Spiridovich criticized the linguists for overlooking the fact that in the Esperanto movement a new era of linguistic science was beginning, whose chief characteristic was that 'the masses are taking upon themselves the construction and further progress of their chief instrument—language'.[829]Even linguistic reformers like Marr refused to acknowledge this phenom- enon. Thus, Spiridovich asserted, linguistics must be fully rebuilt and the new Marxist linguistics must firmly incorporate the theory of an interna- tional auxiliary language.
Drezen went even further than Spiridovich.[830] Early in 1928 the State Publishing House in Moscow published an extensive volume in which he described the history of efforts to create a world language; included were 217 projects before Zamenhof and 245 after him. Drezen called Esperanto the crowning achievement of the search for an international language extending over many centuries.[831] The introduction was written by none other than Marr, who maintained that Drezen's book contrib- uted 'to the collection of materials for adequate treatment of the problem of the universal language'.[832]
In the same year, Marr made statements about a future world language that were entirely acceptable for Esperantists. He spoke of the 'need, without a minute's delay, for the new international social construction'; we must free ourselves 'from the limited, as it were natural, resources at our disposal'.5 1 Marr's advocacy of the artificiality of the future world language and his refusal to accept the possibility that a current national language would play the role of the universal language in the future class- less society gave some of the Soviet Esperantists enough reasons to see Marr as almost an ally, and to quote him as principal witness for the historical validity of their own goals. An Esperanto-language brochure published by SAT tried to popularize Marr's ideas among Esperantists in other countries.[833]
But the Soviet Esperanto movement lacked a unified position on Marr. Nor was there unanimity in linguistic opinion generally. Spiridovich was criticized by the young linguist Evgenii Bokarev,[834] who lectured him in the SEU journal to the effect that linguistics was in no sense unfriendly to an international language. The more the idea gained ground that lan- guage was an instrument of social communication and thereby negated earlier metaphysical views on language, the more the idea of an inter- national language would gain attention. Indeed, the greatest represen- tatives of the sociological school founded by Ferdinand de Saussure5 4 acknowledged the need and possibility of an artificial language. Noting the gradual convergence of linguistics and the Esperanto movement, Bokarev emphatically disputed Spiridovich's thesis that Esperanto would acquire its rightful recognition only with the complete reorganization of linguistics.[835]
In his response Spiridovich insisted that the Esperantists should in no way expect support from decadent bourgeois linguistics. He aggres- sively asked whether Bokarev, who evidently belonged to the sociologi- cal camp, intended 'to deny the need to build linguistics on the basis of Marxism'.[836]Almost a year later, Bokarev published a new article, 'Linguistics and Marxism', in which he sought to find middle ground.
Bokarev declared that Marxism was the only methodological and philosophical basis for linguistics. But because the classic thinkers on Marxism had left behind them only general statements about language, 'linguistic studies claiming the name of Marxism easily slide into vul- garization and deformation of Marxist methods'. Also Marr's Japhetic theory, which the public often identified with Marxist linguistics gener- ally, only contributed to the future rebuilding; much of Marr's thinking was not original, his theory contained important methodological errors, and furthermore he was chiefly interested in only one aspect, namely the paleontology of speech. For Marxist linguists it was more impor- tant to use the achievements of the sociological school which Spiridovich vainly sought to ignore. Bokarev expressed his confidence that the time would come when Marxist linguistics would turn its particular attention to the Esperanto movement, 'which should constitute a serious moment in current language policy'. Thus the Esperantists were encouraged to participate actively in the building of Marxist linguistics because 'It alone is capable of giving the international language a stable theoretical basis'.[837]
Drezen did not involve himself directly in the dispute between Bokarev and Spiridovich, but he made sure that the members of SEU received help in understanding the essential theoretical bases of their own work. In July 1928 the Fourth SEU Congress approved principles written by Drezen on 'paths to formation and dissemination of the international language'. These principles declared that the Esperanto movement owed its strength only to itself and that 'planting' Esperanto from above would not fit its goals. The Esperantists should continue to pin their hopes 'principally on initiatives from below, on the creativity of representatives of the broad masses'. At the same time, 'creative Marxist thinking' should draw con- clusions from the successful practices of the Esperanto movement and not 'silently pass over the problem of the international language'.[838]
At the end of the 1920s the time seemed not unfavorable for linking the future of Esperanto to the construction of Marxist linguistics. The entire cultural life of the Soviet Union was experiencing a period of profound transformation. During the First Five-Year Plan (1928-32), aimed at a giant step forward in industrialization, the country experienced a new cul- tural revolution, whose chief aim was to put education, literature, art and science fully at the service of socialist construction. The Party made more emphatic use of culture as a political and economic power factor, ending a period of several years of relative tranquility in the cultural sphere.[839]
At the same time the Cultural Revolution included elements of spon- taneous rebellion against all remnants of the past and against supposed missteps following the October Revolution. Earlier visions of the future Communist society underwent a renaissance. As of 1928, many utopian ideas, including projections of the death of the school and radical projects for the 'socialist city', found official favor and support in the Party—which not infrequently was more a consequence than a cause of their attractive- ness to the masses mobilized for the building of socialism. It was not only pressure, but also authentic enthusiasm, that drove people to fulfill the goals of the Plan. The heroic, painful struggle in the years of the First Plan strengthened belief in a better future under communism, and anyone able to contribute to the realization of this utopia felt particularly stimulated by the atmosphere surrounding the dawn of the cultural revolution.[840]