WeeklyWorker

22.11.2001

Socialism and Esperanto

The socialist movement has always had its utopians and schememongers who believe in some universal panacea: pacifism, productionism, god-building, militant atheism, language reform, etc. These are put in the driving seat of history in place of the class struggle. Half becalmed in the present, half reaching for the future, these comrades are capable of valuable insights into the contradictions and irrationalities of contemporary society. We therefore consider a critical dialogue with them to be altogether positive. Alberto Fern?ndez, socialist and writer on the workers? Esperanto movement, gave this presentation at a recent symposium in Belgium. According to the comrade, the negative attitude of leading socialist theorists towards an international language can be traced back to Karl Marx. His lecture is translated from Esperanto and edited by Stan Keable of the International Communist Esperantist Collective (www.ikek.de)

Just after World War II, in 1947 - I was then 17 - by chance I discovered Esperanto and immediately began to learn it with great enthusiasm. The international language idea was for me splendid. In that same period I became a member of the local socialist youth movement. One day I met one of the national leaders of that movement, a cultured person with a good reputation. When he informed me about a coming international meeting of young socialists, with naive enthusiasm I exclaimed: ?Oh! That will be an excellent opportunity to promote Esperanto!?

How did he react? At first he laughed loudly. Then he answered very seriously: ?Esperanto is something bad!?

I remained mute. As if lightning had struck me. How could a language for international communication, a language to facilitate contacts between peoples, a language capable of educating the working class, a language to combat chauvinism - how could such a language, in the head of a serious and competent socialist, be ?something bad??

In the following years, when I little by little began to know something of the Esperanto movement and mainly when I was somewhat active in the workers? Esperanto movement, I often recalled this anecdote and I became convinced that this person might have been misinformed or misled by Esperantist zealots, or that he was a victim of prejudices. Or perhaps he was only sceptical and considered Esperanto naively utopian? But I also experienced the fact that he was not alone amongst leaders and officials in the local and national socialist movement in showing a lack of interest and understanding about worker-Esperantism. That seems strange because there are certainly several common characteristics between, on the one hand, basic socialist ideology and, on the other hand, the principle of an international language and its significance for worker Esperantists. Here are some examples of those common characteristics:

In short, socialist ideology is in principle very much in accord with the democratic spirit of Esperanto. So why the lack of understanding between them? What is there, in principle, that rubs?

Are the frequent misrepresentations or inappropriate information from the Esperantist milieu to blame? Or the just as frequent prejudices and scepticism of the so-called ?outside world?? Certainly both factors undoubtedly intervene. Nonetheless there is something else of much greater importance, something fundamental - namely, there is lacking in the general Marxist ideology a positive attitude in relation to the idea, concept or principle of a common, neutral, constructed international language. In other words, the official doctrine of the chief Marxist theorists is not at all favourable to the international language concept in general and its concrete form in the language Esperanto. I confess that I only realised this a decade ago and then understood the consequences.

We will examine this concisely.

Firstly we must acknowledge that nevertheless, in the epoch of so-called ?utopian socialism? the idea of some ?world language? or ?universal language? did belong among the nebulous concepts about a future socialist society. One of the most influential figures of those times was the political philosopher and famous French anarchist, Pierre Joseph Proudhon (1809-1846), who even indulged a little in a langue universelle.

A contemporary of Proudhon was Karl Marx (1818-1883), the chief founder of scientific socialism, Marxism. Marx was not only a philosopher but also a radical economist and a revolutionary leader, with clear, deeply elaborated concepts about the development of society. So we should not be surprised that he sharply criticised the utopianism of Proudhon and even mocked his dilettante attempts at a ?universal language?. In the prolific works of Marx one scarcely finds a mention or allusion to the desirability of a common international language - not even as a possible means of linking the workers? movements of different countries, which, from 1864, set about working together internationally in the International Working Men?s Association, which historians now call the First International.

Like Proudhon, Marx too lived in the epoch before the appearance of a practically functioning international language like Esperanto. That is not true for the Marxist-inspired ideologies, which I will now briefly present.

Lenin (1870-1924), the founder of the Bolshevik Party, the Soviet Union and the Third International, was not only an effective and successful revolutionary leader but also an important contributor to socialist theory: so-called Leninism. How did Lenin relate to the idea of an international language in general, and to Esperanto in particular?

There are some stories according to which Lenin was favourable to the international language concept, even that he knew Esperanto ? but that is apparently pure fantasy. In fact there is no known document in which Lenin clearly declares for or against the idea of an international language. He therefore did not actively interest himself in the question. We can even deduce that he was opposed to the idea, because when in 1918 the mayor of Stockholm asked him whether the Soviet government would be ready to join an international convention about the introduction of a world language in all schools (in this case it was about Esperanto), Lenin laconically replied ?We already have three world languages, and Russian will be the fourth!? (U Lins La dan?era lingvo. Studo pri la persekutoj kontra? Esperanto [The dangerous language - a study in the persecutions against Esperanto] Moscow 1990, p568). The ?three world languages? then were English, French and German or Spanish.

Nevertheless I must insist on an important notion in the ideas of Lenin: namely his principle of equal rights, linguistic and cultural, of all nations and peoples in the vast Soviet Union. No privilege for any language or nation whatsoever. That was the political concept which legitimised the existence of the workers?, progressive, Esperanto movement in the young Soviet Union and allowed its remarkable growth in the 20s and the beginning of the 30s.

After the death of Lenin in 1924, the leadership of the Soviet Union was taken over by Stalin (1879-1953). As we know, Stalin was a dictatorial head of state of the Soviet Union and chief leader of world communism for about 30 years. During the years 1937-38 on the orders of Stalin there took place in the Soviet Union the so-called Great Purge, with hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of victims, depending on your source. In that tragedy, almost the whole of the Esperanto movement perished too.

But why were the Esperantists eliminated? The answer, of course, is more complex and nuanced than I will now outline. The Great Purge aimed to give Stalin absolute power over all aspects of the state. That implied that the Communist Party must have an extremely rigorous monopoly over information. Esperantists, through their many foreign contacts, were capable of breaking through this information monopoly. Consequently they were dangerous and had to disappear.

But another factor provided an additional motive for silencing the Esperanto movement in that epoch. At the beginning of the 1930s there was brought into existence a very strong, centralised state power in the Soviet Union, with Russian as the official language for the whole country. Furthermore, Lenin?s principle that in a socialist state all its languages must have the same rights was no longer valid. In that atmosphere of Russian chauvinism, the ideological base of the Soviet Esperanto movement became uncomfortable and all activity for Esperanto was suspect. But also the traditional internationalism of the Soviet Esperantists suddenly became similarly suspect when, in this period, in the Soviet Union it was definitively decided not to export the revolution to other countries but firstly to construct socialism in the Soviet Union itself.

It may seem strange that Stalin, in his theoretical contribution to Marxism, also wrote about the language question in the future worldwide socialist society. We can summarise his viewpoint here:

So much for Stalin. Now we will deal with two other very influential Marxists.

Before World War I, the chief theorist of German social democracy was Karl Kautsky (1854-1938). He popularised Marxist ideas widely but was nevertheless very sceptical about the Bolshevik revolution in the Soviet Union. Kautsky was the first to put the question of world language into Marxist theory. By chance he did this in 1887, the very year in which Zamenhof published his International Language project.

What did Kautsky say? Essentially he rejected the idea of a supranational, universal language - which was indeed an inheritance from utopian socialism - and simultaneously excluded the possibility that language unity will be created through an artificial language. He was furthermore of the opinion that the disappearance of small languages is the inevitable result of economic progress. In fact, that orthodox Marxist theory of Kautsky displayed a lack of understanding of the aspirations of small nations. Kautsky was very influential and one can regard his viewpoint as the basis of the essentially negative attitude of Marxists to the question of a neutral international language.

Thirty years later, in 1918, the Italian Antonio Gramsci (1891-1938) again took up the theses of Kautsky, but this time explicitly criticised and severely condemned Esperanto itself. Gramsci was a truly original and many-sided Marxist theorist with international fame and one of the founders of the Communist Party of Italy. He was of the opinion that ?serious? Marxists should not interest themselves in Esperanto because - and I summarise crudely - Esperanto is premature, inappropriate and even unnecessary:

We can sum up this quick overview by the recognition that the leading Marxist theorists in no way favoured the idea of any ?premature? international language in general, nor the present-day artificial Esperanto. That basic negative view of the highest Marxist authorities was, of course, a serious handicap to the spread of Esperanto in working class circles. Nevertheless, in the middle levels of the workers? movement this disapproval in relation to Esperanto was not general, and when it showed itself it was often more pragmatic than principled. There were even voices in favour, including from renowned leaders. I will mention just two examples where those in favour and those against publicly confronted each other.

In 1907 the International Socialist Congress was held in Stuttgart. Two French socialists - one was the famous orator, Jean Jaur?s - put a motion on the agenda that Esperanto be used in the official documents of the International Socialist Bureau in Brussels. This relatively modest proposal flopped, mainly because of very sharp opposition from a German socialist. Furthermore, the rejection was taken badly by socialists in the Esperanto world and some - among them the Esperanto pioneer, Edmond Privat - protested with a public letter in which they underlined the contrast between the internationalist principle of socialists and their actual conduct. A vain protest.

A second example, also in 1907, relates to the first International Anarchist Conference, which took place then in Amsterdam. One of the leading participants was the Belgian anarchist activist, Emile Chapelier. Chapelier was at the same time an active Esperantist, among other things a collaborator in the Internacia Socia Revuo (International Social Review) and author of studies on the relationship between anarchism and the international language concept. For the congress, Chapelier prepared a detailed report on the essence, utility and perspectives of Esperanto. But because of manoeuvres in the agenda, he was unable to present this report. Furthermore, Chapelier, together with the Italian anarchist veteran, Errico Malatesta, proposed to the congress a resolution not only urging anarchists, at least the most active, to learn Esperanto, but also to demand that the Anarchist International use Esperanto as a working language. The resolution was defeated. The congress showed itself more pragmatic than idealistic and accepted another resolution which ?called upon every comrade to learn at least one living language?.

Nevertheless, despite the lack of ideological support in the flow of Marxist ideas, already early in the 20th century Esperanto hesitantly spread in workers? circles. Cultured, idealistically orientated people intuitively felt that an international language was an inevitable part of future socialist society. They also understood that the practical use of Esperanto would give a more concrete significance to the internationalist claims of the workers? movement. For them, the call ?Workers of all countries, unite!? was no vacuous slogan, but something truly worth striving for.

The first workers? Esperanto groups were very militant. It is sufficient, in order to establish this, to read, for example, the programme of the Internacia Asocio Pac-Libereco (International Peace and Freedom Association). This was the first proletarian international Esperanto association, founded in 1906. Here is its programme:

This revolutionary fervour became even more ambitious in 1910, when the same association, under the new name Liberiga Stelo (Liberating Star), revised its programme as follows: ?to struggle against alcoholism? became ?to struggle against religion? and the modest ?improvement of social life? was radically changed to ?overthrow of capitalist society? (ibid p22).

Perhaps we may nowadays mock the militant pathos of that programme, but it was fully in conformity with the flow of ideas of the contemporary working class, who mostly lived in miserable conditions.

As we see, the international language Esperanto was here viewed as an instrument to achieve a social ideal. That was very clearly and soberly summed up in a declaration of principles of the Czechoslovak Laborista Esperantista Asocio (Czechoslovak Workers? Esperantist Association). In 1912 the journal of that association, Kulturo (Culture), defined its ideology as follows:

This declaration of principles emphasises something very important: namely that an international language is an essential part of a progressive world view, that an international language cannot successfully flourish in just any sort of world.

These concepts about the role and significance of the international language were budding in different variations in workers? groups before the World War I. They were the ideological background for the growth and flourishing, between the two world wars, of a strong workers? Esperanto movement, in parallel with the so-called ?neutral? movement. In that same epoch SAT - the Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda (World Non-national Association) [which organised worker-Esperantists from 1921 - SK] - not only enjoyed its apogee, but also lived through sharp ideological conflicts between its various fractions, producing international organisational splits in turn of anarchists, communists and socialists. But this extremely interesting period does not belong in my speech, nor do the tragic events when worker-Esperantism was brutally suppressed in Nazi Germany or silently suffocated in the Soviet Union under Stalin. Also not part of my speech is the ideological degeneration of worker-Esperantism after the World War II and its near disappearance.

From that tumultuous epoch between the world wars I nevertheless wish to bring out two interesting ideas. They will constitute my summing up and conclusion.

The first is a statement by the French writer and revolutionary, Henri Barbusse (1873-1935). In 1922 there appeared the SAT pamphlet For la ne?tralismon! (Away with neutralism!) by Eug?ne Lanti - the founder of SAT - to justify the existence of a workers? Esperanto movement, separate from the ?neutral? movement. On the title page of this pamphlet is found the following quotation from Henri Barbusse:

?The bourgeois and polite society Esperantists will be more and more amazed and terrified at everything which flows from this talisman: an instrument giving all individuals the means to understand each other? (E Lanti For la ne?tralismon! Paris 1928, p32).

Barbusse was not an Esperantist, only a sympathiser, but - if we forget the bombastic tone of his words - he clearly understood that the full, worldwide usage of a neutral international language would have very profound consequences - not only at the international level but also within society. Consequences about which a non-socially engaged Esperantist is scarcely conscious. Consequences which directly menace a conservative world view. Would the present globally used languages enjoy the same privileges as now? Would not their cultural and economic pressure on the rest of the world be reduced? And would not chauvinism and extreme nationalism risk losing their crudest forms? And if wider layers of the population had at their disposal a practical international means of communication, would that not be a step towards greater democracy? Would it not erode cultural elitism among the intelligentsia?

An international language, such as Esperanto, is no mere harmless hobby. It is capable of fundamentally influencing our world view. That, for example, was very clearly understood by the Nazis when in 1936 they officially condemned Esperanto with the argument that ?an international mixed language is contrary to the basic concepts of Nazism? (U Lins op cit p568).

In other words: an international language is ideologically very charged; in its very basis it is not something neutral! We must nevertheless understand that this ideological backdrop is relative and depends on the role one wishes to attribute to the international language, both in the present and in the future. The more ambitious this role, the more weight will be given to the ideological aspect of the international language and the greater the ideological opposition it will meet from outside.

The second interesting idea is somewhat complementary to the first. It was expressed, at the beginning of the 1930s, by the Austrian, Franz Jonas (1899-1974). Jonas was then the top leader of the well organised worker Esperantists in Austria. Further, he had a strong personality and was active politically. After World War II he became socialist mayor of Vienna, and later, from 1965 to 1974, president of Austria. In 1933, when SAT passed through an ideological crisis because of the departure of the orthodox communists, Jonas was of the opinion that there was no longer any sense in socialists staying within SAT and he decided to create an organisation of their own: namely ISE, the International of Socialist Esperantists.

With this organisation he hoped to be better able to influence the Second International to support and utilise Esperanto. Here is his reasoning: ?Socialism definitely needs an international language, because socialism is only realisable internationally? (E Borsboom Vivo de Lanti [Life of Lanti], Paris 1976, p273).

The conviction that socialism is only internationally realisable is, in my opinion, fundamentally true, but it does not directly concern our theme. The deduction that socialism definitely needs an international language is totally logical, because without a common international language such an international order would conserve cultural discrimination, hence peoples without equal rights, hence seeds of chauvinism - and that is no longer socialism. An international language is essential to bring a more democratic basis into international relations. Furthermore, any progressive world outlook which aims to construct a world more just for all, is hardly realisable if it does not include a positive approach to the idea of the realisation of an international language. Both are interlinked. They need each other.

What they said

?? in every modern developed language, partly as a result of the historical development of the language from pre-existing material, as in the Romance and Germanic languages, partly owing to the crossing and mixing of nations, as in the English language, and partly as a result of the concentration of the dialects within a single nation brought about by economic and political concentration, the spontaneously evolved speech has been turned into a national language. As a matter of course, the individuals at some time will take completely under their control this product of the species as well.?

Karl Marx, Frederick Engels (?The German ideology? - Collected Works Moscow 1976, Vol 5, p426)

?I do believe in the necessity, and indeed in the inevitability of a universal language; but I do not believe it will be brought about, or even hastened, by smaller races or nations consenting to the extinction of their language. Such a course of action, or rather of slavish inaction, would not hasten the day of a universal language, but would rather lead to the intensification of the struggle for mastery between the languages of the greater powers. On the other hand, a large number of small communities, speaking different tongues, are more likely to agree upon a common language as a common means of communication than a small number of great empires, each jealous of its own power and seeking its own supremacy.?

James Connolly (The Harp) April 1898.

?Esperanto is an arm of the Jews.?

Adolph Hitler (Mein Kampf)