Russell Brand recently faced the steely eyeballs of Jeremy Paxman and his fluffy little beard, eschewing his own views on politics in his erudite and fanciful way, and while Paxman made light of the conversation on the whole there were definitely a few nuggets of truth in what he was saying. However, Rusty Rockets was also a million miles away from being right at times, with mention of an uprising revolution in the UK and a communist style state, seemingly unaware of the lessons of the past.
The trouble with Paxman’s interview though is that it negatively fixated on what was actually nearly right in what Brand was saying instead of picking holes in his less insightful views, which kind of makes you question his wisdom, no matter how condescending he is to the whipper snapper intelligentsia that grace University Challenge. What you’re left with is a flawed interviewer that fails to ask the right questions and a guest who’s struggling to hone in on the insight that’s buried in and amongst what he sees clearly as failing politics and international inequality.
Distribution of wealth
One of the big motivators for Brand’s more extreme views is his disenfranchisement with the political systems because of their inability to better manage the distribution of wealth and deal with severe social and economic inequality. It’s a position that’s hard to argue with, but the problem is that his solutions to this, revolutionary change and a Marx and Engels inspired government system, are mired in so much historical bad blood that he undermines his credibility a little by suggesting them.
However, if you strip it back to its origins, anger at global social and economic inequality, he’s pretty close to the mark. There are massive variances between the richest and poorest people in society and while it’s a big enough problem in the UK and the US, it’s even more pronounced when you look at the world without borders. If a big part of finding a solution is identifying and highlighting a problem then Brand is at least half way there, which should be commended, not entirely ridiculed as Paxman did.
The problem is that enforced redistribution of wealth has been attempted and undone many times before, which we’ll discuss in more detail later, so what would be an intelligent solution? Our take on things is that “new ways” only become enduring if they can sustain a better way of living for more people going forward than is currently the case. A big reason for the demolition of the Berlin Wall was a desire in the East for the luxuries of the West, which indicates that the only way to move towards a better redistribution of wealth would be to prove that society would be better off economically and socially under a new way of doing things.
The methods of production and distribution, including food and drink, need to be more sophisticated and technology led to free people from the need to work in this way, while also producing enough for all. Starting on a small scale, this is a paradigm shift that could gain momentum over time from a small commune of beneficiaries and thinkers to a better society that intelligently produces enough for all, while also creating more time for people to focus on education, healthcare, scientific improvements, civic development, family life and personal enjoyment.
The emphasis shouldn’t necessarily be on the redistribution of wealth as much as it should be on a greater standard of living for all and a complete redistribution of power variables in the government system. Wealth inequality in this situation becomes a motivating factor for healthy competition and development instead of an easy comparison for the ills of society because of the severity and volume of poverty.
Revolution and the communist state
While socialist ideals have the possibility of working long-term if moved towards gradually and intelligently, what has been very clear is that Marxist revolution and the communist state have never really succeeded. Russian communism crumbled eventually having delivered little but hardship, and while China is an economically successful communist state in terms of growth it’s not entirely without capitalist concepts with its centres of enterprise and it’s distribution of wealth is one of the worst on the planet, so it’s difficult to hold it up as a shining light of a new way.
Taking power by force is equally compromised, leading to vast upheaval and conflict and while you can understand the need for this under dictatorial rule it’s far from ideal as an agent of change in a democratic government where the people have the freedom to vote for their policy makers already. However, if you take away the extremity of the suggestion and refocus it around a need for change it becomes a more positive commentary on modern day politics.
Change is something that we think a lot of people, including the disenfranchised youth of today, would be keen to see, but unless it’s delivered through an improved voting paradigm it will always lead to negativity, both in terms of perception and potential result.
Voting
Paxman’s biggest bug bear of the interview was a fixation on the fact that Russell Brand has never voted, which in JP’s interpretation, vaguely vitriolic as it was, equates to a lack of political care or interest. We’re firm believers in participation in politics, but if someone opts not to vote because of a fundamental disagreement with the political systems that the voting process contribute to and then goes on TV to discuss that stand point, the suggestion that they do not care or have no interest is myopic at best.
The downside, as we’ve mentioned and criticised, is that Brand’s solution to improve the situation is revolution, redistribution of wealth and the establishment of a communist based system. Our suggestion is that his real issue is with the party-based government that exists in the UK, and in any democratic country, with a 4 year first-past-the-post voting process. As a result of this he feels ineffectual on a personal level as an agent of change, so why take part.
It’s a standpoint that’s easy to understand and one that’s shared by many, but again without a credible solution Brand is always going to come across badly when questioned. He might find it a better answer to Paxman’s ridiculing enquiry in a transition to an improved voting system that favours more frequent votes on policy decisions as a replacement to the party system, which would give more direct power over government policy to the public and take us away from a reliance on what have become untrusted politicians.
