Velvetine Socialism

Velvetine Socialism (Latin: Socialismi Holoserica; Pelaxian: Socialismo Aterciopelado; Reform Tainean: Sausalism des Velaus), also known as Castadillaan Socialism, Democratic Revolutionary Socialism, or Reformist Labourism, is the form of socialist thought developed during the Velvet Revolution in Castadilla to realise a socialist revolution in a country ruled by a nationalist dictatorship for decades through reformist means. It is the official ideology of the People's Democratic Party. Ostensibly a form of Marxism, Velvetine Socialism is in practice a form of market socialism with elements of dirigism and tripartism, though some political analysts have described the ideology as being more akin to social democracy with lots of government intervention than any particular form of socialism. It consists of Borbonism and Castadillaanism (Francisco Carvalho). Each of these theories are, according to the party constitution of the PDP, representative of the relevant policies utilised for a given time period.

Under Velvetine Socialism, the state plays an active interventionist role over a market economy as a means to curb inefficiencies in production and market failures through the use of indicative planning, 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. Thus, Velvetine Socialism is often considered to be a Castadillaan adaptation of Marxist thought under the basis of scientific socialism. The term itself was created at the beginning of the period of democratic transition which had followed the civil war phase of the Velvet Revolution, and has been associated with the increasingly powerful socialist groups led by Vito Borbon which had controlled the nation's provisional government from 1989 until Borbon stepped down in 1994.

Terminology

The name of the ideology was first coined in 1994 in reference to the left-wing overtones of the Velvet Revolution ten years prior and the left-wing factions led by Vito Borbon that won out in the ensuing chaos in the years prior to the nation's democratic transition which began in 1994. These left-wing factions dubbed themselves aterciopeladistas, or "velvetines", claiming that they were the truest to the ideals of the Velvet Revolution and not the more reactionary rival ideologies which had attempted to take control of the nation. Other terms used during the Revolution were the radical far-left cabaceros (from "steel heads"), used to refer to Velvetines who wished to hasten the transition towards socialism, and the reactionary pascualistas ("Pascalists"), referring to any ideology that opposed the Velvetines. 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.

Core principles

The goal of Velvetine Socialism is to establish a comfortable standard of living for the worker within a market economy before transitioning to socialism. Vito Borbon summarised the application of this goal in a 1992 speech entitled "The Legacy of the Velvet Revolution and its Ideological Impact":

A socialist revolution can never be successful if a worker's standards of living aren't risen to levels suitable for comfortable living. Going straight to socialism head-first, while admirable, makes accumulating the needed resources to ensure a rising standard of living more difficult. Hence, the best way to raise a worker's standard of living is to do so before making the transition to socialism, by doing so within a market economy, albeit with strong governmental input to make sure that things run smoothly. Some radicals might call me a revisionist or a traitor to the revolution, but I stand here today affirming my commitment to the ideals of socialism, and more specifically Marxism.

Dirigism

Dirigism (Dirigismo) is a core principle of Velvetine Socialism. Velvetine Socialism stresses the importance of heavy economic involvement from the state, asserting that only the state can effectively plan out an economy as a means to curb production inefficiencies and market failures instead of just allowing the market to do as it pleases with these issues, or even just having the state play a merely regulatory role. It is the opposite of laissez-faire, instead making use of top-down indicative planning, state-directed investments, and even taxes and subsidies to urge and incentivise market entities to fulfill economic objectives as planned out by the state. It is, however, not a pure planned economy for the market-based allocation of production and investment has yet to be replaced with a binding plan of production expressed in units of physical economies. "National champions", large industry groups back by the state, is another main aspect of dirigism where the state encourages the mergers and formations of such groups.

The two sectors in which the Castadillaan state seeks greater control over are in infrastructure and the transportation system. Currently, the Castadillaan state owns the national railway company SIRF, the national electricity utility CRE, the national airline Rumair; phone and postal services are operated as subsidiaries of RumaTel. Other areas of great importance to the Castadillaan government are the defence and nuclear power industries. However, the construction of most motorways were delegated to semi-private companies rather than being handled by the government itself.

Ambitious state plans are a common trend as a result of dirigism, with the most successful examples being the extensive use of nuclear energy (close to 95% of Castadillaan electrical consumption is by nuclear power), the continuation and upgrading of the Televideo service (now Videocom), an online system for the masses that makes use of either phone lines or the Internet, and the TAV, a high-speed rail network.

Tripartism

Tripartism (Tripartismo) is not a concept that is found in most orthodox forms of socialist ideologies. Indeed, the emergence of tripartism came to be after the fall of fascism, itself following the conclusion of the Second Great War, and it takes some inspiration from the ideology. Thus, tripartism is in fact a core principle of neo-corporatist ideologies which can range from christian democracy to certain non-Marxist forms of socialism. The main principles behind tripartism often involves frequent negotiations between the government (usually as a mediator), employers' organization, and trade unions to create effective economic policies through social partnerships. Despite its distinctly non-socialistic roots, however, it remains as one of the core principles of Velvetine Socialism.

Velvetine Socialism claims to recognise that allowing the employers and trade unions to act independently without an mediators, the results will inevitably skew towards capitalism as the employers, through their vast stores of wealth, will try to do everything they can to expend as little as money as possible, even if it is at the expense of their employees' welfare and livelihoods. Because of this, Velvetine Socialism reasons that the government simply can not trust the employers to make the most ethical of choices for the sake of their employees and thus it is the duty of the government to act as a mediator between the two groups. By having a government that can and will side with the employees in almost every matter, it should ideally lead to a situation where the employees are able to maintain a living wage while ultimately encouraging a collaborative spirit between the two groups.

Related concepts

Revolution by the ballot

The idea of a socialist revolution being achieved by the ballot box 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 grassroots left-wing populism, 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.

Crown socialism

Not to be confused for Wittonian Socialism, although both concepts do share similar goals, crown socialism aims to reconcile the often-contradictory tenets of socialism and monarchism. Developed as a consequence of the Período de Salvación Democrática, crown socialism sees the monarch as the protector and guardian of the socialist revolution and hence should be the powerful chief executive for the nation. Castadilla's form of government is said to be a modified version of Urcea's form of government, effectively making Castadilla a semi-presidential republic below the monarchical office or rather the only instance of a monarchical Julian republic (other than the originator of the Julian style of government itself). Prior to late 1996, the role of chief executive was, and still is, accorded to the role of commander-in-chief though beforehand the role was given to a high-ranking member of the Delepasian Imperial Armed Forces via an election. After the Velvet Revolution the role was passed between various revolutionary generals during the transition to democracy.

The role of commander-in-chief was not given to Emperor Maximilian I until the formation of the sixth and final revolutionary provisional government on 30 September 1996. The reasoning behind this was due to fears that if another general who wished to repeat the actions of Raul Quintero were given the commandership they'd attempt to subvert the revolution or enter the nation into another state of civil war. As such, to preserve the revolution so that it can consolidate and take hold in the long-term, it was seen as prudent to give the commandership to the Emperor, who has long held socialist sympathies throughout his life, and so that the commandership can remain in the hands of a person who would be committed to a life of serving his people than someone who would sooner dismantle the revolution in the name of what was deemed to be "cheap, fickle, liberal populism".

Analysis

Criticisms

Velvetine Socialism has been criticised by a few critics as being more akin to corporatism with some heavy elements of natioanalism and thus departs from the basic principles of Marxism or even socialism. Some have even gone further and argue that Velvetine Socialism is actually closer to a progressive 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 ethnonationalism 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 neoliberalism, and that both seek to bring forth a form of common good 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 organicism and a distributist philosophy as their vehicle for the de-concentration of wealth, seeing itself as being neither left nor right economically.

Role of the monarchy

Both Castadilla 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?