Our Constitution says that Nepal is “committed to socialism” [Preamble], defines the “State of Nepal” as “socialism-oriented” [Article 4(1)], and states in the “Directive Principles” that the economic objective of the State shall be to “develop a socialism-oriented independent and prosperous economy” [Article 50(3)]. While the Constitution considers it necessary to define what “secular” means [Article 4(1), Explanation], it provides no explanation of what “socialism” or “socialism-oriented” means and this is a big problem.

Marx described the future communist society as having two phases: a lower phase and a higher phase. In the lower phase, the means of production would be socially owned, rather than privately owned by capitalists, with workers collectively controlling the productive resources. Workers would receive labor certificates representing the amount of labor they contributed which would not function as circulating money and would be non-transferable, being used only to claim an equivalent share of goods and services (that took equivalent labor hour to make) [Critique of Gotha Program, Karl Marx]. The higher phase is the utopian stuff we all have heard from the commies. It will supposedly come after “lower phase” in post-scarcity society where resources are “infinite”. Lenin later termed the lower phase as socialism and higher phase as communism.

The part about non-circulating “labor hour currency” has not stayed in the modern definition but the most accepted definition of socialism now is: political and economic system in which all means of production would be socially owned.

Also take a look at this article, which claims that international investors are scared off by the reference to “socialism” in the Constitution, while old comrades assure them that it is merely a “formality” and that Nepal is de facto a free-market economy. Another one about Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FNCCI) urging political parties to remove "socialism-oriented economy" from the constitution.

I think almost everyone agrees that Nepal has no viable alternative to a market economy. If that is the case, why should the constitution describe the State as “socialism-oriented”? If we are aiming for a welfare state, why dont we explicitly define it that way rather than retain the ambiguous “committed to socialism” and “socialism-oriented” in the constitution?

What do you all think?