The other day I was sitting on the stairs outside the local art centre reading Russell Brand’s Revolution when an English bloke walked by and jokingly said, Catching up with some Brand? We had a quick banter and the conversation ended with the suited, twenty-something-year old walking off saying Brand’s the man. The comment made me feel weirdly proud for a second; Aahw, did you hear that Russell? Then again, the moment was fleeting; no more than three sentences were exchanged. If the Suit and I had spent five more minutes talking, would he have elaborated his most honourable statement about Brand with a series of “buts”? It seems to me like the overall consensus is pretty indecisive. Russell has definitely gained a die-hard following and has become the Pied Piper of the London streets; however, for every person following his magical song, there is one person out there not yet entirely convinced of the political journey.
Discussing Brand’s new book Revolution and his eager presence in the Million Mask March in November, someone made a lazy argument to support his lack of confidence in good ol’ Russell. They basically said that everything Brand’s throwing out there is the kind of stuff that’s being discussed down at the pub on any given night. While this might be fair and by all means true, at least Russell has taken his thoughts and ideas beyond the stale, piss-stained realms of his local pub, right? Russell Brand has used his fame to reach out and donate his time, money and energy for a good cause. We’re constantly hearing about famous musicians, actors and comedians putting their millions to good use. So what makes Brand so special? Why is he getting picked on? He’s done some pretty silly shit in his time, but that’s more or less in the past. Perhaps we’re all still surprised by some of the undeniable trews he’s spilling. Then again, anyone who has seen his Messiah Complex should have realised by now that there’s something rather spiritual and searching nestled beneath his bee-hived head; that’s if you weren’t distracted by his repeatedly steering your attention to his leathered crotch with rather elegant assemblés. The musings of his show were funny but were delivered with the sense of urgency we are getting to see more and more from Brand these days. He’s known for his wide-eyed curiosity, his pushing of boundaries, his need for connection. That side of him has always been there, so what is everyone so mad about? We all knew he wasn’t going to back down after his now infamous interview with Jeremy Paxman, the “somnolent croc” who “eats home secretaries for breakfast, shits chancellors and wipes his arse on prime ministers”.
Russell Brand is routing for an equal society and a new cultural narrative. I can see why haters want to hate when he’s discussing things like social housing, food expenses and wages whilst being driven around in the back of a “Hitler-Mobile”, wearing boots that cost more than a month’s worth of groceries and eating fresh organic food most likely purchased by a member of his paid entourage. I get it. But then again, he is going to use the proceeds of this book to open a meeting space/café run entirely by recovering addicts; he is using his public status to speak for all those affected by our corrupted system, even if he’s not. Whether you like his comedy and acting or not is beside the point here; obviously there are enough people who do. Why not, let him use his globally recognised soap box to stand up-on and bestow upon the world his wisdoms. Take what you want from it, ditch the rest and just quit fucking moaning. To many, Brand seems to have become the spiritual leader of the year 2014, dare I say, the John Lennon to our generation. But most are still on the sidelines and reluctant to stand by even the smallest truths they recognise within his theories. Is it because he’s a former middle-class man with a dark, manic past and a tendency to exaggerate pretty much anything he does, or because he’s a celebrity with silly hair and rock’n’roller clothes?
Either stand-point doesn’t seem quite fair. I’ve known many a middle-class man to be more intelligent than five Yale graduates put together. As we all know, intelligence isn’t just measured by how well you know your books and numbers; life and experience can teach you things you’d never learn at university. And you know what else? Surrounding yourself with and talking to the right people can go a long way too and Brand’s Revolution illustrates that perfectly. While he’s sharing a whole lot of his own personal views regarding spirituality, Kundalini Yoga, consciousness and his twenty-four hour stint in the US marines, the revolutionary ideas in this book mainly stem from the minds and research of others. Russell turns to financial journalist Matt Stoller, anti-globalisation activist Helena Norberg-Hodge and Dave DeGraw (The Economics of Revolution) for insight and repeatedly quotes mythologist Joseph John Campbell and Gaudiya Vaishnava guru, Radhanath Swami.
Brand is the first to admit that he is by no means an expert and that a lot of (socio-) political matters were beyond his understanding. Therefore, I think it’s rather kind of him to have shared his learning process on The Trews. In The Trews he really does put an effort into breaking it all down for us in a way that helps us seep through the robotic language of politicians and financial analysts. In Revolution, however, he does tend to get lost in his Word of the Day calendars, often using over-the-top vocabulary to get his point across. Russell, we know you’re well-versed and intelligent, there’s no need to show off; aren’t you trying to reach a younger population? Then how about turning it down a notch, here and there? The same way the suits might ridicule hippy-ish terms such as “transcend”, “consciousness” and “love” when used in relation to politics and globalisation, sixteen year-old Croydon chavs may wrinkle their nose at terms like “atavistic, visceral attachment”.
When I first saw the Jeremy Paxman interview and the many appearances that followed in the same light, I thought Holy moly; this guy has something to say. I, as many others, was excited by the prospects of a British revolutionary leading the way to Utopian ideals. But he wasn’t quite clear about his goals. How are we going to go about it? What steps are we going to take to change the system? I completely understand that Brand would be shitting hot bricks en route to be interviewed on BBC’s Newsnight, especially knowing Paxman would ask him to “devise a global utopian system” as a direct response to his political activism. He did manage to charm and surprise as usual, but he didn’t come prepared. So he took a year to step back, collect his thoughts and put together a manifesto in the form of his book Revolution. There are still no solid execution plans, no detailed blue-prints of newly structured systems, but there are a whole bunch of ideas for starting points:
- The cancellation of personal debt
- The killing of a corporation (like General Motors)
- A shift of consciousness
- The elimination of titles
- Removal of corrupt global trade agreements
- Control over the private funding of political campaigns
- Getting rid of guard labour (based on companies like Oracle spending around $4.6 million on security)
- A return to local, responsible agriculture
- The removal of the physical and psychological tools of the powerful
Whether you think the moves towards a revolution offered here are just or not relies heavily on personal opinion or, as Russell might state, on how you’ve been trained. But the fact is these are all proposals we have been made aware of before. These are the kind of issues that have been debated in every dorm room across the entire world; these are the kinds of discussions pot-smoking, Ayahuasca-slurping “heads” in their respective communities have on a daily basis. Perhaps that’s what is making people wary? Sometimes it feels as though Russell is desperately trying to catch up with his youth, the one he seems to have lost whilst chasing drugs and pussy. He missed out on that sense of communion that reunites friends, college students and hobby-philosophers in their late teens and early twenties and has now finally caught up with himself. I don’t think that’s cause for blame; I say, better late than never. Russell isn’t saying anything new or revolutionary; he’s simply throwing ideas out there in the hopes of turning back our awareness to alternatives we’ve been forced to believe are non-existent. Is it fair for us to put our entire faith and hope into his solving the problems of the world? Isn’t it enough that he is using his public persona to steer our minds towards simply adapting a new way of thinking?
While I agree that his writing style reads a bit chaotic and somewhat incomplete, I do feel that his commitment to the cause is genuine – misinformed at times, but genuine. While everyone else is pointing fingers and accusing him of just using this book and political endeavour as a platform to reach excessive fame, I say, let’s just all calm down and see what he does next before we condemn him to be a fraud. I see his point when he says, the revolution cannot be boring, and by no means believe that he is trying to make light of a serious situation. He has merely recognised that this generation needs more than picket-boards and masks to be convinced to take to the street and rebel against the system. So when he calls for everyone to show up to protest the New Era dilemma in London wearing Dickensian outfits, I’m all for it. Only those who get creative end up being heard.
People may not be too sure about what to make of Brand’s call for a non-boring revolution, but neither were many of the sixties people, when John Lennon and Yoko Ono held their first Bed-In for Peace…. What are your ideas?
“All we're saying is, if you think you can do better, do it, top it; stop asking us if you think it's going to work, you know - do something yourself.”
- John Lennon