• Mahesh Kumar Maskey

Abstract

In the first quarter of 21st century, the communist movement in Nepal had succeeded in establishing itself as a powerful political force by securing a strong mass base through people’s movements and armed struggles. Such success had led to overthrowing of the Monarchy the establishment of Federal democratic Republic. It had also gained a near two-third electoral majority in the parliament, however, the Left at present is in a difficult cross-road. Once united party is fragmented into several competing rival parties and the popularity of the Left has declined dramatically in past few years. Not being able to find a common path of struggle against a hybrid dependent capitalism of Nepal that keeps on sustaining and refueling the feudal and neocolonial relations the communist parties appears to be at risk of being coopted by the status quo. If Nepali Left movement does not strive to correct its course at the earliest, then an irreversible political catastrophe and social dislocation can be predicted with high degree of certainty. Amidst this crisis, the dialectics of history is providing the Left an opportunity to turn present crisis into a revolutionary transformation. As the question “what is to be done, now and hereafter?” has gained preeminence in Left circle, Lenin resurfaces in the consciousness of Nepal’s Left, especially the younger generation. Though situations are different, the core concern is the same as that of the eginning of the 20^th century Russia when Lenin came out with his famous pamphlet “What is to be Done?”. Lenin’s immortal contribution to the working people’s movement for revolutionary change is his exhortation for a dynamic praxis–“the concrete analysis of concrete situation” or the dialectics of theory and practice. Revisiting Lenin, the Left in Nepal has to embed itself in the interest of the working masses and be their voice, charting out a common programmatic ground for a united movement and a united party. Such unity is the prerequisite for the reconstitution of a vanguard party of the proletarian class and of oppressed masses for carrying out the revolutionary transformation.

1. Introduction

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin lives on in Nepal amidst, and despite, all the ups and downs over the past seventy-five years of Nepali communist movement. Th e communist party of Nepal was established on the 79th birth anniversary of Lenin (April 22, 1949). It was a fitting tribute to the man, who, to quote Prabhat Patnaik: “made Marxism, till then confined to Europe, a revolutionary doctrine of relevance to the entire world no matter how limited the degree of its capitalist development had been” (Patnaik, 2017). Nepal is one such ‘limited’ country who dared to dream about socialism. Even though fragmented in many splinter parties and deviated from their commitment to the people in palpable ways, the communist parties of Nepal do vow their allegiance to Lenin’s thought, and the Left base is remarkably strong in Nepal retaining tremendous revolutionary potential. A few years back when major Nepali communist parties united, they set a record of winning almost 2/3rd seats (63.3%) in the parliament, which arguably is quite an unusual event in the world communist movement.

The Marxism of Nepali communists is Marxism-Leninism, and even its further advancement – Mao Zedong Th ought. Use of such phrase is a simple declaration that Marxism cannot be understood, nor be applied creatively, without putting on the lens of Lenin’s analysis, adaptation and creative development, whether of his time or in the contemporary times. However, there are two qualifiers to this statement: First is whether and how far Nepal’s ‘vanguard’ parties [(I put it in inverted coma)] have been able to internalize Lenin’s core teachings, and use it to resolve the vicious socio-economic-cultural contradictions in favor of working masses. It appears that Nepal’s major communist parties who got the opportunity to wield state power from the beginning of 21st century, continued to provide lip service to Lenin but adopted strategy and tactics of compromising, and coopting, with the interest of internal ruling class and external imperialist powers, inviting massive corruption and degeneration of the first order. Second, there has been some attempts within the ranks of Left politicians and intellectuals to dissociate Lenin from Marx, for example Chaitanya Mishra of Nepal ridiculing Lenin of harboring a “leapfrog” tendency (Mishra, 2017), that is, rushing for socialist transition before capitalism has fully matured.

We are well aware that there had been, and there still is, a determined effort to discredit Lenin. Various apologists of capitalism, reactionaries of all hues and even academia, have joined forces to create an imagery of Lenin that is dictatorial, conspiratorial and adventurist–pitting him against, of all people, Karl Marx himself. Behind their acerbic comments and herculean efforts to demolish Lenin, there seems to run a deep-seated fear that Lenin may be rediscovered not only by the struggling masses of the peripheral countries, but agitating workers in core countries who now suffer more from poverty and misery because of successive global meltdowns. Th e very fact that Lenin is fiercely criticized by the Empire he was bent on to overthrow, makes it clear that his specter still continues to hunt it. On the other hand, relatively recent and extensively researched books on Lenin such as “Lenin and Revolutionary Party” by Paul Leblanc and “Rediscovering Lenin: What is to be done” and also “Lenin” by Lars T. Lih, present a Lenin who is revolutionary democrat to the core, challenging the imagery created by mainstream media and scholars.

History is also witness of the fact that no humans can ever boast of not making mistakes, or of infallibility. No one is perfect or all-knowable. Lenin had made mistakes, but he was oft en the first one to acknowledge them. Th ere have been valid criticism of Lenin’s position and mistakes. We should remember here Rosa Luxemburg’s admonition about his concept of proletarian dictatorship and proletarian democracy, which have helped to shape, develop and evolve creative Marxism (Luxemburg,1918). As was Lenin’s views on Marx, we need to take Lenin’s thoughts and works only as guide to action to understand and transform our reality. But it should also be acknowledged that Lenin was not only a practical implementer of Marxism in Russian context but a major theorist second only to Marx, who can claim to have provided Marxism itself a methodological tool for its application in human societies in different stages of development and different settings from that of Europe.

This is more so because of the realization of how the law of uneven and combined development operates in human society, history and geography in the global canvass including Nepal’s particular situation. This law was another of Lenin’s major contributions, which explained why the socialist revolution did not occur in advanced capitalist countries, why less developed country like Russia and others have better chance for moving forward to socialism, why peasants can be a decisive force for revolution in agrarian countries. Lenin’s immortal contribution to the working people’s movement for revolutionary change was his exhortation for a dynamic praxis–“the concrete analysis of concrete situation” or the dialectics of theory and practice. For him it was “a culmination of genuine theory, its consummation, where it breaks into practice”. He himself was an exemplar of this praxis, and this is where Lenin’s brilliance shines as a beacon of light illuminating the path of revolution and transformation.

2. Lenin’s relevance

In a span of hundred years from Lenin’s death to the present, Lenin’s major formulations have been found to be largely correct regarding the development and crisis of capitalism and transition to socialism, both in the context of the core western countries and peripheral underdeveloped countries. Worker peasant alliance under the leadership of Proletariat, understanding imperialism as monopoly-finance capitalism, socialist orientation of national revolutionary movements, and rescuing Marxism from “stage theory”, are still the bedrock upon which communist movement stands and hopes for uprooting, overcoming and transforming both backward and advanced forms of capitalism. The fundamental characteristics and contradictions of Imperialism, as identified by Lenin, holds true in 21st century, even in their evolved forms. Let me recall Lenin’s words to make it clear:

“Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and fi nance capital is established…(1) Th e concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “fi nance capital,” of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.” (Lenin, 1917).

In developing the thesis of Imperialism, the contribution of Hobson, Parvus and Hilferding should be acknowledged, however the vast corpus of readings Lenin had done to write his treatise “Imperialism the highest stage of monopoly capitalism” is simply incredible. Scholarly analysis regarding the evolution of Imperialism into Neo-imperialism (Cheng, 2021) or Hyper-imperialism (TISR, 2023), are founded on Lenin’s premise that Imperialism is Monopoly-Finance Capitalism. Like a vampire, this hybrid moribund capitalism has to continually suck on the natural resources and labor of economically poor countries for its own survival and growth, by massive capital exportation and Industrial relocation. Another off shoot from the same root is the thesis on “Neocolonialism”

by Kwame Nkruma, who defined it as “highest stage of Imperialism”. These historical advances in the character of Imperialisms have intensified class struggles within and across the countries. Such enormity of global exploitation multiplies because of competition for territorial hegemony among and between imperialist core countries, intensifying conflicts and boosting military-industrial complex. Giant multinational companies, richer than the GDI of some countries, rise and fall, widening the gap between the rich and poor unceasingly. The brutal exploitation of nature by capitalism’s insatiable drive for profit has put it into insurmountable contradictions, threatening the very existence of earth and life. There is an increasing realization that capitalism’s hunger for profit is the reason for massive destruction of natural resources, biodiversity and global warming causing climatic and ecological crisis.

Only socialism with ecological consciousness and eco-civilization offers human race a way out of the impasse of our Capitalist-Anthropocene age. For this reason alone, it would be imprudent to wait for maturing of capitalism in economically underdeveloped countries like Nepal. A variant of “new left” in Nepal criticize. Lenin and the ‘Leninists’ for not having patience to let capitalism grow and then exhaust its potential, even though they acknowledge that it is causing momentous damage to human society and nature and is unleashing big and small wars uninterruptedly. Lenin saw the fallacy of such thinking which is succinctly put by Patnaik in his rebuttal to stage theorists:

“Socialism was not just a matter concerning advanced capitalist countries; it could also be inscribed on the revolutionary agenda of underdeveloped capitalist countries, which amounted to a total rejection of any attempt to reduce Marxism to a “stage theory” where different modes of production had to succeed one another in a pre-determined manner as a matter of historical inevitability. True, the journey of the advanced capitalist countries to socialism could be a direct one, while that of the underdeveloped capitalist countries had to be a prolonged historical transition passing through different phases; but socialism could be the ultimate goal of all revolutionary struggles everywhere.” (Patnaik, Ibid).

3. Nepal’s transition to a hybrid dependent peripheral capitalism

In the dawn of 21st century, Nepal became Federal Democratic Republic through a combined force of revolutionary and reformist Left as well as bourgeoisie democrats. The international powers also aligned and realigned, preventing a radical rupture in class supremacy, but were not successful to block the advance of fundamental political change. This alignment of different and opposing forces against the monarchist forces was a rare phenomenon that could only be explained by the law of uneven and combined development. Let us recall how Lenin describes 1917 February Revolution, in his “Letter from Afar”:

“What had happened? A section of Russian nobility and landowners, the oppositional bourgeoisie, the radicle intellectuals, the insurgent workers, peasants and soldiers, along with the Allied imperialists—these “absolutely dissimilar” social forces—had momentarily arrayed themselves against the tsarists autocracy, each for its own reasons…This extraordinary conjuncture of circumstances and unrepeatable combination of forces had grown up out of the whole previous unevenness of Russian historical development with all its long postponed and unsolved social and political problems exacerbated by the first imperialist war”.

This “momentary array” in Nepal’s context did not last long. There was a long drawnout delay in promulgating the new republican constitution. Even though constitution expressed its commitment to socialism, the Left could not consolidate the gains by boldly executing people-oriented socio economic programs, nor lay grounds for socialist orientation by consolidating cooperatives and collective productive forces. The Left, as mentioned above, got overwhelming majority in general election of 2017, because of its record of past pro-people struggle and revolutionary agenda. But that public opinion dissipated soon in want of determined and carefully thought out pro-socialist programs for transforming dependent peripheral capitalism, and also because of its appeasement policy towards the ruling class within, and the interest of major powers outside the country.

Near the end of first quarter of 21st century, the revolutionary tide in Nepal appears to be in the lowest ebb, the communist movement thrown in disarray, and a reactionary wave of Hindutwa and pro-Monarchy backlash is in the offing. However, as if a dialectical reaction to present situation, Lenin’s ideas are regaining relevance with a new and deeper understanding, Th e question “what is to be done?” is being asked within the ranks of major communist parties as well as varied left formations here. Serious reevaluation of Nepal’s left movement in the context of political history are being undertaken to understand the present and chart course for the future. I will attempt here a very brief survey of relevant historical developments leading to present socio-political formation which I describe as hybrid dependent peripheral capitalism. Hybrid because Nepal’s dependent capitalism is laden with the unresolved fetters of feudal past, more, it keeps on reproducing the new forms of feudal relations on top of existing vestiges.

4. British-Indian hegemony and Nepal’s dependency

With hindsight we can see that exploitation of Nepal by the policies of British India after Sugauli Treaty of 1816 appears to have set in motion the characteristics of Nepali society as “semi-feudal semi-colonial”, which continued even after India became free. The Hindu high caste ruled feudal society of Nepal was undergoing transition because of development of peripheral capitalism under the heavy influence of British imperialism, primarily in agrarian relations. However British policy was to develop industry in selected cities of India which would exploit resources of rural India as well as its own peripheral states such as Bihar (Bhattarai, 2023). Nepal, even though a sovereign country, its economy was tied to India’s need for industrial development, urbanization and security interest by exploiting Nepal’s cheap labor, raw materials and even youths for armed services and sex trade industries.

Furthermore, it served as a captive market for finished British-India products. All these were major disincentives to develop industrialization in Nepal from British point of view, because development of industry would have provided Nepal the capacity to generate employment, absorb its labor forces and raw material, and create its own market which would go contrary to the vested interest of British-India. Such historical conditions also made it possible for Rana Oligarchs to impose a brutal feudal system for more than a century by serving and appeasing British interest, and in return gaining British support for continuation of their rule.

These hegemonic incursions helped stagnate the growth of agriculture and industry, and in essence distorted the growth of fledgling native capitalism itself in Nepal. What resulted from such distortion under the twin influence of British imperialism and Rana Feudalism was the suppression of nascent national industrial capital and creation of a more toxic variant of peripheral capitalism: the comprador and bureaucratic capitalism which did not wish to change the feudal relation fundamentally, but rather served as a means for sustenance of semi-feudal status of Nepal for a long time—until 2006 AD. Therefore, in Nepal the semi-feudal state coexisted with this variant of dependent capitalism, mutually reinforcing each other under the influence of foreign imperialist and Indian hegemonic powers even when India became free. Even today, as explained above, the feudal remnants are such that the dependent capitalism bears a hybrid character.

5. High and low tide of revolution

From 1950 to 2024 Nepal has been through great political upheavals: from abolition of Rana regime to establishment of Federal Democratic Republic and its aftermath. After ousting Rana Autocracy through popular uprising, (but an uprising decisively engineered and controlled by India), it took more than half a century to replace Monarchical rule by Federal Democratic Republic. First there was a phase of absolute monarchy’s ‘Party-less Panchayat Democracy’ rule which was then changed to constitutional monarchy and Parliamentary democracy by the power of historical people’s movement of 1990 AD, when both Nepali congress and communist forces joined hand against absolute monarchy. In succeeding period communist movement gained momentum and various streams emerged forming a spectrum–from reformist parliamentary approach to revolutionary people’s war. Again in 2006 there developed a situation similar to what Lenin described, an “extraordinary conjuncture” where a great alliance formed between the parliamentary parties, reformist left and the revolutionary left , supported by international powers mainly India, that ousted Monarchy and established the Federal Democratic Republic Nepal.

The political movements of Nepal in this period documents Nepali people’s struggle to free themselves from feudal, comprador, bureaucratic and imperialistic forces, spearheading against their main political representatives, the Ranas first and then the Monarchs. However, underneath these political upheavals there were undercurrents created by respective positioning of classes engaged in struggle driven by the clash of class interests. The oppressed classes formed broad alliances and rose in rebellion against the ruling class which was also forming its own alliances. Both democratic socialist and communist political forces came into existence and gained power in this phase, and as their political clouts diminished because of corrupt practices, new political parties are emerging to contest them. However these “new” parties not only does not seem to have any new ideological ground, they exhibit the similar old corrupt practices hence rapidly losing their credibility as well.

Although a compromise document of many streams of political interests, Nepal’s new constitution embodies the gains of past political struggles and provides us a vision of an alternative welfare state, that can be founded on cooperatives and collective efforts committed to the most marginalized and oppressed people. The duty of the Left is to ensure that this welfare state does not reinforce the individual craving for accumulation. and narrow self-interest thus extending the life of any variant of capitalism, but creates conditions for bonding of collective interest and unleashing collective strength for common good through alternative socialist oriented production and distribution system.

But currently, Nepal is experiencing low tide of revolution because the communist parties failed to seize the opportunity to turn the course of History towards the socialist mandate of Constitution. Despite pro-poor commitments most powerfully expressed in the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, they could hardly be translated into socio-economic reality, primarily, in want of political will and a grass-root direct democratic process to lay firm ground for socialism-oriented alternative production and distribution mechanism. Rather than struggle for pro-poor radical transformation, the leaders of the people’s movement, or of people’s war, appear to have been coopted in the system that serves the status quo. They no longer are the vanguard party for leading uninterrupted revolutions. Rather they may have become or becoming a part of ruling class themselves. The communist parties and their leaders have, to a large extent, alienated and ruptured themselves from the workers and peasant and intellectual masses which had put them in the state power with great hope.

All abovementioned factors seem to have worked coherently to dissipate revolutionary tide in current situation fraught with social unrest and misery of people have intensified by many times. However, the dialectics of history at the same time is providing the Left an opportunity to turn present crisis into opportunity for revolutionary transformation. As the question “what is to be done, now and hereafter?” has gained preeminence in left circle, it is only natural that Lenin resurfaces in the consciousness of Nepali communist movement–its leaders, cadres, sympathizers and the oppressed masses struggling for their emancipation. Within each disgraced communist parties, and outside, there are a substantial number of young cadres and activists who are searching for the answer to this question. It is natural that they turn to Lenin and his method for answer.

6. Conclusion: What is to be done? Now and Hereafter

In conclusion, I will try to answer this question in eight bullets, with reference to Lenin. All may sound pretty idealistic, but if Nepal’s left movement does not strive to accomplish these, an irreversible political catastrophe and social dislocation can be predicted with high degree of certainty. Even if successfully accomplished, still it may take a long transition to Socialism in the remaining years of 21st century.

1. Overcoming ideological disarray, the communist parties of Nepal have to fi nd minimum common grounds and common programs for unity in action, and consequently for party unity. Several compelling objective conditions favor such development: Nepal’s positioning as a geopolitical hotspot because of the US-China cold war, the rise of Hindutva-inspired extreme right, poor people’s exploitation from loan sharks, microfinance and moneylending cooperatives, and the realization of the Left ’s loss of power due to fragmentation and disunity, to name a few. The recently established Socialist Front is one expression of unity in action, even though it is fraught with uncertainties because they have not yet developed a detailed common minimum program for action. What is needed is the determination to ultimately unite as a single party after tempering through ideological-cultural struggles and making a conscious effort to find a common minimum socio-economic program. Though situations are different, the core concern is the same as that of the beginning of the 20th century Russia when Lenin came out with his famous “What is to be Done?” pamphlet. In Nepal’s situation, it is not the old leaders but young activists within and outside the communist party who will have to carry this responsibility because this question is being raised most passionately. They have to align with the interest of the working masses and be their voice, charting out a common programmatic ground. If need be, they should have the courage to revolt against those who stand against such unity because this unity is the prerequisite for the reconstitution of a Vanguard party of the proletarian class and oppressed masses.
2. A vanguard works like a spearhead of proletarian class and is composed of a massive number of professional revolutionaries drawn substantially from class conscious intellectuals. Such party does not let the worker-peasant alliance to engage in economic struggles only but prepares them to take over state machinery politically in an attempt to transform the character of state- as Nepal’s constitution mandates- as socialist oriented. If a single communist party does not emerge because of historical conditions, then most capable and advanced of them would assume the vanguard duty in collaboration with other communist parties. Such vanguard party situates itself at the forefront of struggling masses, applies ‘democratic centralism’ in its true essence both inside the party and outside, and carries its responsibilities organically blending with a broad based and direct mass democracy, which for Rosa is “unlimited democracy” of the mass participation, and for Mao the “mass line”.
3.  The Left ’s role is to continuously push the boundaries of the welfare state envisaged in Nepal’s constitution towards socialism by harnessing the power of the people. It can do so by consolidating the varied form of traditional culture of cooperative productions in Nepal and taking them to a higher level—a countrywide eco-friendly production and distribution system presenting an alternative to capitalist path. At the same time Nepal needs to build a solid foundation of cooperative council democracy whether in agriculture, agro-industries, manufacturing or service industries in defined political administrative area, primarily in Wards and Municipalities. This cooperative council democracy serving as niche for socialism-oriented democracy can be the best guarantee to prevent the corruption and degeneration of electoral democracy in Nepal and put it in the right track. The concerted effort of all above action are needed to protect, preserve and judiciously use the fragile but immensely rich environment of Nepal.
4. Communities in Nepal are formed of multitude of local groups such as mother’s group, farmers group, teachers group, adolescent groups and neighborhood organizations. Their representative bodies along with cooperatives should serve as people’s assembly to have the power to act as watchdog for their local political representative. They should have the power to mobilize local people for right to reject the nomination of candidate if not worthy or mobilize for right to recall even if the candidate is elected but no more worthy of their confidence. Under such influence politico-administrative characters of wards and municipalities start to change, corruption will be largely prevented or controlled because of direct democracy from below and transparency that aspire for common good, mutual support and quality of life. The goal is to create the ground for emergence of socialist state.
5. The reconstituted communist party members need to spread out in each of the community groups and cooperatives and play the lead of vanguard unit acting as catalyst to raise class consciousness serving by their own example. At present a large section of party cadres have turned into ‘middle men’ instead of the ‘servant of the people’. The extreme corruption of leaders and rank and fi les of the communist party also stems from such transformation that was driven by the need to accumulate fund for the party coffers and vested self-interest. If the discredited parties have to have new lease of life, they should be sincere in inviting people to speak about them, criticize and give suggestions. They should make full effort to follow those suggestions. The party and cadres need to have the courage to revamp themselves of their past deeds if they are to gain the trust of the people. Failing to do so there is high degree of certainty that they will be dumped in the dustbin of history.
6. The movement has generated a large number of professional people capable of doing research and policy analysis. Intellectuals from different sectors  can be assembled for needed studies that are crucial for Nepal’s steps towards socialism: for example class analysis, land and agrarian question, geopolitics and geo-economics, socialist oriented economic models, lessons of current and past socialist practice from around the world. They can also be encouraged to develop international collaboration and solidarity and engage in providing a common perspective on national and international issues to the Party leadership and rank and fi le. The communist movement has to ensure a proper environment for these intellectuals to organically connect with the oppressed masses’ struggles including migrant workers.
7. The vanguard party should firmly resolve the land question of Nepal. Nepal’s land act 2019 states that the extra land of those people who exceed the ceiling of land possession should be seized without compensation and distributed to the landless, extremely poor people for whom constitution provides the right to land. This provision should be strictly carried out to empower the landless people. Land mafia and loan sharks are bent on capturing lands of poor people who are in financial difficulty. They should be firmly punished and the state has to provide an alternative community based financing system to these poor people so that they can enjoy under direct supervision of state cooperative banks, and do not fall victim of loan sharks. The land of absentee landlords need to be brought under land banks but used in favor of the poor and marginalized community people by utilizing that land as work opportunities for impoverished masses in agro industry and large cooperative farmings directed towards socialist oriented production process.
8. Every pro–people political power has made a visible improvement in health and education of their people after a revolution. It is because, apart from being people’s most fundamental rights, the cost incurred in meeting health and education needs is the main reason for poor people’s impoverishment, financial debt and outmigration from their homeland. The revolutionary party should pay particular attention in helping people to meet these needs which brings it in close touch with the masses, wins their trust, makes them strong to lead the nation.

References:

Bhattarai, B. 2023. “An analysis on Nepal’s underdevelopment.” _ e Annapurna Express. Kathmandu. see https://theannapurnaexpress.com/story/45665/

Cheng Enfu and Lu Baolin. 2021. “Five Characteristics of Neoimperialism: Building on Lenin’s Th eory of Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century.” Monthly Review. Vol. 23 (1).

Lenin, V.I. 1917. Imperialism: Th e Highest Stage of Monopoly Capitalism. Selected Works Vol 1. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1963.

Luxemburg, R. 1918. _ e Russian Revolution. Th e Marxist Internet Archive. see https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/luxemburg/Th e_Russian_Revolution_-_Luxemburg.pdf

Mishra, C. 2017. Bhranti ka Saya Barsh (trans: Hundred Years of Illusion). Aaj ko Mulyankan. Kathmandu, vol. 5.

Patnaik P. 2017. “Th e October Revolution and the survival of capitalism.” Monthly Review. Vol. 69 (3).

TISR. 2023. “Eight Contradictions of the Imperialist Rules-Based Order.” _ e Tricontinental.see https://thetricontinental.org/eight-contradiction-of-the-imperialist-rules-based-order/

(Originally published in World Marxist Review, Volume 2, Issue 1.)