I totally agree in some ways. He wasn't presenting an a argument really, and I don't think that was his intent. This kind of thing by itself is pretty useless.
But I'd argue that it's not without merit. I'm not in love with every word he said or every rhetorical angle he took, but I think what he was doing can be motivating. It can be good to hear others express a passionate stance against something you are feeling too. That kind if thig sparks fires in others and that can spread. (Let's just hope it spreads to some people with better skills in the way of working to come up with a better plan). But it can be good to hear that other ways are possible and to be encouraged to think that way.
He wasn't pretending to have a plan. He was just speaking his mind and using his position in the public eye to share his fire inside with the world.
I agree, to an extent.
I agree in that ressentiment can have its purposes.
If that much inequality, that much injustice, is in existence, then the ressentiment should build up to such an extent, become such a pressure cooker, such a pot boiling over, that it forces those issues to be dealt with by those in power.
At the same time, though, sometimes the "solutions" offered (i.e., extremely high taxation, eliminating profit, etc) are such complete and total crap that, really, the effect of taking those actions in order to appease that ressentiment would actually end up being worse off for the system as a whole (including, likely, in the end, those with the ressentiment).
Not all inequality and not all injustice can feasibly be eliminated, and, at least with inequality, not all of it necessarily even should.
(That being said, I do find the trend of increased inequality since the early 70s in America to be problematic.)
(And universal healthcare is one prong amongst several [not all appeasing the same side of the equation - some go in the "opposite" direction, in order to increase competitiveness, and thus our economy/employment] that can be enacted to remedy our problems.)