The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1927-07-27

"Reace with Chang Kai-shek!"
'Peace with the imperialists!", but
rather that it pursues precisely the
opposite course, and eXerts it's utmost
efforts to intensity its struggles
against these counter-revolutiona
forces.
The Chinese Communist Party, at
the present political juncture, is not
merely one of the sections of the
Conlintern, but section upon which
a political duty of the utmost impor-
lance has fallen, section which bears
upon its shoulders an enormous bur-
den of political responsibility. This
party is under the fire of the enemy
and holds at the moment a place of
honor in the field of international rev.
olution.
1t goes without saying that large
number of other arguments could be
brought forward against the slogan
of peace, in so far as it is necessary
to contend against pacifism, etc. After
somewhat comprehensive debates in
the commission we held it to be nee
essary to accept, as central and gen
eral slogan, the slogan of the defense
of the Russian and Chinese revolution.
Everything is included in this slogan:
war against war, the Transformation
of the imperialist war against us into
a civil war, the struggle for peace, ac-
ton taken by the Chinese Communist
Party under the slogan of the forna-
ton of a front against the imperial
lists, against Chang Kai-shek, against
the feudal lords, ETC., etc. Every ac-
ton for the promotion of the revo-
lutionary struggle can be classified
under the heading of this slogan.
These are the most important con-
siderations arising out of the second
problem. AS you will see, the pecul-
iarity of the decision come to in this
question, and the popularity of the
slogan, which is by no means SIM
pie repetition of the slogans of 1914,
arise out of the special peculiarities
of the given international situation.
3. Defense and Attack. Defence of
Fatherland.
A considerable number of other
problems have had to be revised in
the same manner. You will all GER
tainly remember that one of the most
decisive blows which we dealt against
the social patriots was the blow
against their theory" of the defen-
sive and offensive wars of the i'm
perialist states.
At the beginning of a war every
single imperialist state involved as
serts that it has been attacked" The
social chauvinists of the different
countries have based their policy on
the analysis" of this question, the
question of who has attacked" and
who defends" Our Bolshevist stand
point on the matter has been that this
whole definition of the question is
since in an imperialist war
there is neither defence nor attack
every side is attacking. The object
Of the attack is the colonial countries.
Among the imperialist states them
selves any attempts to differentiate
he guilty" parties attacking from
he innocent who are merely defend
ng themselves" is completely absurd.
1t is obvious that the existence of
he Soviet Union, and of such a fac
or as that formed by the Chinese
evolution at once set aside any such
general definition of the question. For
rere it is not question of two i'm
'erialist parties, but of state organ
cations representing different classes.
(To Be Continued).
Have Paid Your Contribution to