The authors, offering mobilization scenarios for the development of the Russian economy, follow the historical method and propose to nationalize the key industries, restore the Soviet planned economy system and adopt some aspects of the German economy of the 1930s. Critics of this approach, however, highlight the incompatibility between the planned economy system and the private interest which drives investment and generates development. These researchers regard mobilization scenarios as a smoke screen for political agendas and a means of militarizing the economy. The author of the paper assumes that mobilization thinking was formed in the totalitarian society, under social inequality and the state's aggressive impact on public opinion. Accordingly, three sources of mobilization thinking can be identified: nationalism, social hierarchy, and the social consciousness aberration. Economic nationalism (or protectionism) appears in mobilization scenarios in the form of strict foreign exchange regulations and other isolationist policies. The paper shows that the lack of ethical principles can lead the proponents of nationalism to conclusions which are unacceptable from the conventional morality point of view. The deep-rooted ideas of inequality and superiority served as the second driver of mobilization thinking which rejects democracy and suggests a hierarchical system of social relationships. The social consciousness aberration is a product of the totalitarian society, where propaganda creates disrespect for the truth which invades science. The aberration comes in the shape of conspiracy theories, economic dogmatism and mythologization of history. Mobilization scenarios involve financial system reforms based on the practices of the Soviet and German prewar economies. The essence of the approach is to expand the use of directive methods and restrict financial markets, so that money and interest rate would become technical accounting indicators. The scenarios suggest directive methods of encouraging investment: setting differential lending rates, emitting "investment ruble", etc. Referring to the macroeconomic model of the "investment trap" and the history of voucher emission in Russia in the 1990s, the author demonstrates the method of creating "special assets" to be invalid.