionary period are far outside the scope of this piece. The main point, however, is that the New Democratic Revolution – the bourgeois-democratic and anti-imperialist revolution – was betrayed by the revisionists and renegades within the party. The New Democratic revolution was left incomplete, and the renegades fused the degenerated party with the comprador/bureaucrat bourgeois establishment. In this situation, can it be said that semi-feudalism was swept away? Can it be proclaimed, as some would wish to proclaim, that “The Revolution has eradicated semi-feudalism and established a democratic republic!” (the concept of “the democratic republic” being yet another revisionist daydream)? Absolutely not! The revolution was betrayed, stabbed in the back and the dreams of emancipation by the oppressed masses murdered by the revisionists and renegades, by those who have now developed Nepali Social Fascism to a new higher level (Prachanda Path). And without the revolution negating semi-feudalism, are we to believe that semi-feudalism eroded and died on its own? How can such a thing be when we understand struggle to be the basic motive force of history, without a violent eradication of semi-feudalism, without the bourgeois-democratic revolution, how can semi-feudalism simply vanish?! The reality is that semi-feudalism has not vanished, but rather its manifestation has simply transformed!
The fusion of the renegades with the comprador/bureaucrat bourgeoisie strengthened their position and caused a qualitative transformation in the nature of the Nepali State, previously, semi-feudalism had been the principal aspect, now, semi-colonialism became the principal aspect. With this weakening – though not eradication – of semi-feudalism, the landlord class took on a submissive role to the comprador/bureaucrat bourgeoisie. The hitherto open exploitation by the landlord class took on a covert character, and the comprador/bureaucrat bourgeoisie took over the primary reins of the state. This however does not mean that the contradiction between the comprador/bureaucrat bourgeoisie and the landlords has ended – far from it – the continual unity and struggle of these classes are what shapes Nepali society and the Nepali state. However, these classes are united in their exploitation of the oppressed classes, which is why it is necessary to smash their class dictatorship and establish a revolutionary state following the new democratic revolution.
Analysis of Present Conditions:
With that established, however, it is nevertheless necessary to see how the objective conditions of Nepal to this day remain semi-feudal and how this may not always remain the case. The first development that is gradually eroding the semi-feudal conditions of Nepal is continued primitive accumulation. This process of primitive accumulation, what Marx compared to “original sin” is the first process which leads to the birth of mature capitalism from its embryonic state in the womb of feudalism. This embryonic capitalism in the womb of feudalism, has in the dependent nations been assimilated with imperialist monopoly finance capital, which in truth hinders the development of a national capitalism. The germ of mature national capitalism which has assimilated with imperialist monopoly finance capital has, through the process of primitive accumulation, synthesized itself into a higher stage of development; yet it is still in its embryonic stage within the soil of feudalism yet to germinate. However, to some extent, this process of germination has already commenced.
For instance, during the process of primitive accumulation, it is known that due to the enclosure of land the hitherto landless yet not wholly desolate peasant class forcefully evicted from the lands where they had resided; is violently transformed into the industrial proletariat to meet the needs of the bourgeoisie. This mass proletarianization not merely meets the needs of the developing bourgeoisie of the urban centers, but also exceeds these demands, thus creating a reserve army of the proletariat. We are seeing precisely this process carry out in Nepal. Those that had hitherto lived as landless peasants or owners of small plots of land are being violently, due to various circumstances, forced out of their villages in droves. This process of proletarianization is proven by the mass urbanization experienced in Nepal, as people are being forced to migrate to cities in droves in search of jobs. Thus is created a new proletariat to meet the needs of this amalgam of monopoly finance capital and the germ of national capital. The peasants of Nepal are being transformed into an army of wage slaves to meet the needs of the comprador/bureaucrat bourgeoisie.
In spite of this, semi-feudal relations of production– between the peasants and landlords– remain prevalent. To this day, one and a half million households, are landless forced to live on the lands of landlords and work that land and pay rents to the landed aristocracy. To this day, the system of feudal oppression continues, though due to processes such as primitive accumulation, this feudal oppression is being sublated by a new, capitalist exploitation. This feudal oppression still continues, and millions continue to suffer under this system. The promise to redistribute land to the peasants have not been met by any of the so-called “Socialists” in power, for in truth their vacant words mean nothing. They, in the final analysis, represent the landlord class, and thus would not enact any policy or uphold any line that causes grievance to their landlord masters.
Thus, there is still a large class of peasants, and a class of landlords that oppresses these peasants. Hence, the primary antagonism of feudal society, the antagonism between the peasants and the landlord class, still exists and is still strong. This shows that the semi-feudal mode of production and appropriation still exists and still holds primacy in Nepali society.
Another important point of analysis is an analysis of the political and ideological superstructure. As materialists, we know that in the final analysis, the base shapes the superstructure; meaning that the structural and cultural hegemony of the ruling class would be reflected onto the superstructure on a micro and macro level. The individual is interpellated into a subject for and by ideology, to act as a reproducer of said ideology and participate in this ideology. It is through a sharp analysis of ideology, of the pure ideology that comprises the “common sense” looked on by society, that we can begin a dissection of the nature of the superstructure.
To begin, it is necessary to look at the basic Ideological State Apparatuses which comprise the non-repressive aspect of the superstructure, namely: the family, education, and the media. The family, has, in recent decades, been transformed from an institution where relations in the family built on love, affection, and mutual compassion have been replaced by money-relations. Through this process – which is really a reflection of the aforementioned primitive accumulation and the rising primacy of monopoly finance capital reflected onto the sphere of culture and ideology (the superstructure) – it can be seen that the growth of capitalism is slowly leading to the decay of semi-feudal familial relations. An analysis of education must be divided into two questions, ‘who is doing the educating?’ and ‘what is being educated?’. The answer to the first question is the haute bourgeoisie: schools, colleges, and universities have become the domain of the haute bourgeois class; they have transformed education into a business-model operated by certain syndicates. This educational syndicate is precisely the natural result of market meddling in education. The answer to the second question is that ideology is being taught through education, ideology which conditions people not to question the status quo to blindly accept dictates from above; primarily, this is capitalist ideology. Lastly, the media is owned by the haute bourgeoisie and funded through advertisement by them. The media uses “credible” and “respected” bourgeois sources to shape the Overton window, such that radical ideas are wholly discredited and ruling class stances are brought to the fore.
This may lead one to conclude that the superstructure is an apparatus through which the haute bourgeoisie exercise their hegemony and reproduce the ideology that justifies their hegemony, in turn reproducing capitalist relations of production. But this would be a hasty conclusion to draw! First, this bourgeois hegemony does not necessarily dispel the notion of Nepal being semi-feudal, since, this could be — and likely is — the result of the growing primacy of imperialist monopoly finance capital; this, by virtue of its nature has greater sway over the superstructure and is thus has a superior ability to reproduce itself. The imperialists and compradors have a greater ability to exert their hegemony through the superstructure by virtue of the resources they have at their disposal vis-à-vis the landlord class. So, this merely strengthens the assertion that Nepal is semi-colonial and does not dispel the assertion that it is semi-feudal! It is also undeniably true that internationally, due to their position as the primary superpower, the Yankee imperialists have been able to export their monopoly finance capital; this also invariably results in the export of Yankee idealist-liberal ideology and culture. This too is simply being manifested in Nepal.
Next, we understand the state to be the highest manifestation of the superstructure, and the state is the military-bureaucratic apparatus by which the ruling class enforces its class dictatorship. It is clear that this apparatus is still strongly in the pockets of the landlord class. In the military, many top generals and leader have served for the openly semi-feudal state led by the Shah Autocracy, and they continue to lead the military apparatus. Also, in the bureaucracy, many bureaucrats ranging from municipal secretaries to the top parties in parliament have a history of being in cahoots with the feudal autocracy. The parties, like the Nepali Congress and NCP (UML) have in the past acted as a shield deflecting the masses’ ire away from their oppression under the autocracy, and now they continue to do so covertly.
Lastly, in spite of the structural hegemony of the capitalists, the ideology, and consciousness of the people is still shaped by semi-feudalism. The demands for a return to monarchy, and a return to a more reactionary state of affairs, makes explicit the real semi-feudal conditions of society. After all, consciousness is shaped by material conditions, and semi-feudal consciousness suggests semi-feudal conditions.
Conclusion:
In the final analysis, it is clear to see that Nepal is semi-feudal, semi-colonial in nature; semi-colonialism being the principal aspect. The seeming capitalist manifestations in Nepal are caused by the flow of monopoly finance capital to Nepal, and its assimilation with embryonic national capital; imperialist monopoly capital, like a leech, drains the vitality of the embryonic national capital of Nepal, hindering the development of a national capitalism. Imperialist monopoly finance capital is also in-bed with the national oppressors, mainly the landlord class. The seeming growth of capitalism in Nepal is an aberration from the laws of sociohistorical development; this is because the seeming growth of capitalism is actually the growth of a foreign born tumor: monopoly finance capital. Nepal remains largely semi-feudal, however, due to processes set in motion by this imperialist monopoly capital, the semi-feudal order is every day nearing its demise.
This intensifying contradiction between national capitalism on the one hand; and, semi-feudalism and semi-colonialism on the other; shall, through successive developments, lead to the inevitable qualitative leap forward of New Democratic Revolution. Feudalism feels threatened, which is why it retreats into greater reaction and chauvinism, as highlighted by the rise of Durga Prasai. Feudalism’s natural retreat into reaction shows how quantitative developments toward its abolition are being made in ever greater strides. Revolution is inevitable.
No comments:
Post a Comment