All the proceeds of his book, I was told, go to non-profit organisations Brand supports.

The comment in bold directly contradicts the society we live in today though. We don't live in a totally free market, because we bail out private banks with public money, have an obligatory minimum wage set by central government, have academy schools funded by private individuals that implement governmental syllabus' etc. etc. etc.

You also can 'just give everyone a payrise' as we saw just the other week when the Tories raised the minimum wage, and as we see in the fact that Labour and the Greens want to increase it further. You also can have rent control, which we did before 1980, around the time the housing market exploded. I'm not recommending it, as I believe the abolition of Private Property would be of more use, but it's stupid to narrow your conception in to what one can and can't do. History shows you can do multiple things, with varying effects.

You also can 'just give everyone a payrise' as we saw just the other week when the Tories raised the minimum wage, and as we see in the fact that Labour and the Greens want to increase it further. You also can have rent control, which we did before 1980, around the time the housing market exploded.

I believe the abolition of Private Property would be of more use

Come on Johnny... surely you can buy in to "All property is theft"

Jeez, guess I should probably defend myself then.

To call for the abolition of private property has not, historically, necessarily been an implausibly radical concept. I read a pretty interesting thing about the Levellers the other day, from around the Civil War period in England, and they argued from a religious perspective that as property had only ever been gained via oppression, theft or murder, and that this contradicted the teachings of Christianity that in an ideal Roundhead society would be practiced.

Likewise, in the early 20th century when Bolshevism was on the rise in much of the world, the concept of the justice or injustice of private property was widely discussed. Important to point out that this was held within conversations of Communism in theory, and certainly wasn't a policy effectively carried out by Soviet Russia, where the beauraucratic corruption very much lead to certain individuals enjoying exclusive access to private capital and property.

So these things have been genuinely discussed. But sadly in the post-Cold War period, to even suggest such a thing is to be roundly mocked as having views which are perhaps impractical, or even totally implausible.

And property is still based on those three things: oppression, theft or murder, and thus should still therefore be challenged. And I don't mean paying your mortgage involves a blood sacrifice, I mean that the very idea you must pay for a stable habitat to live in and the reason someone else has any right to claim ownership is a f*cking joke. The Queen still owns 6,600 million acres of land. How did she get that? What need has one person to own so much land, other than to extract money from her tenants through a rent which she ultimately can arbitrarily fix, and why should she own it when it's simply been passed down to her via her murdering, thieving oppressive regal predecessors?

A post-private property society wouldn't mean kicking you out of your home, it would simply mean that the primitive animal need to have a roof over your head wouldn't be decided on your financial clout. I agree with Jamie that this view is so far from the political mainstream at the minute that it would probably take a revolution to occur, but isn't that the depressing point, that we have reached a stage where the idea of certain human beings 'owning' large masses of land at the detriment of almost all other human beings is just accepted without thought?