Haiti earthquake: capitalist governments are all criminals!

Does the author actually believe this gibberish? I'm serious. Can anyone who examines the evidence of economic successes and failures accept collectivism as superior to individualism? Socialism as superior to Capitalism?

Totally agree with the article and welcome the ICC's swift and international response.

You've got to be blind not to see that capitalism is responsible for this tragedy, a tragedy that could have been so much mitigated with just a little foresight. And, following the New Orleans (and previous) disasters, insult is added to injury as the victims are designated the enemy. Even today, in the name of "security", no one has reached the shanty towns. The televised events have come mainly from the middle class districts and the first US rescue teams to land went to the swankiest hotel to rescue Americans and government buildings. The UN, which has around 9000 troops on the ground (I think) is once again shown to be a less than useless body. The Americans are sending 3600 "security" troops who will have to be billeted, fed and equipped before they will allow any "aid" to get through. The troops arrived carrying not aid but heavy weaponary. The nauseous presidential "trio", Obama, Bush and Clinton, are putting on a humanitarian display while asserting their imperialist interests. France has been directly knocked back, the Chinese have been allowed enough space on the airport to plant the flag of the People's Republic and the American military is in total charge of "security" and we can see from New Orleans what that means for the poor and dispossessed.
The scrabble for the national flags of verious countries to be exhibited on TV while undertaking "rescue missions" is obscene. Gordon Brown, another sickening obscenity of capital, says that the government will match any monies raised by the people. Apart from seeing this as some sort of poker game we know from past experience that this will not happen and what "aid" comes from Britain will be linked to the interests of British imperialism.

The leftists and liberals make a big fuss about Aristide and his ousting as a central tragedy in Haiti's real history. What is the comrades' take on that?

There were others that made a fuss about Aristide's removal: the South African bourgeoisie, some caribbean countries, even some US democrats - showing that leftism just needs to support one side of the bourgeoisie or the other.
Haiti is a "good" example of the corruption and irrationality of decomposing capitalism. Aristide, supported by the US administration in the mid-90s with 20,000 US troops, was one gangster among others involved in drugs, arms and human trafficking. With tensions rising with France over Haiti, and the latter a springboard for immigration into the US, the US (and the French bourgeoisie) dumped Aristide in favour of another clique of gangsters. Though both the US and France were behind his removal it has done nothing to make the situation of the masses any better, nor has it mitigated tensions between the two countries over Haiti.

The bourgeoisie, as the article shows, are making a big deal about the permanent re-building of Haiti, not least its ability to withstand earthquakes. This is a sick joke. If we want to know about "rebuilding" look at Pakistan where unknown numbers are still living in tents after the earthquake. And even the "success" stories, Aceh for example, shows at the very least the blundering incompetence and short-termism of the so-called NGO's and the wast of massive amounts of donated monies. The totally unecessary vaccinations programmes, the amount of new fishing boats provided that very quickly led to over-fishing, etc. But if we want a really good example of "rebuilding" then look no further than New Orleans. In the first place, the $80,000 apiece trailers eventually provided for short to medium term accomodation leaked formaldahyde and were more dangerous to sleep inside than outside. Real estate deals were tied in with a sort of ethnic cleansing undertaken by both black and white functionaries of the bourgeoisie. Great parts of working class areas are still devastated. In the wealthiest country of the world, New Orleans, like Port au Prince in the poorest, is another "good" example of capitalism at work.

One thing that should be emphsised though about this disaster though, like all comparable disasters (and like New Orleans), is the self-organisation and solidarity shown by the masses. Even within the skewered reporting of the British media, where "security", ie, the bourgeoisie's fear of the masses, has now become the mantra, the tendency to solidarity in the most horrifying circumstances has been edifying. Compare this to the oozing insincerity and dripping hypocrisy of Gordon Brown and the rest of his murderous cohorts.

There was some moronic NGO person on the radio today talking about allowing Haiti access to international markets and bringing green jobs to Haiti as the key to rebuilding the country. Do these people really believe the cliches they spew?

Another similarity with New Orleans: the road from the Dominican Republic into Haiti, about the width of two large trucks at least and, from what I can see, intact and perfectly usable, is empty of any aid traffic. Just like the main road into New Orleans was intact and empty of traffic after the disaster. It's clear that this is a military operation in the interests of US imperialism and that aid and assistance is a secondary factor. It's also clear, just like New Orleans, that the "looting" question has been deliberately blown up out of all proportions for political reasons. It's also clear - and there are some examples of it in The Guardian today, that, even in these conditions, there is a massive amount of mutual aid and solidarity amongst the masses whom the ruling classes want us to see as "victims".

There is a report in today's Guardian (21.1.2010) that the poorest of the poor who live in Cite Soleil, the poores part of Port-au- Prince faced the prospect of the return of the gangs and their leaders (who had broken out of prison) who had terrorised their lives for year, formed a committee and organised patrols to stop them coming back into their community. One wonders what else they have organised themselves to do. But you can be pretty certain the ruling class will not give much cover to any such self-activity, especially when it contradicts the idea that the Haitian's are helpless.

Not sure they really want us to see them as victims. More like scary dark people living in an Hobbesian state of nature. At the very least, people we need to be very afraid of. Heard that the road from the Dominican Republic is pretty damages as well. How is that the DR escaped damange from a massive quake only a few kilometres away?

"How is that the DR escaped damange from a massive quake only a few kilometres away?"
.
Well, from what I've heard, buildings in Haiti are incredibly shoddy and codes non-existent. Presumably this is because of Haiti's poverty. The Dominican Republic isn't a rich nation either, but the per capita GDP is, like, 7-10 times higher. The question then becomes why is the Dominican Republic so much better off? I don't know enough about developmental economics or Haiti's history to venture a guess, but even I can see how hollow some of the left's arguments are, e.g. "Haiti is poor because of U.S. interference." If that were the case, why do the countries of Central America -- all of which were the victims of U.S. imperialism -- have a much higher per capita GDP than Haiti? It seems to me that saying Haiti would be okay if only it weren't for American imperialism is some kind of leftist pipe-dream where capitalism works swell for everyone as long as democracy and the national capitalists are respected.

Unlike New Orleans, Blackwater "operatives" haven't been sent to Haiti (as far as we know) - but the Scientologists have landed, courtesy of American imperialism.

Is there an "imperialism of aid"? The allies bombed Dresden to living hell to break the back of the German working class, but they also dropped food on Holland to relieve the famine (albeit a little late).

Would it make any sense to try to re-build Haiti, which is subject to severe earthquakes? Would it be to the advantage of surviving fit workers there to ship them to Africa, where their manual agricultural skills could help the economy and be more valuable there than elsewhere nowadays? Would the workers of Africa welcome them? Whether or not these ideas are acceptable, presumably some sort of viable strategy is urgently necessary.

Firstly, just over two weeks since the earthquake, the poorest parts of Haiti have still received nothing and the people are reduced to scrabbling over piles of rubbish to find something to eat or drink.

On the point raised above above "aid": I think that "humanitarian" and "development aid" are fully part of the military and imperialist strategy of any country providing it, particularly, though not exclusively, the more powerful ones.
For example, British aid to Palestine is mostly directed towards supplying and training the forces of repression and not on providing clean water and healthier conditions - the latter having a pittance spent on them in relation to the former. The same goes for British imperialist interests in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen. There's nothing altruistic about it - that's just a cover - aid is a weapon of imperialism and the strategic interests of the nation or nations providing it.
In today's Guardian, Madeleine Bunting quotes Hilary Clinton: "Development... today is a strategic, economic and moral imperative as central to advancing American interests and solving global problems as diplomacy and defence...(it is) time to elevate development as a central pillar of all that we do in foreign policy". Tony Blair came out with similar moral guff to support British imperialist interests.
Bunting goes on to make the make the point about how states are using social scientists in their imperialist strategies: sociologists, development experts and anthropologists.
And the NGO's, raised above, with their "humanitarian aid" are also part of state's imperialist machinations. In the war in Chechnya for example, very quickly both Germany and Britain used so-called aid organisations for intelligence gathering. This is further explicitly underlined by US general C. Powell said when he supported humanitarian NGO's as "force multipliers for the US government".

It seems some American religious cults are on the ground in Haiti and are actually directing the distribution of "aid" delivered by the American military.

So far, the main article on Haiti by Pawel and subsequent comments have largely consisted of bemoaning the imperialist and lack of aid aspects of the situation. Can we get on to the need for strategy, please? Does it or does it not make sense to attempt to rebuild Haiti's towns?
As the minimum time-scale for doing that, plus the very doubtful supply of necessary supplies and technology have to be kept in mind, is the only other option that of moving large numbers of people from Haiti to other countries ?
If that is to take place, which countries would accept them and which would present the most congenial societies in which they would feel compatible with economic and social requirements? Would Africa be the most suitable area?
These considerations apply whether under capitalism or communism. Not only Haitians have to decide about all this.

In answer to anonymous above, the reason why the article and most of the comments on this question are on the question of American imperialism is because this is the main component of the present situation and it's the first responsibility of revolutionaries to point this out.

Presumably the "anonymous" post right above is the same "anonymous" who earlier asks a similar question about 'shipping fit Haitian workers out somewhere'? Leaving aside for the moment the connotations involved in "shipping workers out" and the forced labour implication, there is no realistic prospect of the United States or anyone else rebuilding Haiti. That doesn't mean that it is impossible to rebuild Haiti to standards that would protect the great majority of its people, infrastructure and buildings to withstand even greater earthquakes, it simply means that if it is not profitable for capitalism to do so, which is isn't, then it will not be done. It is also not profitable to "ship workers out" anywhere when there is massive and growing unemployment everywhere. This applies to anonymous's suggestion of Africa (is that because they're black?) as anywhere else. And given the history of the struggle of the Haitian's ancestors in the struggle against slavery and being "shipped out", this is a pretty insulting suggestion.
Transmigration programmes that have taken place such as the Indonesians around Java, have been in national and therefore imperialist interests and have turned out disasterous for those involved.

Following your 'In answer to anonymous', perhaps you might like to tell us whether or not you think that revolution within Haiti is likely, and, if so, and if successful, what differences that might make to the circumstances there.

A borugeois "development strategist" suggested on the radio today that in the scale of failed states, Haiti should be one of the easier ones to solve. There is no real internal armed conflict, there is good agricultural land, it has easy access to North American markets, etc. In this "expert's" opinion, Haiti should be much easier to "solve" than other failed states such as Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. Despite this, watch U.S. imperialism focus the bulk of its energy not on Haiti, but on trying to stabilize other areas where its imperialist interests face a more serious threat. If this doesn't illustrate the complete irrationality of imperialism, what does?

I think it far better for purposes of discussion to give some sort of name rather than use "anonymous".

On Anonymous 1 above: Revolution within Haiti is not at all likely. A devastated infrastructure and a weak working class, even before the earthquake, make revolution or any profound social uprising in this country all but impossible. The responsibility for altering the situation in Haiti for the better ultimately lies in those areas of the globe where the capacity and potential of the working class is strongest.
Having made that main point, I would still underline the dignity, self-organisation and mutual aid that has been expressed here among the poorest of the poor in the most terrible conditions.

On Anonymous 2: I would disagree entirely with this "development strategist". Even before the earthquake Haiti had easy access to North American markets but being a predominately rural country produces nothing to sell there - except the facilitation of all sorts of trafficking. The attitude of the US to it can be seen in the fact that in 1987, two Philadelphia-based incinerators dumped 4000 tonnes of toxic waste on its beaches.
There was no real internal armed conflict because the local gangsters, backed by their US Godfather, violently repressed the population. It's agricultural land is not "good" but extremely poor. Only ten per cent of its forests (Haiti means "green island" in the local language) remain and I seem to remember that this was a factor in the relatively recent severe flooding it suffered. According to Clive Ponting in "A New Green History of the World", Haiti "has no quality topsoil left".
I agree with the conlusion above: irrational... and obscene.

On January 27, amongst his comments on Haiti, Baboon stated that "(...) in 1987, two Philadelphia-based incinerators dumped 4,000 tonnes of toxic waste on its (..Haiti's...) beaches."
Please see the following websites which describe the situation of Roma in Kosovo, who are trapped on a site on toxic waste, from which many children and adults have died or are suffering from lead poisoning, causing brain damage.
YouTube - Plight of the Roma Community in Kosovo.
Patrinuk.org - on this site, click on 'Kosovo' then scroll right down to a YouTube by Paul Polansky - BBC Report on Kosovo Toxic Camp.

The horror continues... Still people remain unburied, food distribution is patchy and heavy equipment is lacking. Still some of the bourgeois press plays up "violence" as if asking for it.

Today a group of US "Baptists" have been stopped locally from spiriting a number of so-called orphaned children away. Earlier in the week, with the direct help of the US military, the Mormons took dozens of children away. And the activities of the Scientologists demonstrate the use of fundamentalist religion as a wing of US imperialism.
According to the New York Times, there were no siesometers in the country and scientific experts are predicting further large shocks around the Caribbean. Millions of people living in and among shoddy buildings are at great risk.
The Observer today has an article showing how much of the promised "aid" is actually loans that have to be paid back with interest. Haiti is already groaning under IMF debt repayments. The paper did some research into countries hit by natural disasters over the last period and found that in most of them their external debt increased as a result of the "help" they received.

I forgot to put my moniker to the above - sorry about that.

Just a point on the above about Haiti's, or Haitian farmers' ability to export to the US: just like in many examples across the world, the major powers have used their weight to export their own subsidised products and destroy any local industry or agriculture. Given the history of US imperialism against Haiti it should come as no surprise that it forced the importation of heavy subsidised US rice to this country, destroying the local rice growing, any potential for self-sufficiency and impoverishing and ruining Haitian farmers and their families. One attempt against this by elements of Haitian state resulted in the US holding back thirty million dollars in aid. This is a weapon that the US has used against Haiti before, amongst other weapons such as air strikes, military occupation, piracy and letting loose the CIA-backed local gangsters.

Just to add to the last bit that Haitians were banged up (and probably banged about) in Guantanamo ten years before any Arabic speakers