SpiraSpira
it's not a socialism. it is more of a distopian monarchy that acts like a corporation, that is setting up a micro environment of cohabiting corpos to strengthen its position without excessive build up of bureaucracy, and treats providing basic needs of poorest city inhabitants as a long term low cost investment in its present and future workforce. and the workforce of its developing corpo environment.
to be fair any form of hierarchy under the correct conditions can be good, possibly even amazingly close to utopian but in reality those conditions are insanely difficult to understand and successful maintain and sadly the one condition they all need fulfilled is having people in charge that truly care for those under their leadership
I had discussed something similar with a friend. Ideally, logical facts associated with survival should be controlled and distributed when necessary. Often times the only barrier to this is either resource management or moral and ethical intervention. This being the reason why most governments nowadays are seen negatively. Our input has no clear output that directly affects us. And, we have no way to change or improve said system. I.e. sheeple, as it were. Ironically, thats what the u.s. constiution was originally aimed to prevent. To give people the power to imrpove where and how they live. At this point, it is impractical for any one person to do so. Given this, I wouldnt call it socialism, it is seperate from a societial aspect. Meaning, basic living does not equate to social impact. Its just that currently it does. Once seperate, it is no longer a part of societies focus. At that point, it doesnt matter what form of society or economy a group has.