Velvetine Socialism

Velvetine Socialism (Latin: Socialismi Holoserica; Pelaxian: Socialismo Aterciopelado; Reform Tainean: Sausalism des Velaus), also known as Rumahokian Socialism, Democratic Revolutionary Socialism, or Reformist Labourism, is the form of socialist thought developed during the Velvet Revolution in Rumahoki to realise a socialist revolution in a country ruled by a nationalist dictatorship for decades through means. It is the official ideology of the People's Democratic Party. Ostensibly a form of, Velvetine Socialism is in practice a form of with elements of  and , though some political analysts have described the ideology as being more akin to  with a big government than any particular form of socialism.

Under Velvetine Socialism, the state plays an active interventionist role over a as a means to curb inefficiencies in production and  through the use of, state-directed investment, and utilising market instruments to encourage market entities to fulfill state economic objectives. The idea behind this is that by ensuring state-assisted economic growth while at the same time protecting the workers' rights through the use of tripartism and strong trade unions, socialism shall be achieved.

Terminology
The name of the ideology was first coined in 1995 in reference to the left-wing overtones of the Velvet Revolution the year prior and the moderate left-wing factions that won out in the ensuing chaos during the nation's democratic transition. These moderate factions dubbed themselves aterciopeladistas, or "velvetines", claiming that they were the truest to the ideals of the Velvet Revolution and not the radical cabaceros (from "steel heads") or the reactionary pasqualistas ("Pascalists"). The term aterciopeladista would go on to be used to refer to anyone who advocated for the ideology in general rather than just those who were revolutionary veterans, especially as more and more people grow up having had no recollection of the nationalist dictatorship that preceded the revolution.

Revolution by the ballot
The idea of a socialist revolution being achieved by the is an idea shared among democratically-aligned reformists on the political left. The basic idea being that in a democracy, the people must be trusted to make the decision whether or not to vote in their best interests instead of the best interests of an employer or a family member. By definition, this concept implies that, as well as effective governance and policy, is a necessity in the struggle towards the socialist revolution for an ideology not supported by the people cannot truly call itself a people's ideology. Popular support is key to maintain the revolution against the forces of reaction.

This concept is enshrined in the constitution of the People's Democratic Party under Clause I:

"The socialist revolution is a long and arduous struggle against reactionary forces that seek to disrupt it both from without and from within. For an aspiring socialist party to call itself a party of the people, it is imperative that the party commits to the democratic process in full and rely on populist rhetoric as well as good deeds in governance and policy while trusting that, in time, the people will vote for the party based on those deeds. Ultimately, the need for a violent revolution, as was the great Velvetine Rebellion, must be the absolute last resort; subject to the contemporary politics of the nation."

Criticisms
Velvetine Socialism has been criticised by a few critics as being more akin to with some heavy elements of  and thus departs from the basic principles of  or even. Some have even gone further and argue that Velvetine Socialism is actually closer to a form of the ideology behind the Estado Social than any form of socialism. Many, however, have argued that despite Velvetine Socialism containing elements of corporatism and nationalism, the final goal was to eventually establish socialism and thus the ideology still counts as a form of socialism even if it departs from Marxist principles, to say nothing of how the form of nationalism this ideology promotes is much more inclusive and much less chauvinistic than the of the Estado Social.

Comparisons to other left-wing socialist ideologies
Velvetine Socialism has been compared to the Puertegan Path to Socialism, the ruling ideology of Puertego which advocates for an open economy with heavy involvement from the state in order to help the state in its transition towards socialism under the principles of Marxism while at the same time having some heavy elements of nationalism. The only really major difference is their social and cultural views, with Velvetine Socialism supporting social and cultural progress while the Puertegan Path to Socialism promotes a comparatively more traditionalistic approach, though how traditionalistic this approach may be is entirely up to the country's president.

Comparisons to Wittonian socialism
A number of scholars have noted a few similarities between Velvetine Socialism and Wittonian Socialism, the guiding ideology of Urcea's Solidarity Party, and have stated that both ideologies proclaim to be an alternative of, and that both seek to bring forth a form of through the use of a coherent ideology and the power of the state. Of course, in practice, how the two seek to bring forth this common good is very much different, with Velvetine Socialism seeing itself as primarily a vehicle for workers' liberation and social progress under a conventionally left-wing socialist lens while Wittonian Socialism takes inspiration from and a  philosophy as their vehicle for the de-concentration of wealth, seeing itself as being  economically.

Role of the monarchy
Both Rumahoki and Urcea are extant monarchies, a form of government often in conflict with certain economic theories, but the particular ideologies mentioned have not only expressed their support in the retention of the monarchy, but also have expressed that the monarch has a role in protecting their people from economic malevolence and social turmoil. This means that under both, the monarch serves as an important aspect of governance as well as the people's welfare and that if they were to be removed, whether democratically or otherwise, then who would help their respective peoples now?