modest than under free capitalism.
Under socialist capitalism, it is better to have a one-party system, or the power of one party, which will have a systemic opposition. All this in order to have a 5- or 10-year plan with you and keep the capitalists under control, to monitor the observance of this plan.
For the most part, social capitalism is supported by social conservatives. Social capitalists claim that it is the macroeconomics that should be in the hands of the state, and it is important not to forget about the social aspects. The ideologists of social capitalism are of the opinion that supporting the poor increases productivity. With the reduction of poverty, the size of the capital of market participants increases, which is an indisputable truth.
The political system under social capitalism.
Speaking about such an economic system, I highlighted the fact that, preferably, we need a system in which one party would be the leading one, but at the same time there would be some kind of systemic opposition. All this is in order for the economy to develop more efficiently.
What should this party be like? What ideology should it have?
The ideological basis must be accompanied by a socialist "backup" – there is no other way, because the very essence of social capitalism consists in its "social" factor, helping citizens, providing them with absolutely everything.
But is it worth returning to the unified Communist Party? The answer is no. The CPSU discredited itself with its illogical over-totalitarianism. It is important to note that Lenin very quickly legalized some "not quite normal" freedoms. Another major mistake of socialism is the barbaric attitude to religion. After all, traditional values should form the basis of society.
We do not take Liberal Democratic parties – they will not be able to build authoritarianism with elements of democracy.
I believe that in this situation, the leading party should have a social-conservative, or better, conservative-socialist ideology. What is its essence?
It's simple: we take the best of socialism and add to it traditional thinking, a conservative type of society. There will be no notorious "Soviets" and the Soviet type of thinking. Russia must remain Russia, even under the conservative-socialist system. I would attribute this ideology to center-left, because authoritarianism with elements of democracy is, and it will be mostly left-wing. Public opinion is right, as it should be, and will be right. The "right" part of the ideology will solve the migration issue, and will support religions, unlike "classical socialism".
And which country already has such an ideological system? Yes, we are going back to China again. According to the constitution, they have "socialism with Chinese specifics." That is, the PRC combines socialism and their national, sovereign traditions. Russian conservative socialism can truly be called, or "with Russian specifics." It will be socialism, which will focus on Russian traditions, conservative society, religiosity, but at the same time will carry its function of socialism.
Therefore, the ideal party would be the "Conservative Social Capitalist Party of Russia (CSCPR)". Let me remind you that there should be a systemic opposition. Young people should have a choice which party to join, but the most prestigious thing should be joining the KSKPR.
By the way, another disadvantage of the communist system is that there was no alternative, except for a pioneer-Komsomol member-candidate for the CPSU-a member of the CPSU. This demotivated the youth.
Now there are other extremes. According to the Levada Center, 80% of young people are not interested in politics at all. There are a lot of youth organizations, there are as many alternatives as you like, but they do not have weight in society, such as the Komsomol, for example. Have you ever heard of the Young Guard from United Russia? Komsomol, but only from the Communist Party, which is nowhere to be seen now?
Problems of transition to socialist capitalism now. (In Russia)
Now “Soviet cadres” are in power. These are people of the old school, brought up in totalitarianism, so many of them adhere to authoritarian views. Many of today’s billionaires are state capitalists. Now there is a transition to this economic system, but there are two problems: the first of them is that under liberal capitalism the transition to the state takes longer if we started the transition from a planned economy to state capitalism. The second problem is that no socialist superstructure is envisaged, and without it, state capitalism is not so effective.
Who will build social capitalism?
On the one hand, there is no one but the “Soviet people” to build social capitalism. After all, it was they who experienced the whole essence of liberal, oligarchic capitalism and a planned economy. It is the “Soviet people” who will strive to establish social capitalism, for this system is the very “third way” that we are looking for.
On the other hand, youth is the future of Russia. Despite the fact that the younger generation is not enlightened, they are not told about political and economic processes, examples are very rarely given in the course of social science textbooks, and little is given to economics, the most important, basic aspects of this science are considered, and economic systems go through very little, I am sure that in 15–20 years we will have excellent graduates of Russian economic faculties, who, perhaps, will be able to switch to this economic system much faster and with better quality.
In conclusion, I would like to say that it is socialist capitalism that is the way out of economic one-sidedness, which was clearly demonstrated by the examples of not only China, but also Sweden. Over the course of several decades of the 20th century, the Scandinavian country turned from a poor agrarian country into one of the richest and most highly developed industrial powers. And in Russia, social capitalism will help create the strongest economy in the world.
