Influenced by signs of a new orientation in the Communist movement, hopes were temporarily revived for rapprochement between SAT and IPE.[768] A resolution of the IPE Congress in Antwerp declared no longer valid that part of IPE's founding declaration of 1932 that called for oppo- sition not only to sennaciismo but also to social democracy.[769] While there were perhaps reasons for optimism about the possibility of an accord, the western members of IPE did not take into consideration the situation of their Soviet comrades. The Leningrad IPE center declared all joint activity with Trotskyists impossible, along with cooperation 'with organizations that defy the fortress of the worldwide proletariat, the Soviet Union'.[770]Hardly surprisingly, SAT declared that viewpoint unacceptable.[771]
Feelings of perplexity and anger grew among western members of IPE about the position of their Soviet section. In fact, skepticism in the ranks of IPE about SEU's good judgment was fueled by rumors that the Soviet side—in analogy with the Soviet Union's joining the League of Nations in September 1934—was interested in normalizing its relations with the neutral Universal Esperanto Association.[772] The western IPE members, in whose opinion the neutral movement 'tolerates and even supports fas- cist ideology', refused to believe that SEU would join 'the reactionary UEA'.[773] But soon SEU itself admitted that it was considering the pos- sibility of such cooperation on the grounds that, faced with the fascist threat, the proletariat must, in principle, also cooperate with 'bourgeois intellectuals'.[774]
This clarification of the position of SEU indicating an opening to the neutral movement—always in line with Comintern policies—was the last substantial communication of SEU's Central Committee to appear in the Esperanto-language press. In 1936, the contact of western IPE members with the center in Leningrad became increasingly sporadic and finally ceased altogether[775] and participants in the Third IPE Congress, in August 1937 in Paris, voiced resignation to the inevitable: 'We must accept that Soviet com- rades have difficulties about which we can only speculate, not know.'[776]
Hope was not wholly lost that contact with Soviet Esperantists would be restored. It seemed too incredible that an organization which at the end of 1936 had 11,873 members could suddenly vanish.[777] At the begin- ning of 1937 Sur Posteno reported greater SEU activity in support of the anti-fascist war in Spain; over 500 letters of greeting from Soviet labor collectives to Spanish comrades were organized and Esperanto literature was sent to Esperantists fighting in the International Brigades . [778] SEU even produced some publications: in the first six months of 1937 trans- lations of the new Soviet constitution and of two works by Stalin were published. But the fact that darkness was falling on Esperanto life in the Soviet Union was made abundantly clear with the cessation of Esperanto- language radio broadcasts. Shortly before December 1936 the broadcasts from Minsk had stopped, and in January 1937 those from Leningrad fol- lowed. The Soviet ambassador in Paris explained that the Soviet radio sta- tions were no longer broadcasting in Esperanto 'for "technical reasons", but also because they are already broadcasting in several other languages'.[779]
Esperanto, then, had become superfluous. Thomas Aldworth, of Britain, who in 1936 was a guest of the Esperantists in Leningrad, also noted this silence; his letters were returned to him stamped 'unknown'.[780]
Thus, the second column of support for IPE collapsed—less than five years after the Nazi strike against its German section. The remain- ing leaders of IPE, now reduced to an organization of a few hundred western European members, struggled painfully against the complete paralysis of its now tiny International. Finally all that was left to dis- cuss was whether it made sense to continue the organization's exis- tence. Too late, IPE discovered that in the effort to put Esperanto at the service of the class struggle there was no need to hide enthu- siasm for the language itself—'that the mere defence of Esperanto itself in the present world situation is a battle against fascism, for democracy and culture, for peace, freedom of ideas, for race equality, for internationalism'6 00 and that the separation of 'neutralists' from workers in the Esperanto movement could no longer be justified. A few members, particularly in Britain, decided on the radical step of recommending the dissolution of the current IPE, freely confess- ing that 'we, party esperantists [...] must be numbered among those whom Comrade Dimitroff has named "self-satisfied sectarians"'.[781]Surprisingly, on this occasion Communist discipline proved ineffec- tive in the IPE: by a large majority the British members rejected the proposal to dissolve.[782]
The Proletarian Esperantist International (IPE) endured until the Hitler-Stalin pact of 23 August 1939—which caused the complete col- lapse of all hopes for an anti-fascist alliance of communists, socialists and progressive members of the bourgeoisie. A week later the Second World War began. In due course IPE ceased to exist. Among the victims of war and genocide were two of the French IPE leaders, Marcel Boubou and Honore Bourguignon, who perished in the Nazi concentration camps of Auschwitz and Dachau.[783]
7
Socialism and International Language
Internationalism Before and After the Revolution
Marxist-Leninists always considered it important for their actions to be rooted in theory. Convinced that historical evolution follows defi- nite laws, they were careful to justify their policies theoretically and to demonstrate harmony between theory and practice. To understand the reasons why the Esperanto movement was extinguished in the Soviet Union, after two decades of official tolerance and even of goodwill, we will attempt to analyze the relationship between socialism and the idea of an international language.[784] Three questions arise. First, can we explain the disappearance of Esperanto in the Soviet Union in terms of the tradi- tion of socialism, particularly its Marxist variant? Second, do the ideas behind socialism provide theoretical justification for the existence of an Esperanto movement? And, third, what was the nature of the efforts taken by the Esperantists in the Soviet Union to formulate a theoretical basis for their activities?
Ever since the seventeenth century, the idea of a universal language, whose need was recognized by such philosophers and scientists as Descartes, Comenius and Leibniz, has also formed a constituent part of the projects of prominent proponents of utopian socialism. The dream of a united humanity obedient to reason and rejecting superstition—a world in which social inequalities and national differences would disap- pear—conjured up the idea that humankind might return, in linguis- tic communication as in other areas, to a kind of paradisal state. The founders of 'scientific socialism', Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who further developed the tradition of the early utopian socialists, omitted attention to the question of the linguistic unity of humankind under communism—except for, peripherally and partly in jest, commenting on the language planning efforts of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Wilhelm Weitling.
The way to greater understanding, nevertheless, lies in the general theories of Marx and Engels, particularly their views on the relation- ship between socialism and nationalism. According to Marx and Engels, the nation emerged along with the formation of the bourgeois-capitalist world and will disappear with its destruction. 'In proportion as the antag- onism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.'[785]