KATHMANDU: Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, Francis Fukuyama claimed the end of history and ideology. Challenging his claim, Marxism established itself as a vibrant political force in Nepal. With the end of the Cold War, it was being claimed that ideological struggles had ended and liberal democracy was the final alternative. However, the Marxist ideology in Nepal was moving forward in a new and original manner. The People’s Multi-Party Democracy, propounded by the popular leader Madan Bhandari, is an example of this.

In the context of Nepal, Marxism did not achieve much success in proving ideology in practice and transforming it in favor of working-class citizens. According to Marxism, when the ruling class loses the alignment between its ideology and practice, a crisis emerges in the system. The old parties did lead the democratic revolution, but after coming to power, instead of establishing people’s access to the means of production, they patronized comprador capitalism.

The failure to understand the psychology of the people and sticking to the old one-way communication in the information age created a ‘communication gap’ between the old political parties and the younger generation. Within this vacuum, populism was born, which used immediate dissatisfaction as a tool rather than any solid idea or philosophy. According to Marxist philosophy, the economic base of society—the relations and power of production—determines the superstructure such as politics, law, and culture. This is the exact problem currently visible in Nepal: the basic structure is still semi-feudal, dependent, and capitalist in character.

Under the external structure, we developed the modern framework of a federal democratic republic. The newly emerged populist forces talk loudly about corruption control, good governance, and changing the country, but they do not possess any solid Marxist or socialist blueprint regarding how to bring about change in the base of society, meaning the relations of production. Marx says, “Philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point, however, is to change it.” But for change, merely changing individuals is not enough; the system and the ownership of production must change.

Issues of social justice cannot be solved merely through administrative reforms. Until the marginalized classes have ownership over land, capital, and technology, no government’s plans can ever be sustainable or possess class consciousness.

The digital revolution has made information multi-dimensional. Previously, whatever party cadres said, the people listened to. Today, social media has given birth to ‘digital populism’. Here, perception dominates over truth. Forgetting the sacrifices and history of the old parties, the younger generation is looking for present-day delivery.

Nepal is a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual country. Here, it is natural for ‘the strategy of one place to not fit another place’. Marxism emphasizes the ‘concrete analysis of concrete situations’. In our society, class oppression and ethnic/regional oppression are intertwined with each other.

The new populist wave is making the mistake of viewing all these complexities through a single lens. Issues of social justice cannot be solved merely through administrative reforms. Until the marginalized classes have ownership over land, capital, and technology, no government’s plans can ever be sustainable or possess class consciousness.

Parties and governments formed without any ideological foundation are like a wave of wind. According to Gramsci’s theory of ‘hegemony’, for any system to endure, it must establish a moral and ideological dimension in the minds of the people. Populists receive immediate applause, but when it comes to systemic and structural change, there is a fear that they will falter. Our need is a revolution in production, production-oriented socialism rather than distribution-oriented populism, institutional strengthening, development of a system rather than individual whims, social justice, and steps taken for the oppressed and structural discrimination rather than the benefit of a few clever ones, which will bring shifts in social relations.

While populist forces talk loudly about corruption control, good governance, etc., they do not have a solid Marxist or socialist blueprint on how to bring about change in the base of society, i.e., the relations of production.

This new upheaval in Nepali politics is certainly a result of the incompetence of the old politics, and another reason was that the old parties were suddenly overshadowed by populist politics. As a result, ideology was lost, individuals dominated, whims were established, vendetta prevailed, democracy vanished, people’s priorities disappeared, leaders’ syndicates dominated, and a culture of long-term “let me eat, let me wear, let me live, let all other weaklings die” was established.

History teaches us that politics standing merely on emotion, whims, vendetta, and an undemocratic foundation provides momentary satisfaction but does not offer long-term solutions. Therefore, it was an eternal rule that when a system of governance could not be established according to need, resistance occurred. Dialectical materialism says—every thesis has its antithesis, and from that emerges a synthesis, which alone can become a scientific solution. The synthesis that has emerged now is not a solution, but merely an interpretation of the rule.

Today’s need is for the old parties to improve their working style and conduct, and to give vitality to their principles; and for the new forces to devise deep political philosophy and plans to change the basic structure of society. Socialism is not just a slogan; it is a radical change carried out in the relations of production.

If the new forces work only on the superstructure, they too will become nothing more than another failed experiment in history. Because, the problem and contradiction are deeper within the internal layers rather than on the external surface. If reflection is not made on thoughts, principles, and working styles, this wave is certain to be limited to a moment of happiness. To lead the state toward a truly democratic and socialist direction, it is not populism, but the public system that must be strengthened.

The new challenge of Nepali politics

Today, from remote villages to cities in Nepal, smartphones and internet have reached everyone’s hands. The democratization of information is not bad in itself; it is a positive development. However, the irony is that while a flood of information arrived, the truth was sidelined. The professional IT sector turned this into a mere medium for earning profit, while for the general public, it became a breeding ground for illusions.

Viewed from a Marxist perspective, whoever controls the means of information shapes the perception of society. Currently in Nepal, the means of information are in the hands of the people, but its ‘content’ is controlled by invisible forces and interest groups.

The beginning of techno-feudalism

Greek economist and politician Yanis Varoufakis argues that the world has now passed through capitalism and entered the era of ‘techno-feudalism’. Looking at this theory through the mirror of Nepali politics, some interesting aspects emerge. Nepal’s political parties and leaders are currently taking refuge in ‘cloud landlords’ like Facebook, TikTok, and X to take their ideas to the people. In doing so, they are paying billions in rent for data and advertisements to these foreign digital platforms. By converting the political energy of Nepali youth into a race to go ‘viral’, has techno-feudalism trapped Nepali politics in a massive digital web? It has opened the door for debate.

According to Varoufakis, we have now become both producers and consumers. In the context of Nepal, when a cadre makes a political post on social media, they are not carrying out any ideological revolution, but rather producing ‘content’ for free for foreign algorithms. The agenda of Nepali politics has begun to be determined not by the objective conditions at the grassroots level, but rather by what the algorithm makes viral. This is a major ideological crisis for original Nepali democracy. Therefore, how such changes in the world order displace ideological vacuums in the politics of a country like Nepal is made clear by the electoral defeats and political behavior of Nepal’s political parties.

Today, becoming ‘viral’ has started to become the ultimate goal and purpose of life for many. This has brought society to a turning point where the importance of ‘views’ and ‘likes’ weighs heavier than the seriousness of the content. This has not only consumed people’s time but has also hollowed out original thinking and social relations. Family members, even while sitting in the same room, are lost in different screens. This is eroding our social capital.

The new populism

The populist wave recently witnessed in Nepal stands largely on the foundation of this techno-feudalism. While the old parties are still indulging in physical organizations and ‘old capital’, the new forces are using ‘cloud capital’ to directly gain control over the psychology of the people. However, as Varoufakis warned, if there is no solid productive economic and political plan behind such politics, it will not be easy for the old parties to prove themselves right in physical and virtual politics.

Nepali society is diverse, and the root of its problem, as mentioned above, lies in the relations of production and class consciousness, and in the parties and groups that politicize it. Techno-feudalism has indeed created consumers, but how ideological and democratic it has made them remains a matter of discussion.

Misinformation in politics

When misinformation begins to dominate politics, a foundation for negative narratives is built in society through that information. In this way, misinformation spreading on social media demolishes the very foundation of political trust. In a democracy, citizens must possess the wisdom to distinguish between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. This wisdom is lost when systematically scattered illusions cover the truth, and the people get confused. Therefore, the challenge of protecting present politics from misinformation has grown.

The main problem currently seen in Nepali politics is that even if someone does good work, it is sidelined by ‘trolling’. Those who do bad are also misleading the people by giving emotional slogans. This has made the political atmosphere so murky that honest people are afraid to enter politics, and a situation has been created where clever ‘populists’ get the stage and opportunities.

Crisis of democracy and the public system

One cannot deny that technology has helped bring anomalies to light. Social media certainly has a role in exposing corruption scandals and irregularities. However, merely pointing out anomalies is not the solution. The solution is the reform of the system. The current digital wave did produce ‘celebrities’, but it failed to produce leaders who carry a system and methodology. No arrangement is sustainable without a system and specific procedures. Impressions formed out of momentary impulses cannot have a long-term impact on the country’s policymaking.

The future discourse

From now on, Nepali society needs to make the digital space a rational and civilized forum. The revolution of information must be linked with production and social justice. The younger generation involved in politics needs to understand the complexities at the grassroots of society and the relations of production, rather than the glamor of virality seen on smartphone screens.

Political parties must also use technology not merely as a tool for publicity, but as a medium to directly converse with the people and understand their true psychology. Until we can become conscious citizens capable of verifying the truth of information, our democracy will remain a prisoner of digital illusions. Today, an ideology lost in the election; a narrative has indeed been constructed that it lost because of digital illusions. Therefore, the question capable of changing political wins and losses is the most necessary and revolutionary question of the current era.

Marxism is not a dogmatic philosophy; it is a living methodology. It teaches that when the technology of production changes, the relations of production also change. Viewed from Marxism and analyzed in the Nepali context, during Marx’s time, landlords and peasants faced each other directly; in the industrial revolution, the worker could recognize the owner. In the digital age, it is said that this process itself is not required. Marxist parties in Nepal are still stuck in the definitions of ‘land’ and ‘factories’. There may be some reasons for this. Due to theoretical rigidity, old leaders have not been able to understand the digital shift that has occurred in the forces of production, or it remains to be studied.

Are the current parties of Nepal ready to accept the changes brought into politics by this digital shift, or are they still viewing the 21st century through the lens of the 20th century? The time has come to hold an intense discussion. The upcoming struggle with the populists is also about making digital platforms ideological. However, a balance between both the physical and the virtual is mandatory.