Who's Legitimately in Charge in Haiti?

Is it Aristide? If not, who?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Is it Aristide? If not, who?

Who's in charge is the USA and has been for a long time.

Who should be in charge: the people of Haiti.


Edit: You do know what happened to Aristide, right?

Originally posted by adam warlock
Who's in charge is the USA and has been for a long time.

Who should be in charge: the people of Haiti.

Do you know what "legitimate" means?

EDIT - Yes. His situation is complex.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Do you know what "legitimate" means?

EDIT - Yes. His situation is complex.

Yes I know. That's why I answered the way I answered.

Legitimately speaking nobody's in charge of Haiti.

Originally posted by adam warlock
Yes I know. That's why I answered the way I answered.

Legitimately speaking nobody's in charge of Haiti.

Hmmm.

Isn't there anyone who you think speaks for the people?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Hmmm.

Isn't there anyone who you think speaks for the people?

Other than Whodey? Nope.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Hmmm.

Isn't there anyone who you think speaks for the people?

This concept of a voice for the people should be put down in my view. It gives the illusion that the masses need to be carried along by some illuminated characters and the masses don't need that (I'm all about a people's history). The masses are perfectly aware of what they need.

But there are plenty of voices that speak about what the people want and need. They just don't heard and never get a chance to get heard.
That's the history of Haiti: if you concern yourself with the benefit of the people you're put down! If you get lucky you get a coup or get kidnapped by marines, if you're in a bad day you just get chopped to pieces.

Originally posted by adam warlock
This concept of a voice for the people should be put down in my view. It gives the illusion that the masses need to be carried along by some illuminated characters and the masses don't need that (I'm all about a people's history). The masses are perfectly aware of what they need.

But there are plenty of voices that speak about what the people want an ...[text shortened]... coup or get kidnapped by marines, if you're in a bad day you just get chopped to pieces.

Do you suggest government by polls? Or anarchy?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Do you suggest government by polls? Or anarchy?

I suggest libertarian socialism. It appears to me that it has to be federal and with shades of anarcho-syndicalism.

I believe n things like horizontal and direct democracy. Population participation in decision making. Free association of workers, workers control of the means of production, yadda, yadda, yadda...

Originally posted by adam warlock
I suggest libertarian socialism. It appears to me that it has to be federal and with shades of anarcho-syndicalism.

I believe n things like horizontal and direct democracy. Population participation in decision making. Free association of workers, workers control of the means of production, yadda, yadda, yadda...

Federalism assumes people need a person to speak for them, which you said you disagree with.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Federalism assumes people need a person to speak for them, which you said you disagree with.

No it doesn't. Federalism assumes non-centralization. It can be by direct democracy or by representative democracy, but the only thing federalism assumes is non-centralization.

Edit: Read this - http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1866/catechism.htm

Originally posted by adam warlock
Yes I know. That's why I answered the way I answered.

Legitimately speaking nobody's in charge of Haiti.

You are right, there is no one in charge.
What a devastating disaster.

Originally posted by adam warlock
No it doesn't. Federalism assumes non-centralization. It can be by direct democracy or by representative democracy, but the only thing federalism assumes is non-centralization.

Edit: Read this - http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1866/catechism.htm

Hmm. I thought a Federation was a combination of smaller states, each of whom sent a representative to help decide Federation matters. Without the smaller sub-states I'm not sure why it's called a Federation.

I'll take a look at the link.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Hmm. I thought a Federation was a combination of smaller states, each of whom sent a representative to help decide Federation matters. Without the smaller sub-states I'm not sure why it's called a Federation.

I'll take a look at the link.

K. The basic unit of all political organization in each country must be the completely autonomous commune, constituted by the majority vote of all adults of both sexes.

Hmm. So instead of a representative, the communes which make up the Federation will send their vote results to some office worker who then adds up all the votes of all the communes, with anti-corruption measures in place of some sort of course.

Is that it?

The provincial parliament could be composed either of a single chamber with representatives of each of the communes or of two chambers, the other representing the population of the province, independent of the communes.

House of Representatives and/or Senate.