The Social Policy that you have set out in your Manifesto is particularly interesting, and somewhat more progressive than typical Liberal Manifestos. It is "an essential element of giving every individual equal opportunities in society." This "implies social equality, mutual respect, acceptance and reward for different contributions to society." (Section 2.a.) It would be difficult to form a just concept of social organization, if the new society was worse than the original state of nature which humanity lived in.
The importance of providing opportunities and access to economic activity is essential. Without it, the average citizen will realize that private property has taken from them the right to work and live. In nature, they could have sustained themselves without property or masters, and to see themselves worse off is to demonstrate the failure of "civilized society." To secure this social policy, you have taken this route, "... we therefore consider the free market economy based on capitalism and private property rights to be the superior economic system to serve to guarantee freedom and prosperity." (Section 3.a.)
This is the opposite of democratic thinking, though. With the democratic mindset, the mind diffused the decision-making process, the more likely that it will be responsible and conscious. If only one person can make the decisions of nation, like a king, such decisions will only benefit this one individual. Likewise, if you expand it to an aristocracy or a group of nobility, you will find that such decisions always benefit those who can direct the terms -- that is, the few who are privileged with the right of decision-making.
Within the economy, then, private property means that the decision-making process is a possession of the very few. The vast majority of land and productive forces, which were discovered or created by workers, are now possessed by the a tiny minority. Their decision in what industry to create, how many to employ, and what to produce is only the decision of the investors. It is absolutely guaranteed to be made in the interest of those who have that privilege.
Of course this must necessarily be so, and your program almost entirely proves it. There are provisions on regulating capitalism everywhere: "A minimum wage must be guaranteed"; "The government must play an active role in ensuring that there is no discrimination on the workplace"; "Workers must be legally protected against health threatening working conditions"; "An anti-monopoly policy and mechanism of control must guarantee a sufficient degree of competition"; "Industries that pollute the environment or waste natural resources such as energy should be made legally and financially responsible for these actions"; etc., etc., etc.. The list goes on and on with so many responsibilities and duties of the government in monitoring, restraining, and directing the Capitalist system.
It is quite clear that these thousands of efforts are all directed at the same cause: the isolated control of the decision-making process in the economy by the very few who dominated the very many. Even with these regulations, capitalists use child labor, forced labor from immigrants or foreign sweatshops, and they are everywhere discriminatory based on appearance. Such laws do not drive to the heart of the problem: that these activities of the capitalist, from slavery to monopoly, are done for profit, and they are done because they have control of the decision-making process. Instead of deciding that the Capitalists have shown themselves a million times over irresponsible in their activities, you have decided to limit each of those million activities.
You are not fighting the problem -- are you only fighting a handful of the symptoms it has created. Private monopolies of mass media, products made with cheap lead-based paint, and improperly disposing waste in the ocean. These are just the results of decision-making of the economy being held by the few. And by limiting them, you are not destroying their cause; you're only redirecting it into other activities. This is so because the cause is Capitalism, a system where a few own the majority of all of society's productive forces, and direct them only according to their own interests -- which typically means against the interests of the many.
Even with all of these provisions, you will not be able to legislate a good economy into existence. There has never been a system of Capitalism that ended unemployment or destroyed depressions. And to do so would require so much tremendous effort and exertion on part of the people in restraining their economic masters. It is as though you suggest the people protest when they do not like what the king is doing -- but how dare they think that they can replace the king and organize life for themselves. How dare the worker believe that they can remove the Capitalist and organize their work for themselves.
You are not going to accomplish any meaningful change in society by revolving the symptoms of inequality and mass subjugation. You are only going to take those people who want to make genuine change, and pacify them. The only effect is to make people think they have a choice in changing things. In reality, the Liberal program only offers them a situation where they are spending their time, energy, and material in putting a velvet glove on the economy's iron fist.
Nothing is going to change if you do not strike the cause of poverty, hunger, and homelessness. Nothing is going to change if you leave the Capitalist system intact. And there is no reason to think that the state must organize economy for this change to occur. Just as there is no reason to think that a dictator is necessary to organize society into a Democracy.
Thank you; I patiently await a response.