In the 100 years which have passed since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, communism has claimed at least 100 million lives, RNH Academic Director Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson wrote in Morgunbladid 7 November 2017, quoting Stéphane Courtois’ Black Book of Communism. He took issue with the common explanation of Lenin’s and Stalin’s terrorist régime in Russia that it was just in a Russian tradition: In two months, the Bolsheviks killed more people than were sentenced to death under the czars in the whole period of 1825–1917. The totalitarian oppression in Russia and other communist countries was rather, Gissurarson submitted, a logical and predictable outcome of the attempt totally to reconstruct society in accordance with the unrealistic and impractical theories of Marx and Engels. He recalled that neither Marx nor Engels tried to hide their belief that the revolution they envisaged probably had to be implemented by terror. He also quoted their derogatory comments on the Icelanders and the other small Nordic nations.

Even some communists had realised the danger of uniting all economic and political power in the hands of only one agent. “In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation,” Trotsky had written. And Rosa Luxemburg had emphasised that real freedom was always the freedom of the opponent, to be free to dissent. It was however Friedrich A. von Hayek who provided the theoretical explanation for oppression under comprehensive economic planning: It was impossible to coordinate individual needs in such a system, which meant that they had to be simplified, reduced and sometimes ignored, and for this purpose, the planners had to try to take control not only of human actions, but also of human minds. As early as 1920, Hayek’s mentor, Ludwig von Mises, had predicted the demise of socialism because the planners would be unable to make choices based on adequate information about production and consumption.

In his article, Gissurarson also gave a brief account of the Marx-Leninist movement in Iceland. Brynjolfur Bjarnason was one of the two Icelandic delegates to Comintern’s Second Congress in 1920 where Lenin discussed Iceland’s strategic importance in a possible war in the North Atlantic. Bjarnason was the first and only Chairman of the Communist Party which operated in 1930–38, with ample financial support from Russia. The communists, following Comintern orders, managed in 1938 to lure leftwing social democrats into a new party, the Socialist Unity Party, led by Bjarnason and Einar Olgeirsson and staunchly Stalinist. The Socialist Unity Party was also financed by Moscow. The Stalinists had however in 1968 to dissolve their party, and the People’s Alliance formed in 1956 was then transformed from an electoral alliance into a political party, bitterly fighting the Social Democrats, but without formal ties with the Soviet Union. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the People’s Alliance joined the Social Democrats in a united leftwing party, while the last act of its leadership was a visit to the Cuban Communist Party in the autumn of 1998. The Icelanders wanted an audience with Castro who did not bother, however, to see them. Thus the history of the Icelandic Marx-Leninist movement ended not with a bang but a wimper.

Finally, Gissurarson said that even if communism was dead, its spectre was still haunting Europe, mainly in universities. RNH is member of the Platform of European Memory and Conscience which joined other organisations in holding two conferences on the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, one in Washington DC, where the speakers included Niall Ferguson and Frank Dikötter, and one in Paris, where Stéphane Courtois launched his new book about Lenin. The Association of Icelandic Historians however declined a suggestion to organise a meeting or conference with RNH on the anniversary. Gissurarson’s article formed a part of the joint RNH-ACRE project on “Europe of the Victims”.

Gissurarson in chair, Dr. Jacob Lundberg talking.

A lively discussion on liberal principles and modern challenges took place at the special meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society in Stockholm 2–5 November 2017. The ideas discussed (and not necessarily endorsed by all) included: Liberalism is in essence cosmopolitanism; through toleration and non-intervention, it aims at peace among nations and peace among the citizens of any particular state. Populists seek not to limit government, like liberals, but rather to put themselves in power. Research shows that the support for populism is caused more by a cultural backlash than from economic considerations. Populism opposes the elites that enjoy government protection. It poses Main Street against Wall Street. If I tell you to go to Las Vegas and play, where you will keep all the profits and I shall bear all the losses, then you are eventually going to lose everyting; substitute Wall Street for Las Vegas, and then you get an explanation for the 2007–9 international financial crisis and for some present discontents. Populism may derive from a sense that the system is in some ways rigged. While thus populism may rest on understandable grievances, it threatens the rule of law and civility in discourse. Perhaps the most successful populist in power is Russian leader Vladimir Putin who has captured the government apparatus in his country and amassed enormous riches.

Liberals support liberty, not power. Modern statistics may underestimate the immense improvement in living standards brought about by technical innovations: The richest man in the world at the time, Nathan Mayer Rothschild, died in 1836 of an infected abscess, easily treatable today. More available light and heat has transformed the lives of many for the better. And liberals have to stand together, at least in some issues. The day after a Danish newspaper was condemned by radical islamists for publishing cartoons of Mohammad the Prophet, all newspapers in the Western world should have reprinted them.

The Mont Pelerin Society was founded in 1947 by Friedrich A. von Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, George J. Stigler, Luigi Einaudi, Karl Popper and other eminent liberal scholars and thinkers as a forum to discuss and develop liberal ideas in the classical sense, in the tradition of John Locke, Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville and Lord Acton. Speakers at the MPS conference in Stockholm included Karen Horn, Deirdre McCloskey, Mark Pennington, Lotta Stern, Luigi Zingales, Johan Norberg and Anders Åslund. The main organiser of the conference was Dr. Nils Karlson of Ratio Institute. RNH Academic Director Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson chaired a meeting where young scholars presented their research, both on the break-up of old and publicly protected monopolies by entrepreneurs and on the theory and practice of the Laffer Curve. Two other Icelanders attended the meeting, Economics Professor Birgir Thor Runolfsson of the University of Iceland and journalist Gisli Freyr Valdorsson, editor of Thjodmal. Gissurarson’s participation in the meeting formed a part of RNH’s joint project with ACRE, the Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe.

There are many reasons why we should look forward to the future, Swedish historian and television personality Johan Norberg said at a meeting organised by the Institute of Public Administration and Politics at the University of Iceland, the Public Book Club (Almenna bokafelagid) and RNH 23 October. Norberg introduced his new book, Progress, which was published the same day in Elin Gudmundsdottir’s translation by the Public Book Club in cooperation with asset management company Gamma. Norberg observed that poverty had been greatly reduced, not least because of increased free trade. Equality had also increased as a result of hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians migrating into relative affluence. It was actually good if people worried about inequality because in the past almost all had been equally poor. Norberg pointed out that public health had improved immensely, while the crime rate had gone down and warfare become less common. Innovations in science and technology also made it possible to improve the environment and prepare against natural disasters.

Journalist Thorbjorn Thordarson was the commentator. He said that the system of free trade had many committed opponents and that some felt left out, and that this might explain the breakthrough of chauvinistic populism in the West. Norberg agreed, but remarked that it was important to facilitate flexibility in the economy. It was wiser to support adjustment and training rather than continuing unemployment. Professor Stefania Oskarsdottir chaired the meeting, with a lively discussion following Norberg’s talk and Thordarson’s comments. Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson observed that global economic integration was making political disintegration possible, in the sense that with international free trade small countries could benefit from the division of labour. Nationalism, properly understood as an awareness and acceptance of one’s national identity, was compatible with cosmopolitan liberalism. It should be clearly distinguished from chauvinism. An interview with Norberg was broadcast on Station Two 24 October, and both Morgunbladid and Vidskiptabladid reported on the meeting. Gisli Hauksson, RNH Chairman of the Board, wrote an article on Norberg’s message in Frettabladid 25 October. RNH’s support for the publication of Norberg’s book and the meeting with him formed a part of the  joint project with ACRE, the Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe, on “Europe, Iceland and the Future of Capitalism”.

Protests against the Icesave Deal at the President’s Residence. Photo: Omar Oskarsson for Mbl.

The Report of the Special Investigative Commission, SIC, into the 2008 Icelandic bank collapse was informative, but it did not explain the collapse itself. The SIC’s explanation was that the banks had grown too rapidly and become too big. But this was a necessary and not a sufficient explanation for their collapse, Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson argued at a luncheon meeting of the Icelandic Historians’ Association 17 October 2017. According to him, five decisions made abroad turned a predictable economic downturn into a total collapse: Hedge funds targeted Iceland as the weakest member of the European inner market; European central bankers, irritated over deposit collection by the Icelandic banks and their use of loan facilities at the ECB, refused to provide them with liquidity; the US no longer acted as Iceland’s protector and ally; the British Labour government rescued all British banks except the two of them which were under Icelandic ownership, and thus it felled Kaupthing in Iceland; and the British Labour government imposed an anti-terrorist act on Iceland.

Gordon Brown. Photo: Murdo Macleod for the Guardian.

Gissurarson gave a brief account of the relationship of Iceland to the UK and the US over the centuries. As Lenin pointed out in 1920, with the introduction of airplanes and submarines Iceland had become strategically important. Therefore the US had been a protector and ally of Iceland in 1941–2006. The British had never been interested in seizing Iceland, but they wanted a say in who would be ruling her. In 2007, the Scottish Nationalists were challenging Labour’s traditional stronghold in Scotland, speaking of an “arc of prosperity” stretching from Ireland through Iceland to Norway and suggesting that Scotland should be a part of it. Both Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling regarded the Nationalists as a direct threat. They had therefore been quick to grasp the opportunity to demonstrate the perils of independence.

Gissurarson claimed he had evidence which he would publish in a forthcoming report for the Icelandic Ministry of Finance that it was not at all inevitable for the UK government to impose an anti-terrorist law on Iceland. He asked where the European Commission had been when the UK government discriminated against British banks by closing down only those two which were under Icelandic ownership (KSF and Heritable) while rescuing all other British banks. It was however, he said, a blessing in disguise that Iceland was left out to fend for herself. With the Emergency Act passed in the collapse the Icelanders had paved the way for a new system of banking in Europe, as suggested by the fact that the EU recently had adopted priority of depositors’ claims. It would however have been desirable if Iceland could have avoided the agony and bitterness which were the consequences of the bank collapse. A lively discussion followed the lecture, where participants included Bjorn Bjarnason, former Minister of Justice, Professor Ragnar Arnason, former banker Ragnar Onundarson and former Icelandic Ambassador to France Tomas I. Olrich. The lecture was recorded and can be accessed on the website of the Historians’ Association. Both Bjorn Bjarnason and Sigurdur Mar Jonsson, Press Secretary in the Prime Minister’s Office, wrote blogs about it, and Morgunbladid gave an account of it 19 October. Gissurarson’s lecture formed a part of the joint project with ACRE, the Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe, on “Europe, Iceland and the Future of Capitalism”.

Gissurarson Slides 17 October 2017

Friedman lecturing at the seminar.

What would it be like to live under law, but without government? When Professor David D. Friedman was reflecting on this question in the 1970s, he realised that people had already done so, in the Icelandic Commonwealth of 930–1262. At a well-attended seminar jointly organised by the faculties of law, economics and history at the University of Iceland Monday 2 October 2017 Professor Friedman shared some of his idea about the Commonwealth. Under the ancient Icelandic system all legal conflicts were tort; no crimes against government existed. For example, the family of a man killed could either demand compensation for him or seek revenge. A weak party such as a poor farmer could obtain the support of his chieftain or he could transfer his case to a more powerful individual. Often special mediators were also appointed in order to stop feuds. Friedman noted that the Icelandic Commonwealth was relatively stable. It was in place for three hundred years without much bloodshed unlike what for example happened in the conquest of England. The adoption of Christianity had also been surprisingly peaceful. Friedman added that he could identify several contradictions between the description in the sagas of Icelanders of legal operations and the stipulations in the Icelandic law-book, Gragas, which was now available in an English translation.

Professor Jesse Byock was the commentator on Friedman’s lecture. He submitted that the contradictions identified by Friedman were probably mostly caused by people not following to the letter all the stipulations of the law-book. The sagas of Icelanders and Sturlunga saga were better evidence of the daily life of Icelanders in this period. Some scholars of the past had emphasised the sagas as literature and even exaggerated their literary quality, but he conceived of them more as descriptions of how to live under law and without government. They were about resolutions of conflicts in a stateless, poor and primitive island. The ancestors of the Icelanders had emigrated from Norway in search of plots of farm land where they would not have to pay taxes. This had moulded their political system which made it difficult to compare it with rules developed among the Romani people or the Somalis, as Friedman had attempted. Byock agreed with Friedman that the Commonwealth had been more peaceful than many had thought. For example, archeological excavations demonstrated that farmers’ houses were rarely burned down during conflicts.

Many other issues of the Icelandic Commonwealth were discussed, in a spirited exchange of opinions. The audience at the seminar included Justice Minister Sigridur A. Andersen, former Social Democratic Leader Jon B. Hannibalsson, Philosophy Professor Vilhjalmur Arnason and Economics Professors Ragnar Arnason and Asgeir Jonsson. Professor Birgir Thor Runolfsson chaired the seminar. RNH’s support for it forms a part of the joint project with ACRE, the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists, on “Europe, Iceland, and the Future of Capitalism.”

Friedman gives his talk.

RNH supported the regional meeting of the European Students for Liberty and the Icelandic Association of Liberal High School Students, held at the University of Reykjavik Saturday 30 September 2017. Three speakers were sponsored by RNH, Dr. Daniel Mitchell, and Professors Edward Stringham and David D. Friedman. The meeting was well-attended and successful. Mitchell recalled the undoubted existence of the so-called Laffer Effect: At a certain tax rate tax revenue will reach a maximum and after that it will fall with an increased rate. He stressed however that the objective should be to maximise economic growth, not tax revenue. This was almost certainly achieved by a lower tax rate than that leading to a tax revenue maximum. Stringham pointed out that in free transactions people could resolve many issues without resorting to government compulsion, using examples from a recent book of his, Private Governance, published by Oxford University Press in 2015. Friedman spoke about law without government, on which he is now writing a book. He is the author of many books on law and economics and has done research on the Icelandic Commonwealth.

Before noon, Erna Yr Oldudottir chaired the meeting, and in the afternoon Ragnhildur Kolka. Its chief organisers were Magnus Orn Gunnarsson, Marta Stefansdottir and Isak Hallmundarson, with a group of committed high school students. Some foreign students also attended the meeting. RNH Academic Director Hannes H. Gissurarson invited the foreign lecturers and some other guests to a barbecue at his house Friday evening, and asset management company Gamma gave a party for all participants Saturday evening at its headquarters. Participants also received T-shirts and books which philosopher Tom Palmer has edited for Atlas Foundation, Why Liberty: Your Life, Your Choices, Your Future, and Peace, Love & Liberty. RNH’s support for the meeting formed a part of its joint project with ACRE, the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists, on “Europe, Iceland and the Future of Capitalism”. RNH’s Academic Director, Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson, offered a few concluding remarks: