Such feelings also animated the Soviet Esperantists. They felt destined to the task of portraying that aspect of the future that concerned the problem of linguistic understanding.[841]
Skrypnyk Against Esperantization
Into the middle of this discussion on the building of Marxist linguistics fell a further declaration by Stalin on the problems of nation and lan- guage in socialism. In a report to the 16th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in mid-1930, Stalin launched an attack on those 'deviators' who believed that 'the time has come to abolish national differences'. Those insisting on such a policy, said Stalin, are guilty of Great-Russian nationalism 'disguised [...] by a mask of internationalism and by the name of Lenin'. Stalin pointed to the dialectics of historical processes. For the moment, namely the period of socialist construction in the Soviet Union, the 'flowering of national cultures' was an important characteristic, and only in the future would they merge 'into one com- mon (both in form and content) culture, with one common language'.[842]But Stalin overestimated the capability of his dialectics to convince his listeners. During the Congress, delegates asked him how he reconciled this declaration with his 1925 speech, in which he condemned the theory of a universal language.5 [843] In his reply, Stalin denied any contradiction between the two statements: he continued to condemn the 'national- chauvinistic' theory of Kautsky, by which 'all nations, let us say, within the USSR' would flow 'into one common Great-Russian nation with one common Great-Russian language'. In other words, the question of the withering away of national languages and their unification was not a question for individual states, but international; during the construction of socialism in a single country, national languages would in no sense die away, but fully develop and flower. Stalin stated that on this point he continued to accept Lenin's idea, both in the short-term and more long- term perspective,
that in the period of the victory of socialism on a world scale, the national languages are inevitably bound to merge into one common language, which, of course, will be neither Great Russian nor German, but some- thing new.[844]
Even if Stalin denied it, there could be no overlooking the fact that his opinion had changed over the years. In 1925 he emphasized exclusively the flowering of nations and languages accelerated by socialist revolution, and he refused the possibility of a future common language. His dialectic could not hide the fact that in 1925 he made no distinction between the circumstances before and after the worldwide triumph of socialism—and that his speech of 1930 was an attempt at retrospective reinterpretation of his earlier and, for a Marxist, almost heretical opposition to the future merging of nations and languages.[845]
Now, in 1930, Stalin felt it necessary to confirm his opposition to a policy of rapid assimilation, while combining it with a revival of the international perspective. This was bound to have a stimulating effect on the Soviet Esperantists. The 1930 initiative represented progress after the speech of 1925. Giving his support to the idea of a universal language, Stalin at the same time emptied it of tendencies that from the time of Kautsky compromised it in the eyes of Esperantists and those working for the rights of small nations. He did not present the development of a universal language as a process of globalization of a national language, but for the first time forecast a language for all people as 'something new', as a language of a new kind. In this way Stalin adopted a point of view that was at least very similar to that of Marr.
The Soviet Esperantists, however, could not be entirely happy with Stalin's speech.[846] We must consider the situation in which SEU found itself in mid-1930. Its relations with SAT were extremely tense. Furthermore, at just this moment the Esperantists were confronted in their own coun- try by an unexpectedly strong attack from another party functionary. This intervention, already mentioned, requires more detailed scrutiny.
Shortly before the opening of the Party Congress, a speech was pub- lished by the Ukrainian People's Commissar for Education, Mykola
Skrypnyk.[847] He criticized the Esperantists for their 'aim of creating a separate non-national people and a separate non-national culture and ideology, substituting it for the goal of separate nations constructing their own national cultures'.^8 Skrypnyk, an old Bolshevik, was considered not only a supporter of the cultural autonomy of Ukraine, but also as a kind of advocate of all non-Russian communists who feared too great a dominance of Russians in the Soviet Union. He firmly relied on Lenin's belief that the class struggle was an international phenomenon and that nationalist feelings and antagonisms hindered the forward march of the proletarian revolution. For this reason, he opposed Russian chauvinism, particularly in Ukraine, along with Ukrainian nationalism if it threatened to weaken the solidarity of the Soviet republics.6 9 He particularly dis- trusted Stalin's policy on the national problem: as early as 1923 he com- plained that Stalin, by equating two nationalisms, 'the ruling great-power nationalism and the nationalism of once oppressed nations', neglected the paramount battle against "Great-Russian chauvinism" and tended to support 'the desire of our Soviet apparatus for the "united, undivided"'.[848]
Beginning in late 1929, Skrypnyk grew increasingly uneasy that his program of Ukrainization, although it always remained within the frame- work of loyalty to the all-Soviet Socialist fatherland, could be denounced as a stimulus to nationalist opposition. It is in this light that we must see his attacks against certain aspects of the publicity of the Esperantists, who, said Skrypnyk, sought to introduce Esperanto into schools in place of Ukrainian and in general proclaimed their language as an escape from national languages and the substitution of national languages with one single international language. He particularly condemned the 'non- national' theories of the Esperantists as a petty-bourgeois deviation from the true Communist nationality policy.
On the other hand, Skrypnyk, whose secretary knew Esperanto, in no way called for opposition to Esperanto on principle. He recognized that the language had its significance as a means of international communi- cation, drew attention to the fact that through Esperanto information about the cultural progress of Ukraine had penetrated other countries[849]and even promised support for the Esperanto movement if it remained 'voluntary'. In fact, considering the conflicts at this time characterizing nationality policy—specifically the relations between the Russian nation and minority nationalities—we have to doubt whether perceived danger from the Esperantists was what motivated Skrypnyk's warning against sennaciismo. It is more likely that his attack against 'the aim of jumping to a unifying language' was a hidden declaration of war against Great- Russian chauvinism, which seemed more than ever to threaten Ukrainian identity. A similar interpretation is possible regarding a speech made by another high-ranking Ukrainian party functionary, Pavel Postyshev, at the same congress. Postyshev alluded critically to the fact that in Ukraine there were 'a few' who proposed 'introducing Esperanto instead of Ukrainian',[850] seemingly echoing Skrypnyk, whose speech was published a few days before the opening of the 16th Party Congress.
At that Congress, Stalin declared that Great-Russian chauvinism was the most dangerous form of nationalist deviation. All who believed that the time had come to limit the process of the flowering of nations and shift to 'internationalism' were blamed for failure to observe Lenin's teachings. Thus, Stalin, reminding his audience of Lenin's refutation of 'non-national culture', sought to reassure those non-Russian party mem- bers made uneasy by too much centralization and assimilation. Indeed, Skrypnyk's fears seemed for the moment to be dispelled.