>> 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.