Today’s global political condition entails poverty, economic disparity, a disenfranchised West, a bureaucratic club of 28 states lacking a democratic mandate, and an East plagued with religious & nuclear turmoil. This is nothing new, in fact Blackadder was conclusive evidence showing us that ‘If history has taught us anything, it is that the story of man is one long round of death and torture, and burning people as witches just because they’ve got a wart.’ (see E. Blackadder, 1999). Why don’t we all just face facts and admit that we are totally incapable of functioning as a race, give up and descend into anarchism, live in a world where nothing has any purpose what so ever other than immediate self-gratification. Or in other words, do what Russell Brand says we should do.
I’ve managed to gather from much internet research (Facebook & Twitter) that Mr. Brand’s suggestions are actually quite popular, particularly with people of the age at which general wisdom is that watching Question Time once a week serves as a qualification to dismiss everyone who is wrong, and is wrong on the grounds that they don’t agree with you. (I’m not even remotely different, I’m 21 and therefore always correct in my assertions). This post begs forgiveness for not devoting heart and soul to the ‘complex messiah’ who has come to absolve us of our sins, but instead is happy to recognise that his naïve, utopian stupidity may actually do some good.
I think Russell Brand finds supporters mostly amongst young people for two reasons. First, because this fits in well with the old ‘If you aren’t a liberal when you’re young, you have no heart, but if you aren’t a middle-aged conservative, you have no head.’ Edmund Burke, Anselme Batbie, Victor Hugo, King Oscar II of Sweden, George Bernard Shaw and Sir Winston Churchill are amongst the examples mentioned here http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head/ . I’m not sure this is true anymore, as I can think of plenty of older people who are still revolutionary socialists who have not grown up, but this of course is a matter of opinion. The second reason however is because when people are young and turning into political junkies, they will latch onto the first opinion that makes sense to them, especially if it is disguised with flowery language like that of Russell Brand. So when somebody hears him criticising poverty, relying heavily on words with an average of a thousand syllables, they are in a way shocked that they agree with, and understand something that is so clever that it has to be said using big words! I personally think George Orwell’s 1946 essay on Politics and the English Language sums up precisely what is wrong with this but the point still stands, it gains support for Russell Brand, because many can’t quite see that it is more complicated than he makes out. (I’m aware of how arrogant this must sound from someone who disagrees with him but it really is my view).
In 2013, in the widely viewed ‘Paxman vs. Brand’ video gained so much attention, and was, as far as I’m aware, the first time Russell Brand had really become a spokesman for the social cause, other than some involvement in speaking out against the current policy on illegal drugs. Why it is that this propelled him into being ‘Brand-ed’ as a philosophical, liberal hero with the insight of John Stuart Mill, and the eloquence of Charles Dickens (and come to that, the same concerns as Dickens) I have absolutely no idea. Particularly, as when asked to offer a credible alternative to the capitalist system he blames for all the world’s problems, Brand appeared to be shocked and offended at the suggestion of doing a better job himself. Did Paxman really expect a comedian to produce a new economic/social system, right there, on the spot in a hotel room? Of course not, the purpose here, I believe, was to highlight the fact that Brand is no different from anybody, from a 4 year old to a pensioner. Go and find me someone who is actually in favour of poverty, despotism or a self-serving political class… You’ll be looking for a long time. We are all against these injustices, why on earth does Mr. Brand deserve more respect than anyone else? What is he saying that is new? It might be said he is just adding to the problem given just how extreme his solution is.
The only new aspect of his rambling was his flippant disregard for our national history and structure. What he fails to notice is that there are so many historical events which lead to our current socio-political architecture; the development of a fiat currency, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the industrial revolution, contract law (this is but a drop in the ocean of possible examples, many could name much better and more relevant examples than I just have but each one serves a purpose). If you’ve found yourself finding sense in Brand’s suggestions, I suggest you tweet him and ask by what right does he claim to know that tearing down our current system, when completely incapable of articulating a more efficient one, does he claim to know that doing so would improve the situation for anybody? I believe the contrary is true, and that such a circumstance would only leave the floor open to the first charismatic, literary demagogue who could grab a speaking platform. This, ladies & gentlemen, is the mindless adoration for this infantile blindness, is simply the apotheosis of a child’s solution to a very difficult problem; totally oblivious to any wider effects.
The cracks began to show, I believe, quite recently when Mr. Brand accused a reporter of being ‘a snide’ when asked about the price of the house he rents. As a former occupant of Lawrence Olivier’s house, who sold is £1.2 million dollar mansion in order to rent in London at the cost of round about £5,000 per month, it seems to me to be easy for this sneaky imposter to use the protests of people threatened with eviction as a disguise, so he can gather support for his supposed revolution. I’m not even too sure his stance here is completely moral, is he suggesting it should be illegal to evict someone who is unable to pay their rent? Everyone should get everything for free being a further extrapolation? How does a Landlord who has his own costs to cover gain any kind of safety from this? Not that I don’t have sympathy for the protesters, in fact I wish that they were not forced into this position at all and hope very much that every single one of them manages to find a solution to a problem which I can scarcely imagine in my ignorance. My solution however would not be to resort to Bolshevik tactics, overthrow the whole system and hope for the best. This appears to be the equivalent of a child throwing all his cereal at the walls rather than adding sugar (perhaps not the strongest metaphor for changing individual components of issues rather than destroying everything in front of you). Why does Russell Brand not oppose individual pieces of legislation which may have led to people being in positions where their income does not cover their rents? Zero Hours contracts for example? Not a word from the comedian.
His revolution contains the following anti-monarchist sentiment: “A little old lady in a shiny hat – that we paid for.” This should be enough to make anyone suspicious at the very least. How little does he know about our reigning monarch? Who, by the way, has devoted more or less every second of her years to the country which she so beautifully represents. Indeed she has more engagements per year than there are days in the year. If he still believes the monarchy is an obstacle for us, then he may want to have a quick read about the events leading to the execution of Charles I, and also have a look at our unwritten constitution and how we have managed to offer some balance in the parliamentary system… if we were to remove the monarchy does he believe it would be replaced with nothing and all would fine? Why on earth would you not want to pay for the monarch, the negligible amount paid for her ceaselessly busy lifestyle is returned consistently at many times the value it was invested at. You think you’re paying for her majesty to live in a big palace? Think again Mr. Brand.
Now, I haven’t forgotten that the title says I’m in favour of Mr. Brand’s antics. Perhaps I will explain why this is the case by responding prematurely to some of the criticisms I expect to receive for this heresy I dare to publish:
‘He is bringing attention to a good cause’
I do not agree, I think he is hijacking what could have been successful and coherent humanist cause, and using it to blast his own grievances at the whole of society. So, while at the very grain of his argument, there is truth, which is that we are all in need of reform, he distorts this message by offering a truly destructive solution. The reason I do derive some happiness from this however, is that hopefully the people he encourages not to vote would have only been those who were easily swayed by loud propagandists anyway, are susceptible to a lot of trickery and maybe need to lay off the ballot paper for a while so they can go away and have a think about how lucky they are to have a democracy.
‘Even if he is rich and lives in an expensive property, it is still good that he protests with the poor’
In principal I agree with this very much, however I do not think that he should be exempt from criticism as he so clearly does which he shows by throwing his toys out of his pram at the first question a reporter asks about his home.
‘You obviously don’t care about anything other than money and if you’re disagreeing with a man who speaks out in favour of those who struggle then you’re wicked’.
Really? I’m a student, I don’t have a penny, I don’t even have the option to care about money! As for the rest, I don’t disagree with him for trying to help the poor, who on earth would do so? I’m just not entirely convinced he has thought out his criticisms and solutions with any great care.
Fair enough?
In fact, the main reason I like Russell Brand (other than the fact I enjoy his comedy and acting) is because I think Mill’s ‘On Liberty’ was correct in saying that the truth is found through debate, with no restriction of freedom of speech. So, as long as Mr. Brand has these views, and people feel he speaks on behalf of them, I will always support his desire to comment and hope that he continues to do so as loudly, and fairly as he can. I will however, also exercise my own right to excoriate everything he says.
Anyway, Mr. Brand seems to me to be very much the type who would spend hours on the internet, in search of means to abus… sorry- amuse himself. So, should he venture far enough into cyber space to chance upon my little blog where I complain so much, I’d like to issue him a challenge, on behalf of everyone, partly in an attempt to acknowledge the fact that I may for all I know be completely ignorant and unjust in my criticisms, and have misjudged a well-meaning, human rights activist, who’s raving and ranting made clear to everyone else yet concealed from me, a way to achieve a much smoother society where corruption is but a forgotten word. My challenge is: I will remove this post, write a public apology for condemning Russell Brand’s suggestions and buy every single one of his DVDs if he can just demonstrate some kind of alternative, even if it is only temporary and transitional, which would solve every single one of the issues he has cited, without causing equally vicious problems elsewhere, and maintains our democratic sanction of government. If Mr. Brand can do this then he will have my full support, I think I’ve been as fair as I can be.
Hey! Just my opinion, I hope people take the opposite view!
consideringandranting 