Sunny Hundal writes:
The comedian Russell Brand was interviewed on Newsnight
last night about his book, which you can watch above.
One headline is that Brand casually implies 9/11 was an inside job because George Bush had links to the Saudis, before half-heartedly back-tracking.
But I was more depressed by the first 10 minutes of conversation, and I want to explain why because I think this matters in a wider context.
In the debate Evan Davis wants to ask Brand a simple question: what is the alternative you propose?
The comedian, who has apparently written an entire book calling for a revolution, doesn’t have a straight answer.
Brand says the current system isn’t working (partly true) and points to activism by others challenging the consensus.
Brand says he is merely a high-profile voice and his job is to amplify the work of others. I think that’s fair enough.
But Davis has a more profound question that Brand clearly doesn’t want to answer.
My version of that question goes like this: If you want to replace the current system of capitalism with something else, who is going to make your jeans, iPhones and run Twitter?
I.e. capitalism clearly has downsides, but it also leads to products that people really want to use.
The desire for profit has led companies like Apple, Levi’s and Twitter to create popular products that – especially in the case of social media – we can sometimes even use for free (in return for being forced to watch advertising, of course).
In the debate, Evan Davis asks Brand about the fact that wages have historically gone up: making billions of people richer and allowing them to afford products like fridge freezers, TVs and iPhones.
Brand’s response is: “Mate, I ain’t got time for a bloody graph”.
And then there are other responses that suggest he is blindly oblivious to his own privilege.
The problem I have with Russell Brand is that his style of politics is anti-intellectualism on an epic scale. He isn’t just leaving the heavy lifting to others, he casually dismisses facts like they are irrelevant.
Yes, our capitalist system is breaking down and our democracy has many flaws with it.
But any discussion that starts with the premise that we need a revolution to over-throw the system must at least have a response to the inevitable: “and replace it with what?”
This isn’t to say I’m in favour of unadulterated capitalism or that I think cooperatives, mutuals, non-profit groups or social enterprises have no place.
In fact we need far more of them.
But, in effect, the Russell Brand critique is mild because all it really wants is a bit less of what is currently on offer a bit more of… some nice things that other people are asking for.
To dress that up as a ‘revolution’ is plainly fatuous.
The establishment humours Russell Brand because he poses little threat to the system.
Newsnight has him on because he’s good for their ratings, not because they want to bring down the system too.
The lack of an effective critique means that people will listen to him, glaringly see the obvious contradictions and unanswered questions, and dismiss the Left as over-privileged white guys who don’t want to work but want their iPhones anyway.
A few years ago, I was going past the occupation of Parliament Square.
I was quite defensive of the activists in the media and wanted to spend a bit of time just getting to know them. Bad idea.
I came in being quite sympathetic, but soon realised that some of the people there only spoke in clichés and hadn’t actually looked into the nuances of what they were saying.
The woman I was talking to seemed to think everything was a conspiracy. Soon she was joined by some people who firmly believed 9/11 was an inside job.
I made an hasty exit. Of course, every group has its share of cranks but it was a very sobering experience.
One headline is that Brand casually implies 9/11 was an inside job because George Bush had links to the Saudis, before half-heartedly back-tracking.
But I was more depressed by the first 10 minutes of conversation, and I want to explain why because I think this matters in a wider context.
In the debate Evan Davis wants to ask Brand a simple question: what is the alternative you propose?
The comedian, who has apparently written an entire book calling for a revolution, doesn’t have a straight answer.
Brand says the current system isn’t working (partly true) and points to activism by others challenging the consensus.
Brand says he is merely a high-profile voice and his job is to amplify the work of others. I think that’s fair enough.
But Davis has a more profound question that Brand clearly doesn’t want to answer.
My version of that question goes like this: If you want to replace the current system of capitalism with something else, who is going to make your jeans, iPhones and run Twitter?
I.e. capitalism clearly has downsides, but it also leads to products that people really want to use.
The desire for profit has led companies like Apple, Levi’s and Twitter to create popular products that – especially in the case of social media – we can sometimes even use for free (in return for being forced to watch advertising, of course).
In the debate, Evan Davis asks Brand about the fact that wages have historically gone up: making billions of people richer and allowing them to afford products like fridge freezers, TVs and iPhones.
Brand’s response is: “Mate, I ain’t got time for a bloody graph”.
And then there are other responses that suggest he is blindly oblivious to his own privilege.
The problem I have with Russell Brand is that his style of politics is anti-intellectualism on an epic scale. He isn’t just leaving the heavy lifting to others, he casually dismisses facts like they are irrelevant.
Yes, our capitalist system is breaking down and our democracy has many flaws with it.
But any discussion that starts with the premise that we need a revolution to over-throw the system must at least have a response to the inevitable: “and replace it with what?”
This isn’t to say I’m in favour of unadulterated capitalism or that I think cooperatives, mutuals, non-profit groups or social enterprises have no place.
In fact we need far more of them.
But, in effect, the Russell Brand critique is mild because all it really wants is a bit less of what is currently on offer a bit more of… some nice things that other people are asking for.
To dress that up as a ‘revolution’ is plainly fatuous.
The establishment humours Russell Brand because he poses little threat to the system.
Newsnight has him on because he’s good for their ratings, not because they want to bring down the system too.
The lack of an effective critique means that people will listen to him, glaringly see the obvious contradictions and unanswered questions, and dismiss the Left as over-privileged white guys who don’t want to work but want their iPhones anyway.
A few years ago, I was going past the occupation of Parliament Square.
I was quite defensive of the activists in the media and wanted to spend a bit of time just getting to know them. Bad idea.
I came in being quite sympathetic, but soon realised that some of the people there only spoke in clichés and hadn’t actually looked into the nuances of what they were saying.
The woman I was talking to seemed to think everything was a conspiracy. Soon she was joined by some people who firmly believed 9/11 was an inside job.
I made an hasty exit. Of course, every group has its share of cranks but it was a very sobering experience.
If Brand gets more apolitical people to question the world
they’re in, then great.
But I worry about something else: that there’s a
broader slide towards anti-intellectualism among lefties where facts don’t
matter and smart critiques are junked in favour of clichés.
The world is a
messy place and our politicians are very flawed people.
But we have to work
(sometimes within the system) to continually reform it and improve it, not wait
around for some vague revolution that will never come.
If the end result is the
UKIP-isation of the Left then I don’t want any part of that revolution.
Quite.
It is the libertarian Right that needs to be asked with what, exactly, it disagreed with Brand. He needs to be asked the same question about it.
Quite.
It is the libertarian Right that needs to be asked with what, exactly, it disagreed with Brand. He needs to be asked the same question about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment