Check out this link for news from Greece on the class struggle:

http://www.wftucentral.org/?p=5958&language=en

By Zoltan Zigedy

Via: http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/2013/01/chile-revolution-denied.html

This coming September 11 will mark the fortieth anniversary of the coup overthrowing the elected government of Chile, a country that, at the time, enjoyed the longest enduring tradition of electoral stability in South America. Despite the uninterrupted existence of a constitutional parliamentary system from 1932, the Chilean military—aided by US covert services—overthrew the President, Doctor Salvador Allende Gossens, and violently suppressed his supporters, installing a military junta that ruled for 26 years.

What prompted the US government and its traitorous allies in the Chilean military to destroy the fabric of Chilean civil society in 1973? What “sin” could possibly warrant the installation of a murderous, fascistic regime under the leadership of General Pinochet and his collaborators?

The answer is found in one word: socialism. Not the grafting of a tepid welfare safety net to the fringes of capitalism as promised by social democrats, not the “socialism” of workers’ token participation in management, not the bad faith of class collaboration or the regulation and management of a voracious and predatory profit system, but the real and robust pursuit of revolutionary and transformative change.

For Salvador Allende and Popular Unity– the coalition of Communists, Socialists, and other worker and peasant organizations that backed his election in 1970, the vote was the opening steps on the unique “Chilean road to Socialism,” a road that would hopefully lead to working class political power and social ownership superseding the private ownership of the leading economic enterprises and giant agricultural estates.

The Allende government pressed forward with its agenda, nationalizing key industries and creating new and parallel organizations and institutions of local and workplace power. Of course this did not go well with the wealthy and powerful in Chile or unnoticed by their North American allies. Millions of our tax dollars were devoted to funding counter-revolutionary groups and actions in Chile. Provocative strikes were organized by middle-strata shop keepers, transportation owners, and managers to disrupt the economy. Demonstrations were instigated to bring sections of the middle strata—the “momios”—into the street in protest. Sabotage and vandalism were pressed. Even neo-Nazi terrorist groups were encouraged and funded by the CIA. And, of course, the US government did everything it could to isolate the Popular Unity government from international assistance, credits, and trade.

In the face of these provocations, Allende and his supporters urged workers and peasants to step forward in defense of the economy and the bourgeois democracy. And they did, in great numbers.

Thus, the expected rejection of Popular Unity in the elections of March, 1973 never materialized. Despite an unprecedented destabilization campaign, the Right was unable to muster enough votes to depose Allende. The only path left open to the enemies of popular power was the military coup. Six months later, Allende was dead and tens of thousands were about to be killed, jailed, tortured, disappeared or in hiding.

The Guzman Chronicles

It is rare to have a vivid and detailed account of such an important and tragic historical process. But thanks to the hours of video documentation secured by film maker Patricio Guzman, we can trace the powerful people’s movement that coalesced around Salvador Allende, the excitement and empowerment of the masses as they forged ahead, the hopes and disappointments of workers and the poor, and the betrayal and destruction of national aspirations. Guzman was a partisan of Popular Unity, yet open to recording the views and movements of the opposition. He captures the euphoria of workers and peasants finding their voices, the explosion of meetings and discussions of the formerly powerless, and the new-found confidence of the liberated.

His trilogy, The Battle of Chile (The Insurrection of the Bourgeoisie, The Coup d’Etat, and Popular Power) is available on DVD (Icarus Films) along with the 1996 film (Chile, Obstinate Memory) of his return to Chile to show his work in the post-Pinochet era.

Guzman’s prescient sense of the significance of Popular Unity seemingly put him on every corner, in every demonstration, in the mines and factories, and in the seats of governance. The visual imagery of workers, peasants, and ethnic minorities in the tens of thousands rallying to the cause of Popular Unity is unforgettable. Conversely, the faces of the “momios” and the military leaders reflect the ugliness of both their fear and their arrogance. Nor will one will ever forget the footage of a camera operator filming his own death at the hands of a soldier.

Far better than the many written accounts of the Chile tragedy, Guzman’s films expose the truths of class and ethnic divisions without adornment. In most cases, one can identify whether an interviewee on the streets of Santiago supports or opposes Popular Unity before he or she even speaks. Class identity is transparent.

Yes, it is class war, conscious class war. But class war that the long-ruling oligarchs, the industrialists, landlords and their minions could only win with the intervention of the military and their powerful friends to the north.

While the popular forces lost the battle of Chile, the collective memory of the peoples’ rising had to be extinguished before Chile could be returned to anything close to a “normal” bourgeois republic. For some time after elections were restored, Chile still lay in the shadows of the Generals, fearful of their return.

When Guzman arrived to present The Battle of Chile for the first time in his native land, he recorded the responses of a group of youth, both before the showing and after. Before the viewing and with only modest exceptions, the students mouthed the views received from Pinochet-era textbooks and documentaries. They showed some sympathy for the conditions of the very poor that might move them to support Popular Unity, only to charge the partisans with impatience, irresponsibility, or poor judgment. The views expressed were remarkably similar to those one might encounter in an upper-middle class suburban school in the US.

When the lights came on after the screening, the students were visibly moved—some were reduced to tears, others spoke openly for the first time of relatives who were repressed. Despite the concerted effort to remove the memory of Popular Unity, The Battle of Chile shocked the young people into a sympathetic encounter with their own history. This moment is captured vividly in Guzman’s Chile, Obstinate Memory.

A Vital Source

But the events of these three years, as revealed by the film and other chronicles, constitutes more than the nostalgia of those of us who placed so much hope in Popular Unity. Rather, the Chilean experience was a case study of the struggle to throw off the yoke of imperialism and capitalism. This episode bore many features unique to the conditions existing at that time and the pathway chosen by the movement’s leaders. At the same time, the Chilean revolutionaries faced adversaries and obstacles that are universal in any profound social change. In short, we have much to learn from Chile’s tragedy.

Today’s militancy, emerging slowly, but inexorably from the crushing impoverishment and stark inequities spawned by the global crisis, constitutes a new and promising assault on wealth and power. However, a new generation of the angry and defiant risk failure and disillusionment unless it draws lessons from the successes and failures of the past. History is cruel to those who turn away from those lessons.

Only those who are terminally jaded can but admire the energy of the “Occupy” militants in the US and the “Indignados” in Europe. But any who view The Battle of Chile will quickly recognize that powerful ruling classes with far-reaching police, a sophisticated intelligence apparatus, and a modern military at their beck and call are not readily moved to surrender power and position to forces organized in open-air general assemblies or in urban street encampments. Nor will they accommodate demands issued with the nobility of moral authority. Chile’s legacy reminds us that transformational change is about overcoming the nexus of economic and state power.

Recognition of the fusion of economic and state power in our time—what Marxists call “state-monopoly capitalism”—is essential to any credible assault on the fortress of wealth and privilege. To reach for state power, the majority must begin to disable the economic might wielded by the few. But to accomplish this, the many must act to take the power of the state that preserves and protects the economic basis of the ruling elites.

Solving these two challenges simultaneously is the task of revolutionaries. In Chile, Popular Unity hoped to meet the challenges by establishing loci of peoples’ organizations in neighborhoods and workplaces and nationalizing the heights of the economy. They understood that presidential power was only a fragile link to state power and far from sufficient to neutralize the economic might of the Chilean capitalists and their courtiers and attendants. Our modern day would-be revolutionaries are well-advised to grasp these realities.

The Battle for Chile is cold water in the face of so many erstwhile advocates of social justice who have turned to timid or utopian schemes to address a capitalist social system that has only become more aggressive and rapacious since the era of Chile’s interrupted revolution. While the loss of a counter-force to the US and its allies—the European socialist community—has vastly strengthened the hand of global capitalism, it neither excuses nor justifies a retreat from an anti-capitalist program. We see alternative schemes emerging from those disillusioned with the politics of reformism, but uneasy with revolutionary politics; they advocate motley theories of “radical democracy,” cooperatives, “The New Economy,” various strains of anarchism and kindred rejections of “hierarchies,” among others.

Marx and Engels anticipated these developments over a century and a half ago when they wrote in the Communist Manifesto:

Historical action is to yield to their personal inventive action; historically created conditions of emancipation to fantastic ones; and the gradual, spontaneous class organisation of the proletariat to an organisation of society especially contrived by these inventors. Future history resolves itself, in their eyes, into the propaganda and the practical carrying out of their social plans.

In the formation of their plans, they are conscious of caring chiefly for the interests of the working class, as being the most suffering class. Only from the point of view of being the most suffering class does the proletariat exist for them.

The undeveloped state of the class struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes [activists] of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favoured. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without the distinction of class… For how can people, when once they understand their system, fail to see in it the best possible plan of the best possible state of society?

Hence, they reject all political, and especially all revolutionary action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel.

Such fantastic pictures of future society, painted at a time when the proletariat is still in a very undeveloped state and has but a fantastic conception of its own position, correspond with the first instinctive yearnings of that class for a general reconstruction of society…

They, therefore, endeavour, and that consistently, to deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the class antagonisms. They still dream of experimental realisation of their social Utopias, of founding isolated “phalansteres”, of establishing “Home Colonies”, or setting up a “Little Icaria” — duodecimo editions of the New Jerusalem — and to realise all these castles in the air, they are compelled to appeal to the feelings and purses of the bourgeois…
They, therefore, violently oppose all political action…; such action, according to them, can only result from blind unbelief in the new Gospel.
Revolutionaries must and will put these “castles in the air” behind them as the struggle for social justice sharpens.

And ahead are the many obstacles underscored by the Chilean events chronicled in Guzman’s film. Two critical problems of revolutionary theory that loom large in the battle for Chile are (1) the question of the military and other “security” organs and (2) the question of the “middle class.”

Clearly, Popular Unity failed to solve the problem of the military in 1973, though its leaders certainly recognized it. In our time, the near-coup in 2002 against President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela demonstrates the continuing dangers from those social elements holding a near monopoly on physical force: the military. Like the police and other organs of social control, the military invariably align with those opposing change. Without Chavez’s uniquely strong links to long-cultivated and sympathetic elements of the military, the coup would have undoubtedly led to a bloody and uncertain outcome. Any real quest for transformative change must wrestle with this question.

The question of the “middle classes” is really the problem posed by those who occupy the social space between the ownership class (the 1%) and those conscious of their diminished status resulting from employment by or servitude to the ownership class. While those who occupy this space are, in reality, also subservient to the rich and powerful, they see their status as above the poor and working class and identify their aspirations with the fate of those who rule. Labor leaders and other image shapers foster illusions about a broad and inclusive “middle class.” They offer the fantasy that auto workers and bus drivers have the same class interests as corporate lawyers and bond traders. In this imaginary world, their lives intersect at the shopping mall, the stadium, and the television set. Of course they really don’t. Even arch conservatives like Charles Murray have concluded that this view is nonsense, but the view persists widely in the mainstreams of both the US and Europe.

The dangers of these illusions are demonstrated well in The Battle of Chile. The “momios” who provided a mass base for the opposition to Popular Unity would, by and large, have eventually benefited from the Chilean road to socialism. But seduced by the lure of consumerism, vulgar culture, crass individualism and the delusional promise of joining the ranks of the privileged few, they proved to be an enormous obstacle to advancing the Popular Unity program.

In the more prosperous capitalist countries, the problem of the middle strata is even more acute today. While Marx’s judgment that the “…individual members of this class… are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat…” may be somewhat affirmed by the global economic crisis, the fact remains that the middle-class world view is resilient and will persist for some time. Belief in personal exceptionalism, like belief in spirits, is a difficult deception to shed.

“To be young and a revolutionary is a biological imperative” was a piece of graffiti scrawled on a wall in Santiago and translated for me by my friend Kay when we visited Santiago in the fall of 1990. After Pinochet, this was a welcome inspiration for those of us who placed hope in the Chilean revolutionary process. But biology will only take revolutionaries so far without a study of history. In fact, without heeding the lessons of history—in this case the Allende government and its violent suppression—the imperatives and energy of youth will dissipate and give way to cynicism and disappointment. The Battle of Chile offers these hard lessons, but also profound inspiration.

Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com

By James Thompson

Much has been made of the violation of human rights in other countries in the press of the USA. Usually such stories have centered on the former USSR and/or People’s Republic of China. Little mention is given to the racism and sexism which pervades the societal structure in the USA. Racism and sexism and discrimination in all its forms have been used to split and divide the working class in the USA. As long as working people view their co-workers who are of a different race and/or sex than them as inferior, it is easy for the bosses to lower our wages and benefits and working conditions. This has been done historically and it has worked quite well to bolster the profits of the capitalists. Unfortunately, it has been a catastrophe for working people who have seen their incomes, benefits and working conditions in the USA slide in a grotesque race for the bottom.

It is time that legislation should be introduced to make such practices illegal and punishable by law.

Here are some suggestions of basic statements which could be introduced as proposed legislation to address the persistent problems of racism and sexism and discriminatory labor practices:

Citizens of the USA are equal before the law, without distinction of origin, social or property status, race or nationality, sex, education, language, attitude to religion, type and nature of occupation, domicile, or other status.

The equal rights of citizens of the USA are guaranteed in all fields of economic, political, social, and cultural life.

Women and men have equal rights in the USA.

Exercise of these rights is ensured by according women equal access with men to education and vocational and professional training, equal opportunities in employment, remuneration, and promotion, and in social and political, and cultural activity, and by special labor and health protection measures for women; by providing conditions enabling mothers to work; by legal protection, and material and moral support for mothers and children, including paid leaves and other benefits for expectant mothers and mothers, and gradual reduction of working time for mothers with small children.

Citizens of the USA of different races and nationalities have equal rights.

Exercise of these rights is ensured by a policy of all-round development and drawing together of all the nations and nationalities of the USSR, by educating citizens in the spirit of Soviet patriotism and socialist internationalism, and by the possibility to use their native language and the languages of other peoples in the USA.

Any direct or indirect limitation of the rights of citizens or establishment of direct or indirect privileges on grounds of race or nationality, and any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness, hostility, or contempt, are punishable by law.

It should be pointed out that these items were taken directly from the Constitution of the former USSR. The only words changed were “USSR” which was changed to “USA.” Some people may ask, “Why is it that in the former USSR people were granted equal rights in the constitution of that country, but in the USA, we can’t even seem to pass an Equal Rights Amendment.

By ending the practices of racism and sexism in the USA, working class power would be greatly increased since these tactics are two of the main tools the capitalists use to oppress the working class.

PHill1917@comcast.net

Here is a written interview with Gerrard Sables, Branch Secretary of the North Devon, branch of the Communist Party of Britain. Questions were submitted by Pat Thompson, Chair, Houston Communist Party and answered directly by Gerrard Sables. Following is the interview:

1. Why did you join the Communist Party of Britain (CPB)?

I joined the CPB in March 1991 having left the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) in June 1987. My membership of CPGB started in June 1972. The CPB was founded in April 1988 and the CPGB dissolved in December 1991. Our party was founded in April 1988 with the rules and constitution and policies of the CPGB. So when I joined the CPB I considered that I was rejoining the Communist Party. I first joined in 1972 inspired by the campaign against the Vietnam War, the campaign to free Angela Davies, the role of the party in the trade union movement, and a whole host of other reasons. I was at the time an active trade union representative and reader of the Morning Star as I am still.

2. What are your duties and responsibilities as a party member? In what activities do you become involved as a party member on a local level?

The duties and responsibilities are set out in Rule 15 of our Aims and Constitution. Put in a nutshell it is to carry out party policy. Each member has to pay dues, read and promote the Morning Star, if at work to be a trade union member and member of a co-operative society. She or he has to improve political knowledge and contribute towards developing party policy

3. What is the position of the CPB on the Labour Party?

We accept that the Labour Party is the mass party of the working class. Over half of trade union members are in unions affiliated to the Labour Party and it was set up by trade unions. We do what we can to turn the Labour Party left both by struggle and debate. In the early days of the CP there were many who had joint membership. We are very critical of the Labour party’s tendency to class collaboration and to imperialism. There is within the Labour Party a continual battle between left and right. Our position on the Labour Party is under constant review.

4. What you consider to be the “work of the party” of the CPB?

Building a mass movement that is a broad based but labour movement led anti-monopoly alliance to acheive working class power.

5. Is the CPB involved in trade union activity? If so, how?

Party members are active at all levels of the trade union movement. I should imagine it is the same in the CPUSA as it is in all communist parties.

6. What do you think of the anti-Communist laws in Texas?

Bloody disgraceful and they need to be fought hard. Anti-communism is the essential ingredient in fascism.

7. What do you think of Trotskyism?

It’s a pain in the arse. There are so many different organisations claiming to be Trotskyite that one cannot consider it as a united philosophy or movement. Having said that, I know some Trotskyites we can work with: in anti-cuts campaigns, Palestine Solidarity and Anti-war movements. In Britain there are two significant Trotskyite parties: the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party. I get on reasonably well with members of both. The higher up their organisations you go the sillier they are it seems.

8. What do you see as being the major problems confronting the working class in Britain?

This coalition government which we as a party are doing our best to be rid of. Prior to Thatcher becoming Prime Minister Britain was the most equal society in Western Europe; now it is the least. There is an attempt to divide the working class which we oppose. The media with the sole exception of our paper follows the agenda set by big business and imperialism. Capitalism is the major problem.

9. What do you see as being the major problems confronting the working class in the USA?

Probably the same problems that face the working class in other capitalist countries.

10. Is the CPB Marxist-Leninist in its philosophical orientation?

Yes.

11. What do you think of the term “vanguard party of the working class” and is the CPB that party in Britain?

I don’t really like it. Any party that claims to be that is tempting fate. Our party has a resposibility to change society for the better but others also accept responsibility. alliances are not built by boasting.

12. Please comment on anything else you feel would be relevant to this discussion.

Our party launched the Peoples’ Charter. It is now the policy of the TUC and all of the big trade unions. Our party seeks to unite around policies. Our strongest weapon is the Morning Star which is now supported by all the big unions and is the most respected paper of the left.

Check out this video of a speech by General Secretary Robert Griffiths delivered to the recent Communist Party of Britain national Congress:

http://www.communist-party.org.uk/

Following are two sections of the constitution of the USSR from 1977 dealing with individual rights of Soviet citizens.

See the entire Constitution of the USSR at: http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1977toc.html

CONSTITUTION
(FUNDAMENTAL LAW)
OF
THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
Adopted at the Seventh (Special) Session of
the Supreme Soviet of the USSR
Ninth Convocation
On October 7, 1977
________________________________________

II. THE STATE AND THE INDIVIDUAL
Chapter 6: CITIZENSHIP OF THE USSR / EQUALITY OF CITIZENS’ RIGHTS
Article 33. Uniform federal citizenship is established for the USSR. Every citizen of a Union Republic is a citizen of the USSR.
The grounds and procedure for acquiring or forfeiting Soviet citizenship are defined by the Law on Citizenship of the USSR.
When abroad, citizens of the USSR enjoy the protection and assistance of the Soviet state.
Article 34. Citizens of the USSR are equal before the law, without distinction of origin, social or property status, race or nationality, sex, education, language, attitude to religion, type and nature of occupation, domicile, or other status.
The equal rights of citizens of the USSR are guaranteed in all fields of economic, political, social, and cultural life.
Article 35. Women and men have equal rights in the USSR.
Exercise of these rights is ensured by according women equal access with men to education and vocational and professional training, equal opportunities in employment, remuneration, and promotion, and in social and political, and cultural activity, and by special labour and health protection measures for women; by providing conditions enabling mothers to work; by legal protection, and material and moral support for mothers and children, including paid leaves and other benefits for expectant mothers and mothers, and gradual reduction of working time for mothers with small children.
Article 36. Citizens of the USSR of different races and nationalities have equal rights.
Exercise of these rights is ensured by a policy of all-round development and drawing together of all the nations and nationalities of the USSR, by educating citizens in the spirit of Soviet patriotism and socialist internationalism, and by the possibility to use their native language and the languages of other peoples in the USSR.
Any direct or indirect limitation of the rights of citizens or establishment of direct or indirect privileges on grounds of race or nationality, and any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness, hostility, or contempt, are punishable by law.
Article 37. Citizens of other countries and stateless persons in the USSR are guaranteed the rights and freedoms provided by law, including the right to apply to a court and other state bodies for the protection of their personal, property, family, and other rights.
Citizens of other countries and stateless persons, when in the USSR, are obliged to respect the Constitution of the USSR and observe Soviet laws.
Article 38. The USSR grants the right of asylum to foreigners persecuted for defending the interests of the working people and the cause of peace, or for participation in the revolutionary and national-liberation movement, or for progressive social and political, scientific, or other creative activity.
Chapter 7: THE BASIC RIGHTS, FREEDOMS, AND DUTIES OF CITIZENS OF THE USSR
Article 39. Citizens of the USSR enjoy in full the social, economic, political and personal rights and freedoms proclaimed and guaranteed by the Constitution of the USSR and by Soviet laws. The socialist system ensures enlargement of the rights and freedoms of citizens and continuous improvement of their living standards as social, economic, and cultural development programmes are fulfilled.
Enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state, or infringe the rights of other citizens.
Article 40. Citizens of the USSR have the right to work (that is, to guaranteed employment and pay in accordance wit the quantity and quality of their work, and not below the state-established minimum), including the right to choose their trade or profession, type of job and work in accordance with their inclinations, abilities, training and education, with due account of the needs of society.
This right is ensured by the socialist economic system, steady growth of the productive forces, free vocational and professional training, improvement of skills, training in new trades or professions, and development of the systems of vocational guidance and job placement.
Article 41. Citizens of the USSR have the right to rest and leisure.
This right is ensured by the establishment of a working week not exceeding 41 hours, for workers and other employees, a shorter working day in a number of trades and industries, and shorter hours for night work; by the provision of paid annual holidays, weekly days of rest, extension of the network of cultural, educational, and health-building institutions, and the development on a mass scale of sport, physical culture, and camping and tourism; by the provision of neighborhood recreational facilities, and of other opportunities for rational use of free time.
The length of collective farmers’ working and leisure time is established by their collective farms.
Article 42. Citizens of the USSR have the right to health protection.
This right is ensured by free, qualified medical care provided by state health institutions; by extension of the network of therapeutic and health-building institutions; by the development and improvement of safety and hygiene in industry; by carrying out broad prophylactic measures; by measures to improve the environment; by special care for the health of the rising generation, including prohibition of child labour, excluding the work done by children as part of the school curriculum; and by developing research to prevent and reduce the incidence of disease and ensure citizens a long and active life.
Article 43. Citizens of the USSR have the right to maintenance in old age, in sickness, and in the event of complete or partial disability or loss of the breadwinner.
The right is guaranteed by social insurance of workers and other employees and collective farmers; by allowances for temporary disability; by the provision by the state or by collective farms of retirement pensions, disability pensions, and pensions for loss of the breadwinner; by providing employment for the partially disabled; by care for the elderly and the disabled; and by other forms of social security.
Article 44. Citizens of the USSR have the rights to housing.
This right is ensured by the development and upkeep of state and socially-owned housing; by assistance for co-operative and individual house building; by fair distribution, under public control, of the housing that becomes available through fulfilment of the programme of building well-appointed dwellings, and by low rents and low charges for utility services. Citizens of the USSR shall take good care of the housing allocated to them.
Article 45. Citizens of the USSR have the right to education.
This right is ensured by free provision of all forms of education, by the institution of universal, compulsory secondary education, and broad development of vocational, specialised secondary, and higher education, in which instruction is oriented toward practical activity and production; by the development of extramural, correspondence and evening courses, by the provision of state scholarships and grants and privileges for students; by the free issue of school textbooks; by the opportunity to attend a school where teaching is in the native language; and by the provision of facilities for self-education.
Article 46. Citizens of the USSR have the right to enjoy cultural benefits.
This rights is ensured by broad access to the cultural treasures of their own land and of the world that are preserved in state and other public collections; by the development and fair distribution of cultural and educational institutions throughout the country; by developing television and radio broadcasting and the publishing of books, newspapers and periodicals, and by extending the free library service; and by expanding cultural exchanges with other countries.
Article 47. Citizens of the USSR, in accordance with the aims of building communism, are guaranteed freedom of scientific, technical, and artistic work. This freedom is ensured by broadening scientific research, encouraging invention and innovation, and developing literature and the arts. THe state provides the necessary material conditions for this and support for voluntary societies and unions of workers in the arts, organises introduction of inventions and innovations in production and other spheres of activity.
The rights of authors, inventors and innovators are protected by the state.
Article 48. Citizens of the USSR have the right to take part in the management and administration of state and public affairs and in the discussion and adoption of laws and measures of All-Union and local significance.
This right is ensured by the opportunity to vote and to be elected to Soviets of People’s Deputies and other elective state bodies, to take part in nationwide discussions and referendums, in people’s control, in the work of state bodies, public organisations, and local community groups, and in meetings at places of work or residence.
Article 49. Every citizen of the USSR has the right to submit proposals to state bodies and public organisations for improving their activity, and to criticise shortcomings in their work.
Officials are obliged, within established time-limits, to examine citizens’ proposals and requests, to reply to them, and to take appropriate action.
Persecution for criticism is prohibited. Persons guilty of such persecution shall be called to account.
Article 50. In accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations.
Exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by putting public buildings, streets and squares at the disposal of the working people and their organisations, by broad dissemination of information, and by the opportunity to use the press, television, and radio.
Article 51. In accordance with the aims of building communism, citizens of the USSR have the right to associate in public organisations that promote their political activity and initiative and satisfaction of their various interests.
Public organisations are guaranteed conditions for successfully performing the functions defined in their rules.
Article 52. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.
In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.
Article 53. The family enjoys the protection of the state.
Marriage is based on the free consent of the woman and the man; the spouses are completely equal in their family relations.
The state helps the family by providing and developing a broad system of childcare institutions, by organising and improving communal services and public catering, by paying grants on the birth of a child, by providing children’s allowances and benefits for large families, and other forms of family allowances and assistance.
Article 54. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed inviolability of the person. No one may be arrested except by a court decision or on the warrant of a procurator.
Article 55. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed inviolability of the home. No one may, without lawful grounds, enter a home against the will of those residing in it.
Article 56. The privacy of citizens, and of their correspondence, telephone conversations, and telegraphic communications is protected by law.
Article 57. Respect for the individual and protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens are the duty of all state bodies, public organisations, and officials.
Citizens of the USSR have the right to protection by the courts against encroachments on their honour and reputation, life and health, and personal freedom and property.
Article 58. Citizens of the USSR have the right to lodge a complaint against the actions of officials, state bodies and public bodies. Complaints shall be examined according to the procedure and within the time-limit established by law.
Actions by officials that contravene the law or exceed their powers, and infringe the rights of citizens, may be appealed against in a court in the manner prescribed by law.
Citizens of the USSR have the right to compensation for damage resulting from unlawful actions by state organisations and public organisations, or by officials in the performance of their duties.
Article 59. Citizens’ exercise of their rights and freedoms is inseparable from the performance of their duties and obligations.
Citizens of the USSR are obliged to observe the Constitution of the USSR and Soviet laws, comply with the standards of socialist conduct, and uphold the honour and dignity of Soviet citizenship.
Article 60. It is the duty of, and matter of honour for, every able-bodied citizen of the USSR to work conscientiously in his chosen, socially useful occupation, and strictly to observe labour discipline. Evasion of socially useful work is incompatible with the principles of socialist society.
Article 61. Citizens of the USSR are obliged to preserve and protect socialist property. It is the duty of a citizen of the USSR to combat misappropriation and squandering of state and socially-owned property and to make thrifty use of the people’s wealth.
Persons encroaching in any way on socialist property shall be punished according to the law.
Article 62. Citizens of the USSR are obliged to safeguard the interests of the Soviet state, and to enhance its power and prestige.
Defence of the Socialist Motherland is the sacred duty of every citizen of the USSR.
Betrayal of the Motherland is the gravest of crimes against the people.
Article 63. Military service in the ranks of the Armed Forces of the USSR is an honorable duty of Soviet citizens.
Article 64. It is the duty of every citizen of the USSR to respect the national dignity of other citizens, and to strengthen friendship of the nations and nationalities of the multinational Soviet state.
Article 65. A citizen of the USSR is obliged to respect the rights and lawful interests of other persons, to be uncompromising toward anti-social behaviour, and to help maintain public order.
Article 66. Citizens of the USSR are obliged to concern themselves with the upbringing of children, to train them for socially useful work, and to raise them as worthy members of socialist society. Children are obliged to care for their parents and help them.
Article 67. Citizens of the USSR are obliged to protect nature and conserve its riches.
Article 68. Concern for the preservation of historical monuments and other cultural values is a duty and obligation of citizens of the USSR.
Article 69. It is the internationalist duty of citizens of the USSR to promote friendship and co-operation with peoples of other lands and help maintain and strengthen world peace.

By Arthur Shaw

Lawyer Manuel Rachadell argues, according to the Saturday December 29, 2012 online edition of El Universal, that:

“If the Venezuelan president-elect does not take office next January 10 in default of a formal explanation for his full absence, the Congress’ speaker must stand in for him.”

The second paragraph of Article 233 of the Venezuelan Constitution says “When an elected President becomes permanently unavailable to serve prior to his inauguration, a new election by universal suffrage and direct ballot shall be held within 30 consecutive days. Pending election and inauguration of the new President, the President of the National Assembly shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic.”
Note that Art. 233 speaks about the president-elect becoming “permanently unavailable to serve” prior to inauguration.

This lawyer confuses the president’s permanent unavailability to serve with his not taking the oath of office on Jan. 10. Article 233 speaks only about the former but this lawyer babbles about the latter. 233 says nothing about Jan. 10 or any other date for taking the oath.

Article 233 carefully defines permanent unavailability as the consequence of one of six listed circumstances — namely (1) death, 2) resignation, (3) removal by the supreme court, (4) permanent physical or mental disability certified by a medical team picked by the supreme court with authority from the National Assembly, (5) abandonment of position declared by the National Assembly, and (6) recall by the voters.

Taking the oath on Jan.10 is none of these six listed conditions of permanent unavailability nor an instance of one of the unavailabilities. This lawyer made up himself this alleged constitutional requirement of a “formal explanation for his [the president-elect’s] full absence. “If such an explanation were constitutionally required, the only thing President-elect Hugo Chavez has to say is that “I’m neither (1) nor (2) nor (3) nor (4) nor (5) nor (6). But there’s no such constitutional requirement, so Chavez doesn’t have to do what the lawyer says.

Oath taking on Jan. 10 is something this lawyer tries to smuggle into 233. Chavez once took the oath of office on August 19, 2000, but nobody, least of all the National Assembly, said back then that Chavez was permanently unavailable to serve.

Why is a failure to take the oath on Jan.10 not an instance of “(5) abandonment of position declared by the National Assembly?”

An abandonment is the intentional giving up or forsaking of something, not difficulties imposed by illness. Does a husband “abandon” his wife because he gets sick? Plus there is the matter of persuading the National Assembly — which must declare an act of “abandonment” — to adopt an eccentric and erroneous definition of “abandonment” in order to overturn the will of the people as expressed on Oct. 7.

Article 231 which mentions Jan.10 doesn’t say that the president-elect has to take the oath of office on Jan. 10. Article 231 only says the president-elect takes office or power on Jan. 10 if he takes the oath of office on a date left unspecified.

Here’s 231 “The candidate elected shall take office as President of the Republic on January 10 of the first year of his constitutional term, by taking an oath before the National Assembly. If for any supervening reason, the person elected President of the Republic cannot be sworn in before the National Assembly, he shall take the oath of office before the Supreme Tribunal of Justice.”

See? Jan. 10 applies only to taking office, not to taking the oath before the National Assembly.
The National Assembly may want to toss this hot potato to the Supreme Court because 231 doesn’t specify a date or place for taking the oath before the supreme court. The “supervening reason,” which 231 requires, is of course Chavez’s illness.

Even if, on Jan 10, the Oppos [that is, the sector of the electorate led by the bourgeoisie] scream and riot with the full support of the whole bourgeois media, the National Assembly, defended by the sector of the electorate led by the revolutionary proletariat, should adhere to the Constitution.