The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1927-07-28
Continued from last issue.)


In our conflict with Great Britain
we cannot but maintain the fact that
Great Britain has attacked US. We
canno tdefine the situation otherwise,
for the truth is that the attack has
been made upon us by Great Britain.
The policy pursued by the Soviet
Union is a true peace policy. Our
"attack", if we may thus express our
selves, has consisted mainly of our
economic uplift. But this falls under
quite another category.
The standpoint to be adopted in the
question of defence of fatherland is
even more altered by the latest events.
We could not countenance a defence
of fatherland among the great pow
ers" of the first imperialist war since
these powers were imperialist, but in
the proletarian republics the situation
is entirely reversed, and the defence
of the fatherland is the first duty of
the proletarian parties. Where in the
capitalist countries the Communists
have been right in adopting the de-
featist standpoint in the Soviet Union
our proletarian fatherland must find
the fullest support from all sides.
There we must reject all defense of
fatherland," here it must be our first
thought. This train of thought is
rightly applied to the proletarian re-
publics. But it is equally right when
applied to such government, to such
a state organization, as that repre-
scented by the national revolutionary
state in China, fighting against i'm
perialism.
Lenin differed from many in dealing
with perfect clearness with this ques-
ton of the defence of fatherland.
Whilst condemning with the utmost
severity the social patriotic defenders
of imperialist fatherlands, Lenin never
dealt with the question in such man.
ner as to assert that if fatherland
is not proletarian one, there is no
reason to defend it. Lenin was very
far from such simplification Of the
question. He designated the formula
of defense of fatherland" as vulgar
and Philistine, as a justification of
war, and considered that it had nc
other meaning whatever.
When we hear of the British defence
of the mother country, for instance
this is nothing more than the current
expression used to justify war car
ried on by the British imperialist gov
eminent. When we speak of the de-
fence of our fatherland, the question
Is the justification of a war carried
on by us. Lenin did not state that
every war is an evil solely because il
is a war. War is an evil, and it must
be combatted when it is carried on by
imperialist states; but we can and
must support war, not only when
the working class is in power and is
defending its state; a war may be
supported and justified when it is q
national and progressive national
emancipation war against imperialists
even when the proletariat is not yet
It's leader. We Communists must
therefore stand Internationally fol
the support of such war as that be.
ing waged in China for the defence
of the Chinese fatherland, for the
Chinese revolution.
4. Alliances with Bourgeois States
The Slogan of FraternisatiOn and OF
Joining Revolutionary Armies.
The question of the possibility Of
forming alliances with bourgeois
states must be discussed. This ques,
ton has already been raised at one Of
the Comintern congresses, during the
debate on the program. Should such
a combination really come to pas:
that some bourgeois state, under some
unlocked for circumstances, and dur
ing mighty upheavals, should really
take sides with the Soviet Unior
against the imperialists, then it would
be the duty of the Communist Par
ties to aid the anti-imperialist wal
being waged by such q state. Should
for instance one of the eastern states
not belonging to the imperialist coali
ton, be DESTROYS of entering into al
alliance with the Soviet Union during
a great conflict between Great Bri
tain and the Soviet Union, conflic
into which the whole of Europe would
be involved, and the proletarian stat
had the right, from the Communis
standpoint, to enter into this alliance
then the Communists would be bounc
to aid this alliance.
Here we should not be dealing will
an imperialist state, but with stat
fighting against the imperialists AM
on the side of the Soviet Union; thi
would not simply be bourgeois stat
as such, but bourgeois state direct
ing its fire against the imperialis
regime. Such a state would not be
of the imperialist coalition
hut would inevitably, apart from III
own volition, as consequence OF th'
affective condition, play the role OF
kind of appendage of an anti-imperlal