The degree to which SAT took its defiance of 'neutralism' seriously was revealed at the Second Congress in Frankfurt-am-Main in 1922. By a small majority the participants decided on a clarifying amendment to their constitution whereby a member of SAT could not at the same time hold membership in 'any bourgeois or so-called "neutral" Esperantist organization'. When Romain Rolland, honorary president of the congress (not present), read about this prohibition in the newspaper L'Humanite, he was sharply critical. He considered the decision sectarian in nature and reproached the revolutionary Esperantists who 'have no idea about the importance of Esperanto [... which] is in itself a revolution much more effective than all so-called revolutionary congresses: because it creates [...] an international way of thought that is "nationless and worldwide"' (sen- nacieca tutmonda).[582] In truth, it was not possible to sustain such a radical stipulation; in 1924 the rigid article 2 of the constitution was made less severe.[583] However, with or without such a constitutional requirement, in the early years of the life of SAT many capable Esperantists were drawn away from the neutral movement. This trend continued: people of left- ist persuasion preferred to join SAT rather than other, neutral Esperanto associations.
The natural consequence of this separation was not only a weaken- ing of numbers but also an ideological impoverishment of the neutral movement, so that little by little its leaders began to conform perfectly to the caricatures cultivated by SAT from the beginning: business people, generals, clergy and reactionary professors interacting with a crowd of petty-bourgeois Esperantists. And the members of SAT were proud of their separation, happily punning on the resemblance of SAT-ano (SAT member) and Satano (Satan).
In 1922 SAT had 1064 members. Between then and 1926 the num- ber grew to 2960. In 1927 it rose to 5216 and in 1929 to 6500. SAT's official journal was initially, as of October 1921, Sennacieca Revuo, previ- ously entitled Esperantista Laboristo. Three years later its chief periodical became the newly founded Sennaciulo, which appeared weekly until the end of 1931.) 3 Under the editorship of a young German communist, Norbert Barthelmess, it little by little became one of the most important Esperanto periodicals. The intention from the beginning was to make Sennaciulo a mirror of the real life of workers all across the world. Because its columns were indeed largely filled with descriptions of daily life sent in by the readers themselves ) 4 and because, particularly in the 1920s, some 100-200 articles were annually translated into national languages, the direct, often dispassionate reports in Sennaciulo on living conditions in the various countries reached a readership far in excess of the circle of worker Esperantists.
For the worldwide workers' movement in general, relations with Soviet Russia played an essential part. It was, after all, the first state in which, by its own claims, the proletariat had taken over power. Also SAT, from its beginning, was aware of the special links that it had with the country in which just a couple of months earlier the SEU had been established. Outside Soviet Russia, the non-communist SAT members were also sym- pathetic with Lenin's newly founded state—a condition that facilitated collaboration of various socialist factions within SAT as an independent organization free of party politics. Furthermore, unity was reinforced by the common desire to win workers worldwide for Esperanto. At the time, probably few asked themselves such questions as: How long can this har- mony last? What influence will the development of Soviet Russia have on the attitudes of comrades outside that country? And will the Soviet side be willing to tolerate the over-arching character of SAT?
First, it was urgent to get to know the Russians better, because no Soviet delegate was present in Prague. For Lanti the occasion presented itself in August 1922, when he traveled to Moscow for the previously mentioned mission to the Comintern to establish its attitude to Esperanto. During his visit he also met Drezen; he found in the person who would later
Fig. 5.2 Eugene Lanti, founder of SAT, the Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda, visited Moscow in August 1922. Here he met with the editors of the literary journal La Nova Epoko (New Era). L-R: Valentin Poliakov, Natan Futerfas, Lanti, Nikolai Nekrasov, Grigorii Demidiuk
become his chief antagonist a deep devotion to the language. Exploration of possible collaboration between SAT and SEU remained for the moment unresolved. Drezen complained that SAT was not purely communist and refused to work with anarchists and social democrats, while Lanti in his report of the conversation responded by pointing out that Drezen was president of an organization 'in which there were not only anarchists but also bourgeois members of a particular kind' (Fig. 5.2).[584]
Drezen soon reconsidered his skepticism regarding SAT. In November 1922, after the victory of the fascists in Italy, the Fourth Comintern Congress formally proclaimed the principle that communists should try to create a united front among the working classes, collaborating, if necessary, with social democratic organizations. In the following months SEU discussed how to align itself with this new Comintern directive. In a declaration of principles defining SEU's position, the Central Committee in March 1923 left no doubt about its views on SAT—its idealism, 'polit- ical imprecision' and 'politically ideological neutralism'—but nonetheless decided to call on communist Esperantists in all countries to support SAT as long as 'an organizational form for international activity more suited to the communists has not been created, though at the same time unmasking SAT's idealistic and false ideas and urging on it a truly practi- cal approach and greater communist influence'.[585] These were the terms on which SEU was willing to support SAT, if without much enthusiasm.[586]
From then on, SEU presented itself as a cooperative participant in the international workers' Esperanto movement. One sign of this coop- erative spirit was the elimination, in May 1923, of UEA's presence on Soviet territory through its local representatives and members.' [587] Three months later, a Soviet delegation appeared for the first time in a SAT con- gress: Drezen and five other delegates from SEU attended the Third SAT Congress in Kassel.[588] Elected as one of the chairs of the meeting, Drezen demonstrated in his closing comments that he was a loyal colleague:
We have here found that middle way, that we, sons of the revolution, using the international language for the profit of the proletariat, can follow together, whether we be anarchists, or communists, or members of other revolutionary parties. We believe that we have found the right and true way.[589]
Such public support for the idea of SAT as above party politics was not without risk for SEU, since it was unable to tolerate similar attitudes in its own ranks, namely any doubt that leadership was in the hands of communists. Drezen had just lived through a conflict with the editors of the Moscow literary journal La Nova Epoko.[590] The journal had been founded in June 1922 by Grigorii Demidiuk and Nikolai Nekrasov, who had met Lanti during his stay in Moscow and subsequently carried on an active correspondence with him.[591] Anarchists were also among the jour- nal's collaborators. Everyone opposed Drezen's centralizing tendency and defended SAT's pluralism, implicitly demanding that the latter tendency should reign also in SEU.