My first impressions of Russell Brand before his recent
foray into politics were not particularly warm.
From what little I had heard about him, not that I enquired that much
into him, he was some sort of comedian.
Hearing snippets of his humour from sources such as the radio I found
his humour was a bit hit and miss with me.
Sometimes he struck a shocking but genuinely funny note. Other times I found his humour hard to digest
because of it’s often loud and manic delivery.
And all too often his humour focused on the sexually profane too much
more my taste. I am not a prude, but I
find that humour based on sex can often be as unpleasant as the comedian in
question pulling down their trousers and going “look at what I have got.” Perhaps in that way I am stereotypically
British. But Russell Brand’s foray into
politics intrigued me. It comes at a
shambolic time for the left. We seem to
be being routed by an alcoholic who acts like a game show host. At strange times like these stranger figures
seem to come forward to provide counterweight, and so Russell Brand enters the
ring. His tweets and Facebook entries
have taken on a progressively more political character, and are often
accompanied by videos articulating his views.
But the more and more I saw of him on these outlets the more I became
simultaneously intrigued and frustrated.
Intrigued because at least some of what he said made sense. Frustrated because he seemed unwilling to
commit himself to many policy ideas, if any.
Russell Brand was, and still is, preaching revolution and I had but one
question: ‘what would his revolution look like?’ I asked and received the book for Christmas
to try and find out the answer to that question.
The tone and rhythm of the book was at first quite hard to
get into. Serious points were separated
by either random jokes or monologues about various amusing stories. While this was somewhat expected, given that
a comedian wrote it, it took some getting used to. In many ways the hard arguments and solutions
it was trying to make could of done with a bit less of this formula in order to
have given them credibility. But this
isn’t the main thing I noticed at the start of this book. The main thing I did notice was it’s deep and
unapologetically spiritual message.
Russell Brand told tales from his unsettled childhood leading up to his
unsettled life, laying it out as a kind of quest for mental fulfilment and
tranquillity. It felt often more like I
was reading something from the Dalai Lama or some other type of spiritual
authority. At first this put me off but
much of this talk addressed a few key points.
For instance the parts which reflected on the importance of the present,
so as not to be preoccupied with the past or future especially resonated with
me. By my own admission I am especially
bad at this and worry constantly about the next event coming up in my
life. That is good advice, hopefully one
day it is advice I will stick to.
However as the book went on it unexpectedly and
disappointingly posed spirituality as being in constant competition with
rationalism and its partner science.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions but I find these arguments trying
at the best of times. Why does science
and religion have to be in an open war against each other. Granted my one time hero Richard Dawkins has
turned into an arrogant bully, basically turning into a Twitter troll and an
atheistic hate preacher. But that
doesn’t mean I view the advancement of science as bad. And I am sure that opinion will be confirmed
if I have to rely on a newly researched drug in the future to keep the Reaper
at bay. Like I said I am an atheist but
I am realistic and tolerant. Whatever I
do and whatever I say won’t change the fact that not everyone thinks like I
do. And I accept that. So why doesn’t Russell Brand? He seemed to condemn science for spoiling the
mysteries of the universe. I just have
one response to him; don’t worry Mr Brand, there is plenty more universe out
there. Sometimes this belief in the
spiritual seems to override his common sense.
He speaks of a Transcendental Meditation experiment held in Washington
DC in which hundreds of people meditating allegedly contributed to a 23% drop
in crime. Really? I somehow doubt that. If the criminally inclined out there knew
where and when the experiment was being held perhaps the participants would
have woken up to find their wallets and cars missing. Who knows?
The spiritual instruction/biography third of the first book
was followed by an outlining of the political problems the country faces from
the author’s perspective, as well as a confirming of his political
position. In very frank terms the
“system” (a term Brand uses to describe contemporary western democracy and capitalism)
is failing and leading us all to our doom, ecological and spiritual doom to be
precise. As though he presumes all of his
audience is convinced of this Brand doesn’t even try to counter argue for
balance. The message is continuously
drummed in; the ‘system’ will only serve the interests of the rich and kill the
planet. Asides from him not putting much
effort into arguing his case I in part agreed with him. I believe he is too dismissive of capitalism but
I am convinced that mankind needs to change its ways in order to protect the
environment, or suffer terrible consequences.
But I did not agree with him when it came to his views on democracy.
We don’t have a democracy is Russell Brand’s argument. It is basically a big stitch up by the
wealthy, with corporations mentioned innumerable times. I would counter that we don’t have a FULL
democracy. I am certainly with him with
his pro republican arguments, arguing in favour of an elected Head of State, I
say lets do it! But given that we have
in this country (broadly speaking) tremendous respect for human rights,
universal suffrage, free media etc I think his argument is inaccurate and
hyperbolic. It does however have an
element of truth. Human rights are being
chiselled away in the name of counter terrorism. Votes for parties doesn’t always lead to the
change we would like to see, and often a lot that we are against. And the media is shamelessly monopolised by a
few greedy conglomerates. I am not in
favour of this. But nor am I in favour
of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
What also made me deeply suspicious of his arguments was that he argued
that anyone who argued in favour of the status quo was basically a reactionary
and by extension evil. Well it didn’t
take long for the brotherly love message from the chapters before to disappear
either? I see here that Brand more than
once falls into the extremist trap. And
later he falls for the anarchist one too.
More on that later. Furthermore when it comes to examples of direct democracy that already exist in the world Russell Brand tends to pretty dismissive about it's results. He waved them off by saying the people who voted were "conditioned" which I think is pretty condescending.
So after throwing the ‘system’ into the dustbin the last
third of the book is dedicated to coming up with new ideas. Interestingly as it got closer to the end
more concrete ideas were described. Some
of these were actually pretty good, like private companies dedicating their
profits to community benevolence funds and new forms of participatory democracy. Some of these ideas could have used a few
tweaks, but I was getting into it. Then
the book ended! It’s a real shame Brand
didn’t dedicate more time to outlining such policy ideas. A big reason why I read this book was to essentially
see what his revolutionary blueprint was.
If he writes a follow up I recommend he researches a lot more and courts
more controversy by putting down some more bold but constructive ideas. He should put his money where his mouth is,
so to speak.
The main political creed Brand seems to support is
anarchism, mainly of the syndicalist variety.
It is ultimately a rejection of all government. Fair enough.
But then we lead to what I call the anarchist trap. Basically anarchists agree that humans need
to come up with some sort of arrangements by which they cooperate with each
other. This leads to voluntary
organisations. Organisations eh? Almost like a ………..government. But the voluntary part also looks on human
nature as being ultimately altruistically motivated, not negative. The problem is I don’t think all people are
at core good or bad. There lies the
ultimate need for government in some form or another, NOT solely run by
volunteers. But if the author and his
friends are so keen on starting collectives and cooperative businesses I don’t
see any reason for anyone to stop them.
What harm can it do? It can
certainly do a lot of good. I just don’t
think such organisations can stand up to the responsibilities that governments
deal with. If Mr Brand wants to prove me
wrong I invite him to try. If it goes
his way I will humbly admit that I am wrong and he is right.
Overall I see Russell Brand’s ‘Revolution’ as an interesting
if at times frustrating read. I don’t
think I will read it again. The book
isn’t particularly large by my standards and I am confident that I have taken
its central messages and arguments in.
You can’t fault Brand for enthusiasm for his new interest in politics,
he seems very determined to challenge the status quo. The problem is he speaks like a fanatical
convert, seemingly oblivious to covering his bases when arguing for his
ideas. Those arguing in favour of
keeping things the same are rashly written off essentially as evil
counterrevolutionaries. Mr Brand needs
to consider why these people may object to his plans. Better yet, why doesn’t he talk to those
people? In one sentence he dismissively
turns down the suggestion of talking to a regular pro capitalist
economist. I ask why not? If his arguments are so self-evidently solid,
then surely he should challenge the major leagues to a duel. I think Russell Brand could learn a lot from
talking to his political opponents and trying to empathise with them. In many ways Brand needs to take his own advice
from the spiritually focused chapters and talk to his fellow man. With regards to capitalism I think Brand
needs to reacquaint himself with the positive elements of the system. The competition of ideas alone that are
inherent with capitalism surely should give many people pause for thought. Capitalism isn’t perfect and it needs some
work. My own manifesto is busy trying to
harness it’s advantages to tackle positive causes, such as saving the planet
from us. But on a positive note I do
agree with him that we humans have mentally and physically have become too
distant from nature. This distance has
caused us to lose respect for nature.
Sooner or later the chickens will come home to roost to punish us for
our ignorance.
The observant among you may notice that this is a largely
critical review. That isn’t to say I
detest Russell Brand. I think he is OK
and for the most part has his heart in the right place. He seems to have quite an open door about who
he talks to about his ideas. In that
spirit my door would be open. I plan to
send him an email, basically critiquing his book. If he invited me round to his house for a
chat I don’t think I would turn him down.
Besides that would be rude. But
on a serious note I do think in his own way he is pushing for constructive
change. In many ways he reminds me of
myself 10 years ago. I was on the
extreme left back then but I came back.
I came back because ultimately I realised a lot of my heroes were more
suspect when I first thought. I came
back because I was tired of being angry all the time. I came back because I was talking more than
listening. But mostly I came back
because I was tired of bending the truth to fit my arguments. Without the truth you are completely
lost. So if Russell Brand was willing I
would happily sit down for some decaf (given my allergy) and explain to him why
I think he is mistaken. Ultimately
Russell Brand is trying in his own way to push for positive change and that has
to count for something.
