Road is the direction and banner of a country's development, which fundamentally determines the nature and characteristics of the country. In a sense, the road is the system in the system, the foundation under the foundation, the most important choice made at the political crossroads, and the most important thing that determines everything. The difference between socialism and capitalism inevitably determines the different theories, systems and cultures they follow. So where is the fork between the socialist road and the capitalist road? We think there are two most important points: first, the mixed economy dominated by public ownership vs private ownership with a small amount of public ownership at the economic level, and second, the people's democratic dictatorship under the leadership of the production party vs voting democracy under multi-party competition at the political level. As mentioned above, from the small group instinct of human beings and the high opacity of human social information, it can be concluded that the efficiency of public ownership economy is much higher than that of private ownership economy in the field of large-scale industrial production that requires many people to participate in coordination and cooperation; In the production field with small unit scale and few participants, the efficiency of private ownership economy is higher than that of public ownership economy. Modern human society has entered the era of high industrialization and informationization, and large-scale alliance and cooperation are the normal state in the economic field, so the superiority of public ownership economy can also be fully demonstrated. At the same time, there are still many fields suitable for small group production, so the mixed economy with public ownership as the main body can best play their respective strengths and stimulate the greatest social productivity. The capitalist road blindly rejects the public ownership economy and pursues the private ownership economy, which only satisfies the interests of the bourgeoisie as a quasi-group and harms the interests of all citizens.

Let's look at the political level of "people's democracy under the leadership of the * * * production party vs vote democracy under multi-party competition". As mentioned earlier, the people's democratic dictatorship under the leadership of the proletarian political party takes safeguarding the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the people as its political orientation, and multi-party competition takes safeguarding the interests of its own party as its highest political correctness. Multi-party system is basically clique politics and quasi-clique politics, with the interests of clique and quasi-clique first. The running result of "multi-party competition+ballot politics" is bound to be the division within the country and the constant struggle between parties, and no matter right or wrong, it is the only way to return to national politics. From the perspective of "instinct vs culture", this is also a typical manifestation of the irrationality of the political rationality of small (quasi) groups of human beings at the level of large groups. From the moment the multi-party cultural gene is planted, the struggle between political parties and the confrontation between political parties are the inevitable results of the national political operation. * * * Deliberative democracy under the leadership of the Communist Party is naturally a kind of big group politics, which is guided by the interests of all citizens, and can bridge the contradictions among small (quasi) internal groups and coordinate local and global interests, short-term and long-term interests. In contrast, the people's democracy under the leadership of the * * * production party is obviously superior to the vote democracy under multi-party competition. From the above discussion, we can see that at the two key crossroads of economy and politics, socialism chose to be guided by the interests of the people, while capitalism chose to be guided by the interests of the bourgeoisie, thus embarking on two different development paths. Obviously, the socialist road is superior to the capitalist road, which is the fundamental reason why we insist on road confidence.

The above are aimed at developed capitalist countries in Europe and America, and the situation in the vast number of third world capitalist countries is even more severe. Developed capitalist countries in Europe and America have formed a relatively stable and perfect game model and path after hundreds of years of inter-group games. It has basically become the knowledge of the whole people that everyone should take their positions, perform their duties and seek benefits for themselves through "legal" means, so that European and American countries can form a relatively stable political order. However, the capitalist countries in the third world lack such "traditions", so their game mode often appears rough and violent, and the external performance is extreme "corruption". The game model of capitalist countries in the third world can be roughly divided into two paths: one is the invisible hand, that is, the competition in the free market; The second is the visible hand, that is, the government controls resources. The free market is a game economy with money as the medium and chip, which is essentially the law of the jungle and will inevitably lead to the widening gap between the rich and the poor in society. Through the visible hand of the government, the widening gap between the rich and the poor in the free market can be suspended or reversed. However, to achieve this, there are high requirements for the government's integrity and administrative ability.

Don't forget that government agencies are also made up of people, and they also have their own small group interests. If people in government agencies, especially middle and senior officials, can't be strictly restrained to seek benefits for themselves, then government agencies will behave as self-enrichment and corruption. At this time, the visible hand of the government will not only not improve the gap between the rich and the poor, but will often further worsen the gap. At this time, the country will be in a dilemma. In a free market, capital will deprive ordinary people through market games. After the government intervened, government officials deprived people through administrative agencies. The two paths lead to the same goal, both of which are the deprivation of the weak groups by the powerful groups in society, which leads to the increasingly serious gap between the rich and the poor. This is also the status quo faced by many third world capitalist countries. For example, some Latin American countries often swing back and forth between "left" (strengthening government leadership) and "right" (advocating free market), but they have never been able to improve the current situation of frequent social contradictions. The fundamental reason is that the market and the government are completely "corrupt" (what is interesting here is that in the view of liberalism, it is "corrupt" to seek benefits through government agencies, and it is "reasonable and legal" to seek benefits through market competition). No matter which road can not jump out of the extremely serious gap between the rich and the poor, it is a dead end. To change this situation, we can only fundamentally change the country's politics, economy, culture, society and wealth distribution. This requires a complete revolution and inevitable massive bloodshed. Obviously, it is difficult for capitalist countries in the third world to do this now, so they will continue to wallow in the mud of "left" and "right" and find it difficult to extricate themselves.