Russell Brand’s book “Revolution” draws parallels between his personal battles with addiction and grave threats to the survival of the planet like global warming and nuclear war.  He says we must “ditch capitalism” and replace it with “self-governing, egalitarian communities” in the same way an addict must dispense with destructive habits. He says he is recovering not just from alcohol and drug addition, but also from addiction to fame and fortune. Living in the present – i.e. not making happiness contingent on acquiring something – and doing for others are crucial parts of his daily regime from staying clean. He writes

“I can quite easily, if not guided by higher intention, spend the whole day just pursuing things for myself, being nice to your cat or husband doesn’t count…I mean general kindness to others in the spirit of service…If I prioritize the needs of others, even in small ways, above my own needs, the illusion of my material, individual self being supreme subtly begins to break down…”

Capitalism doesn’t encourage that kind of thinking, quite the contrary. Brand observes that it encourages destructive and callous behavior at both the personal and societal level. Our personal shortcomings reinforce capitalism, and capitalism reinforces our personal shortcomings. Overall, it is much to Brand’s credit that he spends so much more time on the personal side of the equation than most leftists would. And he does so without neglecting to make detailed policy suggestions.

However, if you call for the overthrow of capitalism, as Russell Brand does, then you should clarify exactly what capitalism is – list the key features that define it. Brand didn’t do that, so before assessing his ideas about what to replace capitalism with, it would be useful to list those features:

1. Capitalism has private ownership of the means of production (things like factories, land, and intellectual property).

2. To a very significant extent, it uses competitive markets to determine how resources are distributed.  Consumers and investors vote with their pocketbooks about what to buy or not to buy; where to invest or not to invest.  The more you have in your pocketbook, the more you get to vote and influence prices.

3. It has dictatorially run workplaces that enforce a division of labor whereby a majority do the least desirable and least empowering work.

4. It rewards people for what they own or for their bargaining power (which is often closely related to that) and which results in disparities in wealth that could never be imposed democratically.

Brand takes very direct aim at the last two features of capitalism. He quotes at length from, and very humorously comments on, Orwell’s account of revolutionary Spain in the 1930s (“Homage to Catalonia”). Brand remarks “I’d never heard of this Revolution. The reason for this, of course, that it’s so fucking inspiring.” Workers took over businesses and ran them.  At the end of the book Brand announces that “profits from this book will go towards creating a place where recovering addicts like me can run a business based on the ideas in this book. A café and production company run to create community, not money, democratically managed by the workforce. No bosses. No profit. No Bullshit.”

However, even a workplace run by its workers according to one person one vote can still develop unjust class divisions. Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, in a proposal they called PARECON, stressed the importance of “balanced job complexes”. Many of the jobs, often most of the jobs, done in a workplace are monotonous and, if done all day every day, erode the skills and confidence of those who do them. Other jobs enhance skills and confidence. If undesirable rote work is not shared, if a workplace does not seek to develop +all+ its workers’ capacities, then a minority could end up dominating decision making even if democracy is nominally maintained.

Competitive markets combined with private ownership could also undermine the best features of the workplaces Brand advocates. Imagine all workplaces being owned and run by workers as Brand suggests. Workplace “A” is able to sell its product cheaper than workplace “B” by having its least educated workers (or simply the least selfish and egotistical) agree to do all the undesirable work all the time or by other morally dubious forms of cost cutting.  The folks at workplace “A”, since they own it, become wealthier, quite undeservedly, than those at workplace “B”.  Now it is also possible that the people at “A” cut costs by simply working harder or being more innovative than the people at “B”. However, with competitive markets, atomized consumers looking at price alone cannot know if they are rewarding the deserving or the undeserving.  The people at “A” also have an incentive – again, because they own it – to keep any innovations that cuts production costs (even in legal and socially responsible ways) a secret.

Now suppose the people at workplace “A” are just as hard working, competent and socially responsible as the people at “B”.  However the people at “A” produce a product that is more highly valued by society than the product or service offered by “B”.  Some products and services will always be more valued than others. It doesn’t follow that people who produced the most valued goods or services are the most deserving.  If some workplaces obtain more money than others, their workers also obtain more “votes’ in competitive markets. Left unchecked, this could skew prices in ways that could not be defended democratically. It will become increasing lucrative (because of the skewed prices) to produce luxuries for the wealthy rather than necessities for everyone else.

Brand didn’t address these issues, but the impression I get is that he believes a greatly reformed system of government should address the negative consequences of private ownership and competitive markets. In contrast, Albert and Hahnel (in their PARECON proposal) advocate the abolition of both competitive markets and private ownership of workplaces. I suspect that a process of deep democratic reform could ultimately lead to the successful abolition of markets, but we will only know by trying. We are also unlikely to try if we are not at least open to the possibility.

Brand has been taken to task for not voting, but he advocates giving citizens many more opportunities to vote directly on issues. He recognizes that voting is, potentially, a very powerful democratic weapon but says that it has been reduced to “using Excalibur to put a new plug on a toaster”.

Anticipating the vitriol his suggestions would receive, he wrote, “Remember the people who tell you this can’t work – in government, on Fox news or MSNBC or in op-eds in the Guardian or in The Spectator or whatever – are people with a vested interest in things staying the same.”

Brand also dares to write that “The Cuban Revolution did a lot right – education for everyone, land sharing, emancipation of women, and equal rights for black Cubans – but they went a bit wayward with the homophobia and authoritarianism.”

His book has its weak points (for example he should have mentioned the human cost of the Iraq War, when he discussed the fraudulent pretexts for it), but the attacks on his book, as Neil Clark nicely explained, are mainly provoked by its strengths and by a great deal of class bigotry.

---