I'd agree with one exception. The resources of a country should be used for the benefit of the citizens of that country, not for the benefit of mega-corporations and their stockholders.

Everyone should get a basic standard of living, including medical care. It would be high enough to afford a bus pass, not enough for a car. People with lifestyle related problems will not be enabled. Someone who is too obese to get to the store or doctor without a car won't get to the store or doctor. Someone who is too drunk to get a liver transplant won't get a liver transplant.

The basic standard of living would create a demand private enterprise could fill. Private enterprise would build radios, for instance, and TVs and sell and service them. Private industry could build cars, to sell to those who work to afford them. Everyone would get a free education for as far as they wanted to go. That's not a radical idea - Gaddafi supplied that to every Libyan. If a Libyan could get into Oxford, they could go to Oxford at the government's expense.

Someone invents a widget, they own the patent and the funds derived from it. Someone builds a house and sells it, fine. Same with a large building.

Private industry would not own the means of generating power, or the coal or oil which is used. Those come out of the commonly owned ground, and are the people's. The basic stuff would belong to and be used for the benefit of the people. The limited benefit. Everyone would get, say, $12,000 per year. Anyone who wants more has to work. Anyone with any sense gets to work. Anyone who wants to live on $12,000 per year can do that.

By the way, to own or possess a car would require proof of income over $12,000. To buy a house the same. Etc.