>Redistribution of wealth is a core concept of socialism, and that's what this program effectively achieves. The resources come from heavier taxation from the federal government on the bigger economic centers of Brazil. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
You two are arguing around two definitions of socialism, the OP is using the standard definition and you are using your own heuristic.
>I believe that a state that taxes and redistributes wealth is enforcing some level of common ownership, so acting under socialist principles.
This doesn't follow. If they were abolishing property rights, then yes you might have a point, but this is nothing new. It doesn't erode away any of the problematic power relations in a pre-socialist economy.
It's like equating the following:
>There are many ways to spend tax money that aren't directly related to welfare: military, infra-strucure for the private sector (docks, airports), industry, research...
with fascism.
It bears a resemblance but upon closer inspection is absolutely nothing of the sort.
I'm also curious as to why you don't classify the above corporate welfare as socialism as well.
> You two are arguing around two definitions of socialism, the OP is using the standard definition and you are using your own heuristic.
I'm giving my definition, as someone who knows what goes on inside this country.
The program was put in practice under a left-wing government, whose president was the head of the worker party and went to jail during the right-wing, US-supported, military dictatorship we had in Brazil from 1964 to 1986.
So even though the program looks like "just" welfare, there's a strong socialist doctrine behind it, revolving around redistribution of wealth and the maintenance of the left-wing in power. Mind you, the same party that implemented the program won all four subsequent elections for presidency.
> It bears a resemblance but upon closer inspection is absolutely nothing of the sort.
Nothing of the sort? It's pretty close a description of where the US government invests it's tax money, and there are quite a few people who classify it as a fascist government. The fact it's a military power, ran by a two-party system where both sit on the same axis of the political spectrum, with a strong nationalism sentiment and martialist culture are often given as indicators.
>> This has nothing to do with socialism.
>Redistribution of wealth is a core concept of socialism, and that's what this program effectively achieves. The resources come from heavier taxation from the federal government on the bigger economic centers of Brazil. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
You two are arguing around two definitions of socialism, the OP is using the standard definition and you are using your own heuristic.
>I believe that a state that taxes and redistributes wealth is enforcing some level of common ownership, so acting under socialist principles.
This doesn't follow. If they were abolishing property rights, then yes you might have a point, but this is nothing new. It doesn't erode away any of the problematic power relations in a pre-socialist economy.
It's like equating the following:
>There are many ways to spend tax money that aren't directly related to welfare: military, infra-strucure for the private sector (docks, airports), industry, research...
with fascism.
It bears a resemblance but upon closer inspection is absolutely nothing of the sort.
I'm also curious as to why you don't classify the above corporate welfare as socialism as well.