Providism

[Hyung]

Hello comrades, I wanted to see what your opinion on this new idea i came up with. I call it Providism, from the word, "provide".

So here's the basics of my idea; The state provides housing, food, water, electricity, etc., etc., pretty much the basic needs. So now, people don't have to work to survive, to live. All the people would have to work for, is the luxuries, the "wants", and taxes. These would be, for example, a new plasma screen, or a new car, or a fancy lobster dinner, or whatever. Taxes would be paid to be used for the people, not for useless reasons. I mean its not like we don't pay taxes already, and that's without having basic needs provided for!

So this new system would pretty much on its own eliminate poverty, starvation, and maybe even social classes, and still keep people's freedom to start their own businesses and stuff like that alive.:thumbup1:

[red cat]

Luxury today = Necessity tomorrow. :)

[red cat]

Let us assume that your system stays intact while some people start businesses. Some of these businesses will gradually turn into huge capitals. Now a class of people will have greater purchasing power and the price of what are luxury goods now will go up. Over time, this will lead to some people living very lavishly and the vast majority of the population living humble lives. This relative inequality which is ultimately caused by private ownership of the means of production will cause the proletariat to make a revolution and take over.

[revolution inaction]

thats rather naive, the state exists to protect the interests of the ruling class, not to look after the people.

[Zanthorus]

This relative inequality which is ultimately caused by private ownership of the means of production will cause the proletariat to make a revolution and take over.

Agreed:

"A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace rises in equal or even in greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within his four walls." - Karl Marx, Wage Labour & Capital


thats rather naive, the state exists to protect the interests of the ruling class, not to look after the people.

I agree apart from I think that to a certain extent the state does curtail some of the ruling class interests but always, ultimately, only to preserve the power of the ruling class.

[RotStern]

So hows life as a Social-Democrat?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There isn't enough money in the world...

Besides, that system aims to reduce wealth inequality by indirect economic measures. It is likely that at some stage the state would be corrupted and the direction of said 'reforms' (which is all this theory really is) would change to something less acceptable to a socialist.

Better is to use fiscal policy to attack the cause of many of our troubles - wealth inequality. The rest will follow.:)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

So hows life as a Social-Democrat?

Instead of sneering at a misguided idea (and likely turning OP away from true socialism and towards what capitalists call 'social democracy') why don't you try to push the debate into a more socialist direction.