In Defense Of Global Capitalism By Johan Norberg

international | anti-capitalism | opinion/analysis

Friday October 10, 2003 11:19

by The Devils Advocate

We were Anarchists

Our anarchist party won the school election!
It was the fall semester of 1988 at our school-we were about
16 at the time-in a western suburb of Stockholm. As usual in
an election year, we were staging a ‘‘school election’’ of our own.
But my best friend Markus and I didn’t believe in the system.
Majority elections, to our way of looking at things, were like two
wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. The school
wanted us to elect someone to rule us, but we wanted to rule our
own lives.
Partly, I suppose, we did it because we felt different from the
others. I was into listening to electronic music and goth, preferably
dressed in black and with my hair combed back. We wanted to
play music and read books, while others seemed mostly preoccu-pied
with owning the right accessories and fitting in. The right
wing, it seemed to us, was upper class establishment, dead set
against anything different. But we didn’t feel any more at home
with the left, which to us meant drab government bureaucracy
and regimentation. Even if we preferred Sisters of Mercy and the
Swedish punk singer Thåstro¨m, it was John Lennon’s ‘‘imagine
there’s no countries’’ we believed in. Nation states should be
abolished and people allowed to move freely, to cooperate of their
own free will, everywhere in the world. We wanted a world
without compulsion, without rulers. Clearly, then, we were neither
right wing nor left wing, neither Conservatives nor Social Demo-crats.
We were anarchists!
So we started ‘‘Anarchist Front’’ and put ourselves down as
candidates in the school election on a radical, humorous ticket.
We put up handwritten posters on the walls at school, asking
things like: ‘‘Who’s going to run your life-you or 349 MPs?’’
We demanded the abolition of the government . . . and of the
ban on bikes in the schoolyard. Most of the teachers took a dim
view of this, feeling that we were making a farce of the election,
while we thought that we were making our voices heard in true
democratic fashion. Being called to the headmaster’s office for a
chewing-out merely strengthened our rebellious spirit.
We did well in a tough campaign, polling 25 percent of the
votes. The Social Democrats came second with 19 percent. We
were psyched, convinced that this would be the start of something
big. . . .
That was 15 years ago. In the meantime, I have changed my
mind about a number of things. I have come to realize that
questions concerning individuals, society, and freedom are more
complicated than I then believed. There are too many complexities
and problems involved for everything to be settled in one drastic
Utopian stroke. I have come to realize that we do need some
government to protect liberty and prevent the powerful from
oppressing individuals, and I now believe that representative
democracy is preferable to all other systems for this very purpose
of protecting the rights of the individual. I realize now that the
modern industrial society of which I was so wary has in fact made
possible a fantastic standard of living and widespread freedom.
But my fundamental urge for liberty is the same today as in that
wonderful election campaign of 1988. I want people to be free,
with no one oppressing anyone else, and with governments forbid-den
to fence people in or to exclude them with tariffs and borders.
That is why I love what is rather barrenly termed ‘‘globaliza-tion,
’’ the process by which people, information, trade, invest-ments,
democracy, and the market economy are tending more
and more to cross national borders. This internationalization has
made us less constricted by mapmakers’ boundaries.
Political power has always been a creature of geography, based
on physical control of a certain territory. Globalization is enabling
us more and more to override these territories, by traveling in
person and by trading or investing across national borders. Our
options and opportunities have multiplied as transportation costs
have fallen, as we have acquired new and more efficient means
of communication, and as trade and capital movements have
been liberalized.
We don’t have to shop with the big local company; we can
turn to a foreign competitor. We don’t have to work for the
village’s one and only employer; we can seek out alternative oppor-tunities.
We don’t have to make do with local cultural amenities;
the world’s culture is at our disposal. We don’t have to spend
our whole lives in one place; we can travel and relocate.
Those factors lead to a liberation of our thinking. We no longer
settle for following the local routine; we want to choose actively
and freely. Companies, politicians, and associations have to exert
themselves to elicit interest or support from people who have a
whole world of options to choose from. Our ability to control
our own lives is growing, and prosperity is growing with it.
That is why I find it pathetic when people who call themselves
anarchists engage in the globalization struggle-but against it,
not for it!

Continue Reading at
http://www.catostore.org/pdfs/Preface-PDF.pdf

Taken from site
http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=20&pid=1441157

save preference

Comments (13 of 13)

Snore ...

by Joe

Fri Oct 10, 2003 11:37

1996/7 Zapatista encouters against 'neo-liberalism'

June 18 1999 Attempt to storm the Liffe exchange (futures market) in London by around 10,000 people who describe themselves as anti-capitalists

Late 1999 direct action protests in Seattle by people who see themselves as anti-capitlaist or anti-neoliberal

Early 2000 some lazy bastard in the media looks for label for new movement. As the governmetns are using the term 'globalisation' decides to call us 'anti-globalisation'. This label is rejected by most

October 2003 - idiotic essays like the one above where the author spars with the image he sees in the medias mirror. Also fails to understand that this system he worships is actually stopping the movement of people by erecting fences along the borders of the first world.

The link says it all about the mumbo jumbo posting

by Terry

Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:20

This posting above posing as some kind of analysis is nothing more than some kind of attempt to spread confusion and propaganda.

The link given at the bottom says it all. It is from the Cato Institute in the US which is a far right wing institute with very strong ties to the Republicans. It's the sort of place that neo-cons hang out in before progressing to their more extreme positions.

cut

by Scissorshand

Fri Oct 10, 2003 13:03

Cut and paste nonsense, definitely not original, please delete.

Johan Norberg

by TheIdiotsAreTakingOver

Fri Oct 10, 2003 13:14

Johan Norberg was on Channel 4 a few weeks ago, with a documentary called "Globalization is Good". Anyone else see it? Absolute rubbish. As someone above says, Norberg is jousting with this media-generated illusion called 'the anti-globalization movement', as opposed to a diverse, multi-headed mass of discontentment.

Also, I'm so effing tired of these people who claim to have been anarchists in their teenage years, and have now 'grown-up', realising that the world "is a lot more complex".

Frankly, if you're finding anarchism too simplistic, then you clearly lack the understanding and imagination to go beyond a dictionary definition, and really explore how it might work within the complexities of the real world.

To follow from something Joe said...

by Lars Rúbenco

Fri Oct 10, 2003 13:24

"Early 2000 some lazy bastard in the media looks for label for new movement. As the governmetns are using the term 'globalisation' decides to call us 'anti-globalisation'. This label is rejected by most"
Unfortunatley not Joe. While it may have been rejected it has been taken on by certain groups and has resulted in infiltrating the language of most, including indymedia (refer to topic listings for publishing material).Personally I think this term is counter-productive for any opposition movement as the term always places it (through narrative description) in the antithetic semantic field, where it is always in defense and reacting to the thetic. If you play a game of chess the best way to win is to force your opponent into a defensive position and maintain that position. So those who have the power to describe, and untimitly define, and who can place their opposition in defense will always hold the upperhand.
So why not start here. Indymedia eds, any chance of replacing the name "anti-globalisation"? If so, what do people think should replace it? Pro-justice goes a long way to incorporating different groups' agendas, and also places the opposition into the anti-justice position. But that position has to be maintained...

Doesn't mean you shouldn't argue against the points.

by Mike

Fri Oct 10, 2003 14:10

Sorry, but the source is irrelevant. You really do need to understand and be able to argue against your opponent's better points. Otherwise you haven't a chance convincing others to whom it is irrelevant wheter these sentiments come from the Cato Institute or not BUT WHAT'S WRONG WITH THEM.

The point is, this IS what a lot of people perceive as freedom (mobility).

Anti- CAPITALIST

by RED BHOY

Fri Oct 10, 2003 14:14

I agree with htis chaps defence regarding the parts that nowadays we dont have to shop at the one big local store and we dont have to all go work for the one big local business but at the same time that was the start of capitalism. WHat if we knocked that on the head and then produced lifes neccessities for everyone instead of for a market where prices are fixed. Socialism is the only morally right way to go about life. TAke a look at the state of America. This is the model most countries look at but they neglect to see the downtrodden of that society of whom there are millions. Living under highway bridges, living rough on the streets of many cities. An awful lot of people live on the poverty line. For too long the majority has chosen to look after number one and f**k the weak. Its time to rise against the capitalist machine and change the world for the better.

Thomas Jefferson: "Corporations have neither bodies to kick nor souls to damn.'

by CutnPasteSocialist

Fri Oct 10, 2003 17:00

But it's easier to bring say a small family run business to book than a faceless global corporation. The unfettered free market will always abuse the weak and the powerless.

See the site below (and Greg Palast's book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy) for evidence on why corporations, and especially the global flavour, need to be regulated in some way.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=53&row=1

"Jackson and his ally, Thomas Jefferson, feared this faceless, heartless creature made of stock certificates rather than people, which could not be held accountable personally for their evils before courts or mobs. Jackson's manifesto said: 'Corporations have neither bodies to kick nor souls to damn.'"

And for how Pfizer made hearts explode (literally) see

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=68&row=1

"A panicked Pfizer executive telexed: 'ATTN PROF BJORK. WE WOULD PREFER THAT YOU DID NOT PUBLISH THE DATA RELATIVE TO STRUT FRACTURE.' He then gave his reason for holding off public exposure of the deadly valve failures: 'WE EXPECT A FEW MORE.' His expectations were realised. The fracture count has now reached 800, with 500 dead - so far. Bjork called it murder, but kept public silence."

Once were anarchists...

by Sergio

Fri Oct 10, 2003 17:10

Global Movement. This is the one of the understandings that has already surpassed the Anti-globalization statement.

In response to Devil's... post, it is the views you present that are simplistic and reductive, anarchism is concerned with the recognition of the freedom of others, not simply your own.
You, and pro Globalization "activists" seem to be looking for a way to suppress the feeling of having given up.

How can anyone consider neo-liberal economical policies as freedom promoters? When the Empire gets too fat, the moltitudes move, and it wouldn't be the first time!

Welcome to Nu Democracy

by David

Fri Oct 10, 2003 17:55

Where every dollar has an equal vote

funny phrase

by simon

Fri Oct 10, 2003 18:05

The term anti-globalisation is a funny one because it seems to portray a sense of isolationism such as anti-immigration or anti-british. Not speaking for the broad spectrum of people who loosly define themselves as anarchists but Im more for greater global integration and cohesion. Closer ties and looser borders that will promote greater co-operation and stability.

Some practical (not rhetorical of hypothetical)questions have to be placed with the sweeping assertion of 'smashing-capitalism'. Simple questions such as how do you think you can help the 'weak'? What is it theat they need? What do you forsee the transition being like? How will you get the global consensus to follow your lead? - because it will require that.

Not getting to heavily into it but I think shifts cant/wont happend in a direct or revolutionary manner. Why bother swapping one for another that will now doubt create massive new problems - why not work to improve what exists and deal with the sitations that are causing problems within the real context.

Norberg's Anarchism

Sat Oct 11, 2003 19:27

The interesting thing about Norberg's anarchism, is that--- going by the actual preface to his book, linked above ---his insinuation that he has 'grown up' from such an immature (not to mention deeply inaccurate) position is undermined by his advocacy of right-wing, free-market libertarianism, which would almost certainly lead to the kind of chaos and domination most people (again, inaccurately) believe to be what bonafide anarchists are advocating, ie. the sentiment that an individual should be free to do whatever he or she wants, "as long as it doesn't harm anyone else".

This is the classical liberal position, and while it sounds like a straight-forward, and quite reasonable idea, it is deeply problematic and contradictory, because no matter what an individual does, it almost always has consequences for other people. In a culture which is based on greed, envy and the competitive accumulation of material wealth--- as capitalism is ---the consequences for everyone involved are by and large deeply destructive.

Over the years, Norberg's basic outlook hasn't changed an awful lot--- the main difference is that he now thinks a 'minimal government' (ie. a government without its social functions, only its coercive ones) is neccessary to minimise individuals warring against each other. But war they will, regardless, because envy and greed--- the emotions which sustain the competitiveness necessary to maintain a market economy ---would be the lynchpin of such a culture.

Hmmm... I think the point I'm trying to make is that Norberg's current position appears to be based on a the most childish understanding of anarchism, and its these childish elements that he appears to have maintained--- albeit within a more sophisticated, but equally dangerous, framework.

not an anarchist?

by anarcho

Sat Oct 11, 2003 23:49

anarcho at geocities dot com

well, reading the preface, I would suggest that
Norberg was neither an anarchist, he just called
himself one. If he had been a real anarchist, he
would have know why anarchists were protesting
against the EU and "globalisation" and he would
also have known that selling your liberty to a
boss does not equal freedom. Plus, of course, he
would have known that inequality makes freedom
for the working class a bit of a joke (i.e. get
bossed about all day in work and have the choice
of picking masters).

I think he says he was an "anarchist" simply to
imply he used to be one of the radical but has
now "grown up." Reading the preface suggests he
was never a radical in the first place. But to
suggest so makes good publicity.

If anyone is interested in what anarchism is
really about, then visit:

An Anarchist FAQ -- http://www.anarchistfaq.org

It has a section on "anarcho"-capitalism (and
right "libertarianism") which shows why its it
not anarchist and, moreover, rubbish.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

In Defense Of Global Capitalism By Johan Norberg

Comments (13 of 13)