The Ideology of Social Traditionalism (Social Tradition) scientific manifesto offers a modern concept of traditionalism. Today, this line is based on the principles of “double” social solidarity: both between contemporaries (horizontal solidarity) and intergenerational (vertical solidarity). The idea of the first type of solidarity has historically evolved against the background of the leftist thought. The second type of solidarity dates back to classical traditionalism. It insists on placing the priority on the historical heritage, traditional values and on the rejection of historical gaps in public life. According to the author, the relevance of social traditionalism (social tradition) is growing as the crisis of neoliberal globalism deepens and currently observed deglobalization processes accelerate. The opposition of the ideas of social justice and traditional values is one of the false alternatives imposed on the society. It emerged and is still maintained within the framework of the ideology of neoliberalism, which is now in a state of decay. The article highlights the common value basis of colonialism, Nazism and neoliberal globalism. A way out of the historical impasse is possible if two conditions are met: the neoliberal ideology must be rejected and the cultural and spiritual connection with the native tradition — authentic Christianity — must be restored. After the ideological paradigm and the socioeconomic model are changed, the synthesis of socialist and traditionalist ideas can take priority in the society. The right-wing traditionalism needs to be opposed to the left-wing social traditionalism, in which the ethics of justice comes first. Instead of the classic triad “conservatism—liberalism—socialism”, the society will have to develop within another political triangle: “nationalism—socialism—traditionalism”. Social traditionalism assumes the equality of nations, peoples and cultures, affirms their incomparability, incommensurability and uniqueness. It also advocates the society governed by the social justice and supports the overcoming of painful historical gaps in the life of each people. The author proceeds on the basis that “tradition is a set of ways to preserve the historical continuity based on endowing inheritance procedures with ethical meaning”. Tradition is a method of social and cultural construction rather than a subject of restoration. The basis of the Russian (Russian-Byzantine) tradition and identity can be defined using the well-known formula by Max Weber as follows: “Orthodox Ethics and the Spirit of Solidarity”.

The article explores the concept of the social tradition and the program of the synthesis of the left wing and conservatism put forward by the political philosopher, publicist and public figure Alexander Shchipkov. These subjects are assessed as a logical and appropriate attempt to formulate a conservative ideology that would be actual for modern Russia while relying on the historical experience and social background of the country and corresponding to the Russian history of the 19th–20th centuries. The term “Social Tradition” is similar to the term “Synthesis of Left Wing and Conservatism”, where “social” is loaded with positive and moderate leftist content, as far as it can be deemed possible to combine it with traditional and historically conservative content. The term “tradition” can be characterized here by what is usually understood in this concept as conservatism. The paper notes the importance of the Soviet specifics and the correct assessment of the Soviet period of the Russian history for the successful possibility of this synthesis. The article briefly discusses the attempts of synthesis of socialism (left wing) and conservatism (tradition and traditionalism) that preceded in the history of the Russian social thought. It also points out a problem this program has: the left tradition demands the total equality, both economic and social, while the classical conservatism has always insisted on the principles of hierarchy and class stratification of the society. In this regard, the essential eclecticism of this program put forward by Alexander Shchipkov can be noted. At the same time, it is emphasized that the time of integral classical conservatism, which directly relied on religion and class stratification of the society, is now the irrevocable yesterday. Today, in a sense, we are condemned to eclectic conservatism and attempts to combine incompatible. Social traditionalism or synthesis of left wing and conservatism, firstly, takes the best from different ideologies, and, secondly, best corresponds to the Russian history of the 19th-20th centuries. The ideological integrity goes away along with the “age of ideologies”. The ideological eclecticism comes to replace it, and nobody knows for how long. This can be taken as a transition step to something new and yet unknown.

The article highlights The Ideology of Social Traditionalism (Social Tradition), the scientific manifesto by Professor Alexander Shchipkov, in the context of the history of Russian religious and social thought. The Fundamentals of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church (2000), The Russian Doctrine (2005), the fourth political theory developed in a number of papers by Alexander Dugin, as well as the study “Empire” (2022) by Konstantin Malofeev represent the ideological model of social traditionalism as an adaptation of the socio-eschatological concept “Moscow, the Third Rome” to the modern socio-political reality. Social traditionalism is represented as a successful ideological experience of removing the historical antinomies of the Russian statehood in order to organically build its continuity originating not only from the Soviet Union, but also from the Russian Empire and the Muscovite Kingdom. The synthesis of socialist ideas in the economy (and — even more broadly — the ideas of social justice) and Christian conservative value paradigms is not an innovation, the article says. To prove its statement, it uses the example of Catholic solidarism among others. At the same time, the social-traditionalist ideological construction by Professor Alexander Shchipkov is seen as one of the most successful, philosophically reflected and doctrinally formalized documents. Despite the existing conceptual contradictions, which are inevitable in conditions when many definitions in the scientific manifesto The Ideology of Social Traditionalism (Social Tradition) acquire new content, and the author of the manifesto proposes a number of neologisms being his own terminology. The article also gives an independent example of activities performed by the international public organization World Russian People’s Council, one of the Deputy Heads of which is Alexander Shchipkov. Among today’s key tasks of the World Russian People’s Council is the comprehension and formulation of the Russian sovereign ideology, which would be based on Orthodoxy. At this stage, this ideology remains “a task rather than a givenness”, including for the experts of the World Russian People’s Council, whose activity is coordinated, among others, by Professor Shchipkov. And the scientific manifesto The Ideology of Social Traditionalism (Social Tradition) is seen as important prolegomenon to this ideology.

Alexander Vladimirovich Shchipkov is a famous Russian Orthodox philosopher and public figure. A few years ago, his keynote monograph The Social Tradition was published. It is focused on the presentation of his concept of the social traditionalism. In it, Shchipkov notes that liberalism has ceased to be one of modernist ideologies. It actually has turned into the language of the modern Western world and absorbed the ideologies that were previously considered as its alternatives: socialism and rightwing conservatism. Guided by the ideas of Wallerstein’s world-system analysis, Shchipkov refutes the theory of two totalitarianisms. Shchipkov sees the Christian moral economics and the conservative socialism as the alternative to liberalism. The socialism is not reduced to the Soviet-type “real socialism”. Shchipkov points to “variations on the theme of social fairness” in the “Acts of the Apostles”, among teachers and fathers of the church. He also highlights Byzantium, the traditions of the Russian peasant community, and Western “general welfare” states. Shchipkov gives weight to the presence of a socialist stream in the USSR. Not in the Soviet Marxist state, but in the Soviet society, which adopted a lot from the spirit of the peasant world. Shchipkov considers the following disadvantages of the Soviettype socialism: the isolation from the national tradition and the attempt to use the proletarian internationalism instead of Russian national values when building the core of the state of social fairness. According to Alexander Shchipkov, the turn to tradition is now taking place on a global scale. However, tradition and traditionalism can be different. Alexander Shchipkov counters the right-wing, guénonian and neo-Protestant liberal traditionalism with the leftwing traditionalism resting upon the apostolic Christianity, the idea of collective salvation, morality, creativity, technological progress, moral state, solidarism, egalitarianism, and democracy. This is what he calls the social tradition. The review suggests the idea that the Christian worldview expects one speaking not only about tradition, but also about social creativity.

The article examines the historical, logico-conceptual and politico-pragmatic content of an ideological trend, such as “social traditionalism”. The idea of combining socialism with the core tradition of Orthodoxy can be traced back in our history to the last quarter of the nineteenth century. In Konstantin Leontiev’s statements, in particular. Later on, it appeared among the members of the “Christian Brotherhood of Struggle”: Valentin Sventsitsky, Vladimir Ern, and the Priest Pavel Florensky. Nikolai Berdyaev upgraded this idea to its logical finish, by describing the phenomenon of “Russian communism” as the metamorphosis of Russian religiosity: they created the Third Rome, but got the Third International instead. Alexander Shchipkov’s thesis, according to which the traditional ideological paradigm of modernity (“liberalism — conservatism — socialism”) is undergoing the reformatting stage and is being replaced by the “nationalism — socialism — traditionalism” paradigm, implies that “liberalism” is being driven out by “nationalism” as its alternative. However, in the field of international relations, “nationalism” can be interpreted as a projection of liberal individualism justifying the right of a national state to freedom, that is, sovereignty. Against the background of evaluating the outcome of the Cold War, the USSR breakup can be understood as the victory of liberalism over socialism. Today, China embodies the idea of socialism, while the liberal West faces inner culture wars: liberalism is being attacked by supporters of multiculturalism and the “cancel culture”. In the course of evaluating the prospects of “social traditionalism” as a Russian state ideology, one should take into account that both the United Russia party and President Vladimir Putin define their ideological position as “conservatism”. At the same time, the latest edition defines presidential conservatism as a political management technology. In this regard, the definition of traditionalism as a “set of methods” and “procedures for ethicization” proposed by Alexander Shchipkov can also be considered technological rather than ideological. But in this case, a contradiction emerges: social traditionalism claims to replace conservatism precisely as an ideology, striving to synthesize socialism and Christianity. Socialism becomes the result of an arbitrary choice procedure, while Christianity remains a tradition, but not in the sense of the basic definition of traditionalism.