Reykjavík Grapevine - 12.08.2011, Qupperneq 29

29
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 12 — 2011
WHALE
WATCHING
EXPRESS
TOURS
SPECIAL
Make the most
of your day!
We
offer free

pick-up
in the
Reykjavik
area!
Call us
+354 892 0099
or book online
specialtours.is
HOW
TO BOOK?
Takesonly 2-2
hours
PUFFIN
WATCHING
The Puffin Express adventure
is an inexpensive and
charming option for everyone.
Five times daily: 8:30, 10:30,
12:30, 14:30 and 16:30.
Only
20
Euros!
Spend more time whale
watching and less time
waiting.
Say the keyword and
save 10% of your whale
watching adventure:
Grapevine Special Offer.
Takes
only 1
hour
Sea Angling Trips also
available daily at 18:00.
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OKT
10:00 10:00 10:00 10:00 10:00 10:00 10:00
14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00
17:00 17:00 17:00
15 JUL – 15 AUG 20:00 20:00
WHALE WATCHING TOURS
„That was marvellous!
We saw many whales
and dolphins. Fantastic.“
-Samantha
Eyrarbraut 3, 825 Stokkseyri, Iceland · Tel. +354 483 1550
Fax. +354 483 1545 · info@fjorubordid.is · www.fjorubordid.is
At the Restaurant Fjöruborðið in Stokkseyri
> Only 45 minutes drive from Reykjavík
By the
sea and
lobster
a delicios
Literature | Excerpt
XI Disciples of Milton Friedman
It is written somewhere that all cats are
grey in the dark, but here in Iceland, of-
ficial reports are all black, no matter how
bright it is outside. Alþingi’s Investiga-
tive Commission’s Report is black. The
Central Bank’s Report on the status of
household debt is black. And the gov-
ernment and International Monetary
Fund’s Memorandum of Economic and
Financial Policies is also black, dark as
a coal mine, and sure enough, it was
drafted in April, the cruellest month.
It is a reminder of the misery that the
IMF has presided over in countries all
over the world, and directly refutes the
notion that the IMF plans to apply differ-
ent methods than those it has adhered
to until now.
In Greece, the public has risen up
against the Fund’s plans, but here the
labour movement and employers get
into bed with it and are almost more de-
vout than the Pope in getting investors
to come here with their baggage of off-
shore profits and dummy corporations.
In one district, where neo-liberals have
sold everything and there is nothing left
to mortgage except the harbour, efforts
are being made to set a precedent by sell-
ing natural resources through a shelf
company just so politicians can save face
after having handed over the entire dis-
trict to their associates and relatives on a
silver platter.
What should the poets write about?
Will the IMF supply the country with a
literary writing programme? No, I do
not think it has any interest in literature.
Thank goodness for that. They just have
graphs and bar charts, economists, ad-
visers, and—if the confessions of former
employees of the Fund are taken serious-
ly—so called ‘economic hit men,’ who
see to keeping politicians quiet, paying
them off, or even ousting them. I do not
trust myself to make more of this mat-
ter, except to say that automatons from
Washington have been sent here, men
who know all about the state deficit and
nothing about our history and culture.
They go on about “economic growth”
but do not want to know anything about
the public’s welfare; they are indifferent
to whether nations are literate or illiter-
ate. They are only interested in whether
it is possible to squeeze money and pro-
ceeds out of the state in the interest of
investors and big industry. Here is one
big lemon. We will squeeze a whole tub
of lemon juice out of it. Here are natural
resources. Money can be squeezed out
of them to pay hedge funds that have
bought the debts of banks and financial
corporations at bargain rates. The econo-
mist Michael Hudson has described the
IMF as a sort of henchman for interna-
tional creditors, collecting property and
industry revenues on their behalf. But
what is more incredible, he remarks, is
that nations around the world are sacri-
ficing their economic and monetary in-
dependence without resistance.
The first mission chief the IMF sent
here was Mark Flanagan. He was suc-
ceeded by a woman, Julie Kozak. They
were both assisted by a man named
Franek Rozwadowski; and all of them
were assisted by a woman who headed
Landsbanki’s research group and almost
everything they once reported turned
out to be false. In any case, the Icelandic
public had to listen to the bubble econo-
my wisdom of the research group when
Landsbanki was supposedly in its prime.
Those from other research groups were
no better but I call her out in particular
because she is an employee of the IMF,
which is in command of this country. It
may be leaving now, but it will only truly
be felt after it departs, having tightly
bound everything according to its plans.
It is really quite remarkable that most
of the Social Democrat cabinet minis-
ters collect their assistants and advisers
among the ruins of the banking system.
The IMF mission chief gives more orders
than the President and the government,
regardless of the mission chief’s gender.
The mission chief can tell the Minister
of Finance to stand on his hands, and
the Minister of Finance will stand on his
hands. But whoever gives orders to the
mission chief is another story.
I once met Mark Flanagan. It was at a
meeting in The Central Bank requested
by a group of people who opposed the
IMF’s economic plans for different rea-
sons and on various grounds. I had a
copy of Naomi Klein’s book ‘The Shock
Doctrine’ with me, a beautifully bound
book with a yellow cover. I asked Mark
Flanagan whether he had read this book
and whether he wanted to discuss its
contents. He looked down at me from
above his table and replied that the au-
thor of this book was not an economist.
Then he turned to his bar charts on
trade deficit, which he supposed should
level off in the very short-term. It was
obvious from Mark Flanagan’s argu-
ments that he was a disciple of Milton
Friedman, the man at the centre of ‘The
Shock Doctrine,’ the man who laid the
groundwork for the period of neoliber-
alism as an ideologist and prophet, and
has left his fingerprints on historical
events, from the military coup in Chile
to the privatisation of Icelandic banks.
The most prominent disciple of Mil-
ton Friedman in Iceland was Hannes
Hólmsteinn Gissurarson [...]. Milton and
Hannes were friends and were members
of the same club, which shaped the most
recent era of history. In the middle of the
seventies, Hannes Hólmsteinn sat in the
Student Council of the University of Ice-
land and I also sat there for a time, as a
stand-in if I recall correctly. He was the
only one among those on the right who
took part in debates with those of us who
were furthest to the left. Others on the
right had little interest in global issues
and generally knew little about politics
and history. In light of history, Hannes
Hólmsteinn Gissurarson is probably the
most influential politician to have sat
on the Student Council. But we did not
take him seriously, and rather regarded
him as an ultra right-wing individual
who probably did not mean half of what
he said. We thought he was joking. But
we were wrong there. We were satisfied
with dreaming, discussing and being in
the right. But Hannes Hólmsteinn was
the messenger of an ideology that was
pushed into practice. I fancy that he gets
the shivers when he thinks about the
consequences of these theories. He talk-
ed about bringing dead capital back into
circulation, that is to say, placing natural
resources and public goods in the hands
of private individuals. As such Hannes
Hólmsteinn Gissurarson had no power
but a lot of influence.
There were other famous right-wing
personalities present, in addition to
Ingibjörg Sólrún Gísladóttir and Ös-
sur Skarphéðinsson. Ingibjörg Sólrún
was president of the Student Council
and Össur Skarphéðinsson, the current
Minister of Foreign Affairs, was vice
president. He had been president before
her, exactly as it transpired later in The
Social Democratic Alliance (Samfylkin-
gin). It could be said that this Student
Council was like a miniature picture of
the nation’s failure. It was a little picture
of the future, of the people who were to
take charge and govern. Several Student
Councils have since come and gone but
it is always the same story. For many, the
Student Council works as a springboard
to the seat of power. When I sat there, it
did not occur to me that I was surround-
ed by future heads of state, Members of
Parliament, municipal mayors and some
three cabinet ministers.
The left was in the majority and I
supported the majority, but I was in a
minority within the majority. Those of
us who were to the extreme left and iden-
tified with revolutionary change and so-
cialism did not adopt all the views of the
majority and did not expect the majority
to assume responsibility for our views.
We had our own particular discourse
on, for instance, overthrowing the social
order, stopping wars and freeing politi-
cal prisoners; views we thought should
be heard but which did not explicitly fall
within the jurisdiction of the Student
Council. The Student Council was like
any other special interest group, and it
had student struggle on its agenda, just
as recovering alcoholics join together to
stay sober and stamp collectors to collect
stamps. Or unions consolidate to protect
the rights of their members. The strug-
gle of the Student Council dealt with
pressing interests such as student loans,
student services and so forth. This is not
to say that we did not regard the world
revolution as a pressing interest but the
majority on the left was not of the same
opinion.
And so the winter went by. During
this time, creative writing was taking
hold of me and I was not always tuned in
to the political scene. Yet I wanted to par-
ticipate in the discussion even though
the discussion was not always objective.
I was not particularly objective either.
Sometimes I grew bored at these meet-
ings, twisted things around and tried to
be funny, causing trouble in a f lippant
sort of way. Sometimes I would let slip a
remark that the opposition would put in
the books and which would often amuse
the Council. One time, for example, the
right took up the issue of facilities for
student associations, undoubtedly a nec-
essary discussion. Among other things,
it had to do with providing facilities for
the respective associations affiliated
with the left and right. While this dis-
cussion took place, I turned to the per-
son sitting next to me and said to him:
“Do those right-wingers need anything
more than a wardrobe for their old Nazi
uniforms?” We laughed at this sardonic
joke. Meanwhile heated discussions
were taking place over the issue itself, so
that nobody heard what I said except one
girl from the right-wing faction. This
was of course merely crude humour,
perhaps not particularly funny consider-
ing how sensitive Nazism is as a topic,
especially for people on the right. But
the girl insisted upon my words being
recorded. I requested that she repeat my
comment, and when she did, the room
exploded with laughter as if she had
been hearing voices. I still fail to under-
stand what end was served in recording
such a comment.
This girl was surely a fine individual
but most of the others said little at these
meetings and let the men present the ar-
guments. Then they raised their hands
and voted as they were supposed to.
They contributed little to the discussions
and did not keep up with world affairs.
Nobody on the right kept up with world
affairs except perhaps Hannes Hólmste-
inn Gissurarson, the disciple of Milton
Friedman. Today everyone agrees that
this compliance and conformity, this
subordinate way of thinking, is one of
the causes of the collapse. I was myself
turning away from political orthodoxy,
which always toed the same line, and
within a few years, I had completely
turned my attention to story-telling and
poetry. I found myself giving way to the
facts and my view of society was expand-
ing and becoming more variegated.
Even so, the radical left continued to pro-
vide essential provisions for my journey
in this world. It is also fair to point out
that I would later meet many of those
who sat with me on the Student Council
as upright citizens who attended to their
jobs with knowledge and solicitude, and
it did not make a difference whether they
had been on the right or left side of the
spectrum.
An excerpt from ‘Bankastræti Núll’
Words by Einar Már Guðmundsson
Translation by Alda Kravec