No, Russell Brand, you’re no Noam Chomsky

The comedian-turned-activist styles himself as a pupil of Chomsky, but his new book only furthers the cause of the establishment he rails against

by Robin McGhee / October 30, 2014 / Leave a comment

Brand and Chomsky: brothers in arms? © Tom Ipri/Duncan c

Read James Robertson’s response, In defence of Russell Brand

Revolution by Russell Brand (Century, £20)
Masters of Mankind: Essays and Lectures 1969—2013 by Noam Chomsky (Haymarket, £7.99)

Russell Brand’s new book is a brilliant, if totally unintentional, defence of the establishment. On the one hand, he proposes the bankruptcy of the current political system. On the other, he gives victory to the establishment by suggesting the only way to fix it is by not participating in politics. Worryingly, Brand’s so-called ideas have resonated with the public: the Newsnight sparring session between him and Jeremy Paxman has had over 10m hits on YouTube and his own news show, The Trews, is up to 44m views and rising. He is a master populist, who is restyling himself as an “alternative” leftist voice. On several occasions he has professed his admiration for alternative thinkers such as Noam Chomsky, despite Brand’s anti-voting stance directly contradicting his hero’s arguments. Chomsky believes the corporate media fabricates narratives to suit the aims of the governing elite. The media’s job is not to inform the public: it is to massage them into being apathetic so the privileged can run the country in peace. While this conspiratorial message has been much derided, if anything proves it, it is Brand’s latest printed tirade.

It is great to see that you are enjoying the Prospect website.

You have now reached your allowance of 3 free articles in the last 30 days.
Don’t worry—to get another 7 articles absolutely free, just enter your email address in the box below.

You are in complete control of which 7 articles you choose to read. Register now to enjoy more of the finest writing on politics, economics, literature, the arts, philosophy and science.

When you register, we’ll also send you our free Blueprint for Britain e-book which considers how the nation should now run itself AND we’ll send you our free weekly newsletter. (If you prefer not to receive the newsletter you can unsubscribe at any time).

Prospect takes your privacy seriously. We promise never to rent or sell your e-mail address to any third party.
You can unsubscribe from the Prospect e-mail newsletter at any time.

DEBUG messsage: regular

In defence of Russell Brand

James Robertson / November 7, 2014

"Brand is using his celebrity to draw attention to the stories the media ignores"

Femen activists hold signs declaring "Ukraine is not a brothel" to protest against the sex industry

Are you an activist?

Jessica Abrahams / October 31, 2013

Femen activists hold signs declaring "Ukraine is not a brothel" to protest against the...

Share with friends

Comments

J Mark Dodds
October 30, 2014 at 15:36
This Russell Brand critique reads much as though the reviewer is just very annoyed by @rustyrockets as an individual. The reason the masses don't absorb Chomsky (or read Prospect Magazine for that matter) is that his work is intellectually heavy and dense. Brand's sharp wit, lively mind and stand up experience make him accessible to a lot of people who aren't hung up about being intellectually superior to everyone else. Brand is also popular because he's articulating what millions of people are thinking already and, despite what the reviewer says, he is quite funny. When it comes to voting Brand's not wrong either. Irrespective of Chomsky and the reviewer's assertion that the vote is the only effective tool of change available to people, the vast majority who have voted have found that it's led to absolutely zero result and they agree with Brand. The substantial problem is that there's no proposition for how to make a revolution happen without using politics. But that's a conversation most of the world is having and not arriving at an answer to anyway.
Reply
1. John
  February 10, 2015 at 20:53
  Brand is an intellectual midget., and full of misinformation. He's a walking/talking bag of logical fallacies.
  Reply
Pusillanimo
October 30, 2014 at 19:58
Amid the cascade of spiteful ad hominem attacks, Robin McGhee accuses Russell Brand of not citing facts and statistics to back up his broader points - unlike, say, an academic such as Noam Chomsky. One of the few statistics McGhee himself quotes is this: "In the 2010 general election, the turnout among those aged under-24 was 44 per cent. Among those over-65, it was 76 per cent. The coalition government has duly raised tuition fees while protecting pensions. Not exactly a revolutionary outcome." The one real statistic McGhee uses to back up his argument is a clear case of correlation rather than causation. Coalition policies were always likely to be skewed toward the current wealthiest demographic - those who, incidentally, filled the coffers of the Tory and Lib Dem election campaigns. As a wider point, so-called "revolutionary" change has rarely come about as a result of voter turnout anyway. There are other ways to be politically active. Chartists, Suffragettes and Civil Rights campaigners achieved their objectives - though not in the life times of many - through non-institutional means. This was partly because others, such as suffrage, were not open to them, but mainly because they couldn't have been and, if they were, it would've made little difference. The establishment will always protect itself until such point as it becomes necessary to ameliorate the electorate and dampen the possibility of serious change. Voting, in any case, serves to legitimise this neutering process. Russell Brand, for all his character flaws (and politicians don't generally have the most spotless private lives), is clearly making important points - ones that don't often reach the public domain - and these should be considered on their own merits.
Reply
R Fort
October 31, 2014 at 11:07
Hmm, I've not read Revolution, but I have read Chomsky from Manufacturing Consent through to Understanding Power and plenty else. I would argue that Chomsky's view of voting for mainstream power is somewhat jaundiced. He does vote, but not out of any deeply-held conviction or agreement with the Democratic or any other party, or faith in their ability to represent anything other than the state-corporate agenda. His constant refrain, which you do mention, is that real, meaningful change comes only from the tireless efforts of community organisers, activists, religious groups, charities and non-profits in publicising and organising debate and protest about important issues, which takes a very long time and a lot of unrecognised hard work (the Civil Rights Movement is an example he quotes). Whatever efforts these groups make, they must operate within the framework of government and power, which has huge internal inertia and many, many powerful interests aligned against progressive movements. However, with enough time and effort, even these can be overcome. Perhaps it is this that Russell is talking about? I'd have to read his book to find out though. I'd also take some issue with the ad hominem nature of some of your language. Brand's opinion on whether the Oscars are fun or not is of no relevance to his or your central argument, nor is his personal wealth.
Reply
PaulM
November 1, 2014 at 11:05
A multimillionaire asks us not to buy his competitors products (newspapers) but to view his ‘Trews’ channel and buy his book. This is what passes for revolution these days?!?! I do have a suspicion that Brand’s real motives could be to dramatically improve democracy in this country – by persuading those that are too stupid to understand politics not to vote. If he can make a few more million in the process then good for him, he deserves it.
Reply
1. drtdubil
  November 8, 2014 at 22:03
  except he's donating his profits to help the poor and drug addicts
  Reply
  1. John
    February 10, 2015 at 20:54
    When? :-)
    Reply
Paul Moscoe
November 1, 2014 at 16:51
Review is way too harsh/overboard/disingenuous. I vote but I certainly understand those who do not (although I wish they would).
Reply
James A.
November 1, 2014 at 17:57
“When travelling in impoverished regions in galling luxury, as I have done, you have to undergo some high-wire ethical arithmetic to legitimise your position. If you can’t separate yourself from poverty geographically then you have to do it ideologically. You have to believe inequality is okay.” Now what's your problem with that? That someone is capable of admitting that his conscience fails him? That's human, and that's what's great about Russell.
Reply
mikeg
November 2, 2014 at 22:44
"Chartists, Suffragettes (...) achieved their objectives." Their principal objective was the vote itself. People died for this. We still have a welfare state and a National Health service, albeit both under attack. It is wholly inconceivable that we would have had either without universal suffrage. It would certainly be wrong to suggest that voting is all that is required. There are any number of other activities that one can or should get involved with. These may include trade union activity, charitable activity, or any of a great range of single issue political activities. So far as I know, Brand does none of that - with the possible exception of expressing self indulgent clap trap on legalising dope and dopish activities. Yet if those who govern us were to cease to be held answerable to the electorate all these other activities would prove fruitless - or be suppressed. We came close to a breakup of the UK less than two months ago - it would have happened if enough Scots had voted for it. That does not seem a small thing to me. Membership of the EU is a pretty big deal too, and we may be asked to vote on that, for good or ill.
Reply
B
November 5, 2014 at 11:00
If enough people don't vote, there won't be any reason to retain voting as the expression of democratic will. How will believers in democracy be heard?
Reply
H
November 6, 2014 at 08:32
Having grown up in South Africa where the majority didn't have the vote, I find it shameful that a foul mouthed lout can actually tell young people not to use the main voice they have, that is, the vote. How can you complain about government if you don't use the tools you have to force a change? And how can anyone be so blind as not to see that Brand is (a) not funny, (b) very rich and privileged and (c) about as far removed from a socialist as you can get. He is a self-indulgent, self-promoting, self-interested "celebrity" who should keep his thoughts and opinions and bad habits to himself.
Reply
John
November 8, 2014 at 10:28
Easy to criticise Mr Brand's views if there's something worth voting for. The 3 main political parties in the UK are peddling roughly the same deal: If you're rich, we'll help you get richer at the expense of the poor. In the 8th richest country in the world there shouldn't be homelessness or food banks. Mr Brand's vocal support for Scottish Independence proves that he is not encouraging people not to vote; he is encouraging people to insist that there is something worth voting for. Politicians must recognise the fact that they are public servants. It's not the other way round. That simple fact has been glossed over some where along the road to here. In stark contrast to the political waste ground in the rest of the UK, Scotland has massively politically engaged electorate. Our First Minister is more highly respected now than he's ever been. Our First Minister Elect, can sell out venues as quickly as major rock stars and attracts packed house audiences to listen to her vision on how she will serve the Scottish public. The activism that Mr Brand encourages actually works and has helped Scots to build a truly democratic society. If you need proof of that, watch closely in the up-coming GE 2015, when Scotland turns it's back on Labour, Ukip, Lib Dems and Tories.
Reply
zz
November 8, 2014 at 16:33
The article writer has barely skimmed Chomsky that much is very obvious. Of course most people will fall short when compared to the rigour of chomsky's scholarship. Brand himself serve as ersatz, and a link to the dumbed down indoctrinated classes from the most foreward thinking social ctitic and his immense network off friends; many of whom constitute the most distinguished scholars in the world. This is not to say that social critique is somthing advanced that only experts can have a say in. That is what Brand is trying to convey.
Reply
Donald S.
November 9, 2014 at 10:05
Brand's viewpoint encourages polarisation. Polarisation is the basis of argument and brain chemistry associated with violence and aggression (Brand would talk about this problem's solution using magic mushrooms). Eddie Izzard and other celebs have shown an interest in engaging their public with a political voice. They haven't been accepted by the political classes that control Westminster's power base. I'd vote for Will Self as Prime Minister but I'm unsure what party would have him.
Reply
Paul S
November 9, 2014 at 17:46
Russell Brand only says that he doesn't vote because there is nothing to vote for; he encourages people to vote if they feel they have a decent MP who will represent them and not the interests of big business. However, his wider point is that the democratic instutions in the country are set up to fail: they merely create governments that do not represent the people only big business, and therefore must be radically reformed. Rich people have a strangle hold on the best education, the media, and the institutions, and change isn't going to come through the existing system. It just isn't, and to suggest it will is arguing for endless failure, as labour and the unions gradually become weaker, more dissolved and increasingly co-opted by the powers that be, like this highly biased article. What good has all the articles of Robin McGhee had? I've never heard of him and I suspect that neither has anyone else, apart from his family, close friends and a few political wonks enmeshed in the Westminster dinner party circuit. I could be wrong, but I bet I'm not far off! When people died for a vote, they weren't dying for a pointless exercise that has failed, is failing, will continue to fail the people. Brand is stating the bleedin' obvious: voting has failed in it's present form. It's time for a peaceful revolution from the grass roots. Organise locally. Join a union. Work together. Wasn't that what the trade union movement used to be about? Because the system wasn't working? Sometimes you need a revolution and a clear out of the outdated, outmoded people like Mr McGhee who would hold us all back.
Reply
1. Sean G
  November 11, 2014 at 16:43
  Well said.
  Reply
Nezih
November 10, 2014 at 17:25
This article is just mean and inaccurate. I can't believe how people can be this ignorant and criticizing at someone who's only trying to open their without wanting anything in return. Shame on you.
Reply
Sean G
November 11, 2014 at 16:50
This is an inaccurate, ignorant, boring and seemingly jealous article. It’s quite obvious why people will never follow this guy. Russell Brand is bringing awareness to a system that is obviously failing to represent the 21st citizen and to protect this planet. He is greatly contributing to turning an apathetic population, created because the current political system is outdated and not representative, to one that wants to take control back over their lives, their communities and workplaces. He is galvanising people to create a system that is fair and that can represent more people than the pathetic paradigm which only has a few hundred, self-interested people making all the major decisions that are negatively affecting millions of lives. Of course there are other ways to be politically active than just voting and there are many examples dispersed throughout history to prove this, which this author seems to be completely ignorant of. And Russell Brand has never said don’t vote completely. He said only vote if there is something worth voting for, and at the moment, he and most can't see that there is. Russell Brand has also donated most of his recent earning to charity, which I imagine is far more than this envious Robin McGhee has ever done.
Reply
ZYX
December 4, 2014 at 08:48
Mr McGhee The fact that Mr Brand does not speak political correct, Queens English and is not sufficiently well educated to get have an encyclopaedic knowledge of political references IS precisely whey he appeals to the ordinary man. The man on the Clapham Omnibus knows the name Russell Brand but has never heard of Chomsky. Look at the amount of attention Russell Brand has attracted by having celebrity status. What on earth is wrong with a comedian and a showman using his talents as a platform to get an a very important message across? I am also sick of these constant personal attacks. Bloody hell, let he is without sin cast the first stone! Disarmingly, he happily flags up his own faults. What politician has the guts to post himself getting high in former days to show others the futility of it? Better to lie lie lie in an attempt to appear inhumanly perfect. Who is perfect?
Reply
Rob McGuirk
January 5, 2015 at 18:17
I read Brands book, never heard of Chomsky. Now I'm reading Chomsky. All you've done above is highlighted how Brand is not in Chomskys league when it comes to Intellect. Big achievement. For a successful revolution you need Intellect and Passion, it's possible Brand has the Passion that Chomsky lacks. If five candidates were convicted rapists, should you still be duty bound to exercise your vote. I would say no. Brand isn't saying never vote, he's saying don't vote now. Don't vote if you deem all candidates to be unworthy of a vote.
Reply

You can log in to post a comment under your subscriber name.