This year world Esperantists are celebrating the centenary of what is generally regarded as the most successful of the international auxiliary languages, Esperanto.
The origin of the idea of a universal language goes a long way back in history. Indeed, one of the first suggestions made in this sphere came from old Homer himself who was, apparently, intrigued by the idea when he wrote that "Humans speak many tongues but the gods speak only one". Whether this thought was inspired by the biblical myth of the Tower of Babel, we do not know but apparently he assumed that if the Gods could divide and rule mankind by introducing a multiplicity of languages, then humans could reverse the process by introducing a single universal language.
Before
Dr Zamenhof in Poland (in the part then under Russian domination) devised Esperanto in 1887 there had been a number of other advocates of introducing an artificial language, among whom had been St. Hildegarde, an 11th century abbess, the French philosopher Rene Descartes, Bishop Wilkins, brother-in-law of Oliver Cromwell, the German philosopher Leibnitz, Proudhon and the German Catholic priest,
Monsignor Johann Schleyer, who had devised Volapukin 1880.
It was not long after the introduction of Esperanto that it displaced its competitors in the bid for acceptance as the universal world auxiliary language; it is now spoken even if only by small numbers in practically every part of the world.
Generally speaking, the main objective in the minds of the seekers for a universal tongue was to remove what, for them, were the underlying causes of conflict within the society in which they lived. The main stumbling blocks in the way of unanimity of thought and action were considered to be national antagonisms, religious differences and misunderstanding arising from the use of different languages.
Nationality is no fixed characteristic of human beings. Over the centuries nationalities have come and gone; they are no inborn attribute of human anatomy. A human-inspired nomenclature, "nations" have changed according to the particular "nation" which owned and governed a particular part of the globe. The natives of almost every part of the Earth have been swept aside by the marauding and plundering forces of other self-designated "nations". What were once nations have today been swept into the dustbin of history by the conquering hordes who wiped out their languages, customs and cultures.
Covington Hall summed up the position in his poem
The Ways of Kings—Crowned and Uncrowned as follows:
If ye doubt it pause and listen, lift aside the veil of time,
Where is Rome in her splendour, where is Athens the sublime?
Where are all the Persian millions, where the proud Egyptian host?
Tell me, doth Imperial Carthage still adorn the Afric Coast?
Where the Empire of the Incas, where is Montezuma's throne?
What is Spain and Spanish glory in a world once called her own?
Where are India's mightly princes, where the Babylonian kings?
To which we might add, Where the mighty British Empire, the gigantic USA, the Russian Czarist thrones? Where are the former "nations" who people the many satellite countries of Russia and China and the former members of the now decadent British Empire which at no time had any lasting affection for most of the languages imposed upon them?
Today it matters not what color a person's skin is nor what "nation" they belong to as long as their ideas and actions fit into their master's interest exploiters have no such considerations as far as their slaves are concerned. The profit motive does not differentiate between black and white and, all other things being equal as far as the results are concerned, it matters not what language the wage slave speaks. Notwithstanding prejudice, ignorance and bigotry we find men and women of all colors and languages working side by side in the interests of the exploiters.
Religious differences have, over the centuries, been used to ruthlessly suppress people regardless of nationality. Artificial devices such as the rack, the thumbscrew and the fiery stake were used in accordance with the Christian ethic "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". But there was nothing to do with language here where both the victims and the torturers spoke the same language.
Irrespective of language, ideas reflect the ethics of the particular rulers at any particular period. Furthermore, the ideas change as the interests of the rulers change; this applies particularly to the economic and national requirements. Even scientific ideas have been opposed when they did not fit in with the interests of the rulers.
As far as Esperanto goes socialists have no particular axe to grind against the language per se. Indeed, there are many socialists (including the present writer) who use Esperanto. It is not the language in itself that we disagree with. Where we differ is over the fantastic claims which the majority of Esperantists make for the language.
The facility of Esperanto makes it an ideal medium for propagating ideas. As far as we know, there is no trace of Zamenhof having suggested that it could be used as the medium for socialism. On the other hand, at the time he devised it very few people thought that it could or would be used to oppose socialist ideology. Yet almost since its inception the activities of the majority of Esperantists have been entirely inconsistent with socialism and in fact often hostile even to reformist movements.
Once the language began to make headway it did not take long for the various economic, political, semi-political, religious and other capitalist interests to muscle in. The scout movement has been using Esperanto for more than 80 years, instilling religion and jingoism into its young duped followers. It is used by police organisations, Rotary Clubs and various other anti-socialist outfits, with their in-built anti-working class ideologies. Even those professing to have what they call socialist tendencies like SAT (Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda - World Non-Nationality Association) and others fell for the anti-socialist bunk peddled by Lenin and Trotsky.
In Czarist Russia there were a fair number of enthusiastic Esperantists, some of whom were very active in the revolutionary movement. But almost as soon as the Bolsheviks seized power the official Esperantist section of the Communist Party began to weed out anyone who was not behind the government. It became so bad (many were liquidated) that, in their yearbooks from 1923 on, SAT instead of publishing its members' names used a cross. A number of my correspondents in Russia and later in Germany under Hitler began to break off. Even so many members of SAT supported the Russian dictatorship, although today there has been a bit of a change of attitude.
After Mao took over in China the Esperanto papers later followed the Russian example. The distortions of Marxism by the Bolsheviks was avidly swallowed by the Chinese Communist Party and thousands of Chairman Mao's Little Red Books were sold by all their pseudo-communist parties and fellow-travellers throughout the world. Since Mao's demise the Little Red Book of distorted Marxism has been relegated to the scrapheap by the new gang of distortionists who now rule the roost in so-called Red China. But we still have copies in Esperanto on the back shelves of the pro-China propaganda bookshops.
The acceptance of the ideas of these falsifiers of Marxism is a true indication of the fact that using an auxiliary language is no criterion of the views people hold. It is just as easy to gull people in any language if they do not understand the real meaning of the ideology which the words express.
As long as the majority of the working class do not understand in what direction their emancipation lies, they can be fooled and misled by their opportunist leaders who regard their blind followers as voting cattle. It is futile to say that these misleaders are sincere: sincerity is not the test of truth. The records of the Labor Parties, the avowed capitalist parties and even the lunatic asylums show that just because people "sincerely" believe in what they say or do is no indication that what they say or do is correct.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" says the saw, but intention without intelligence leads to reliance on false promises and wrong premises. If the majority of the members of the working class remain followers of those who do the thinking for them, they can become dupes in the struggle for emancipation. If people require "leaders" there is no guarantee against betrayal.
What is necessary is an understanding that the social system in which we live can only continue by the exploitation of the working class by whose labour alone the entire wealth of the system is produced, coupled with a clear understanding that we can get rid of this only by the socialist alternative, i.e., the abolition of capitalism.
The key to socialism is not, then, a universally-spoken language. Notwithstanding the variety of languages in existence today, it is not the lack of a universal language that keeps people apart; it is the lack of understanding of the cause and cure of their divisions. Even along Esperantists there is but a minority of socialists. As pointed out above, the overwhelming majority of Esperantists accept capitalism.
Does this mean that socialists should not accept Esperanto as a medium of propaganda? Of course not. We can use it as much as other people, just as we use English, German and many other languages in the struggle against capitalism. In fact there are quite a few Esperantists in the World Socialist Movement and leaflets setting out our point of view are available in Esperanto. We recommend to Esperantists that they write for copies.
Bill Clarke (Australia)
The case for socialism in esperanto
The following article first appeared in 1983 as an editorial in Socialisme Mondial, a French-language journal of the world socialist movement. It was then translated into Esperanto and published in the MayI/ June 1984 issue of Laute, an esperantist journal brought out in Laroque Timbaut, France. Entitled "Utopia or Chaos?", it sets out the basic case for the establishment of a world community based on common ownership and democratic control, to replace both private capitalism in the West and state capitalism in the East, as the only framework for the solution of the major problems currently facing humanity, and in particular that of war, war preparations and the threat of war.
Cu utopio au haoso?
Por aboli la militon, la militminacon kaj ciuspecajn armilarojn, endas, ke cio troviganta sur kaj en la Tero farigu komuna heredajo de la tuta homaro. Tiam la produktado okazos por la nura kontentigo de la homaj bezonoj, sed ne plu por la vendado kaj la profito, kaj tiam ekaplikigos la principo "de ciu lau siaj kapabloj, al ciu lau ties bezonoj". Alivorte, oni ne plu mezuros la kontribuon alportitan de ciu individuo al la produktado (kio cetere jam nunternpe ne eblas, tial ke la produktada laboro estas jam socialigita, t.e. kolektiva procezo), sed ciu plejeble kontribuos, kiel sili povos au volos, kaj povos libere disponi pri cio necesa por vivi, neniel pagante. Tiu ideo ne estis elpensajo nia, sed male revo tiel malnova kiel la homaro mem, ekde kiam malaperisla "prirnitiva komunismo".
La abolo de mono, nemerkata socio, jen kio estas komunismo, au socialismo, se oni volas, ne gravas la nomo, kvankam tiuj terminoj estis tiom fusuzitaj, ke foje oni emus ilin forlasi. Senmona socio (ne nur sen mono, kompreneble, sed ankau sen varoj, sen salajroj, sen profitoj, sen bankoj) estas logikajo, tial ke oni jam havas produktadon kolektivan kaj kapablan liveri abundecon por ciuj. Tia socio estus vere homa socio, en kiu la rilatoj starigus inter homoj, kaj ne inter vendistoj kaj acetantoj, dungistoj kaj salajruloj, registoj kaj regatoj, gvidistoj kaj gvidatoj.
Tian socion oni foje taksas utopio. Sed kial timi tiun terminon? Estas neniu solvo al la hodiauaj sociaj problemoj en la kadro de kapitalismo kaj endas do imagi diferencan socion, vere anstatauan solvon. Nedubeble, la alternativo estas: utopio au Raoso.
Estas vere, ke longtempe la socialismo estis nur bona ideo, ideala socio priskribita de verkistoj kiel Tomaso MORE, sen rilato kun la tiuepoka socia realeco. Tamen, de post la industria revolucio, la socialismo farigis reala eblajo, kaj tial, car la reala bazo de socialismo estas industrio kapabla liveri sufice da varoj kaj servoj kaj elimini la malricecon kaj mizeron cie en la mondo. Tiun punkton oni atingis komence de nia jarcento kun la tutmondigo de la produktado (kio tradukigis, sub kapitalismo, per imperiismo) kaj kun la elektrizado de la industrio. La tuta sekvanta progreso teknologia nur pli kaj pli ebligis la starigon de socialismo sur la materiala kampo.
Sed socialismo estas vere ne nur afero pri teknologio. Teknologio estas gia bazo, sed socialismo dependas ankau de la homa volo kaj ankau sur tiu kampo la kapitalismo kreis kondicojn favorajn al la starigo de socialismo, kreante tutan klason el homoj, kies intereso estas rearangi la socion en socialisman socion. Tiu klaso estas la salajrularo, la laborantaro, ciuj, kiuj hodiau estas devigataj vendi sian laborforton por vivi, t.e. pli ol 90% el la logantaro de la industriigintaj landoj. Iuj uzas la vortojn "laborista klaso", sed tiuj vortoj povas konfuzigi, fiar "laboristo" pensigas pri "manlaboristo", dum la manlaboristoj estas nur uriu parto el la salajrata klaso. La socialismo, komunismo, estas la intereso de ciu salajrulo, oficisto, instruisto, funkciulo ktp. . . Tial ni preferas la vortojn "salajrularo" au "laboranta klaso", kiuj perfekte klarigas la sencon de la socialisma rnesago: gi celas la grandan plimulton el la popolanaro kaj liveras al gi la nuran solvon al la diversaj problemoj, kiujn gi devas nun alfronti.
Sed tiun solvon la plimulto mem devas malkovri, kompreni, voli. Malnova principo asertas: "La emancipado de la laboristaro estos la faro de la laboristaro mem", kaj fakte la starigo de socialismo povos esti nur la konscia verko de konscia plimulto. Tio estas logika, pro la naturo mem de la socialisma socio, kiu estos sen altrudo, sen §tato, kaj do bazita sur memvola kunlaborado. Por starigi kaj funkciigi gin, endos do voli gin kaj kompreni ciujn giajn implicojn. Jen do la dua antaukondico: socialista plimulto, kiu volas socialismon kaj komprenas ciujn giajn implicojn.
El tiuj du kondicoj, sufice disvolvita produktada sistemo kaj socialista plimulto, jam de longe estas realigita la unua, dum la dua tute ne. Estas fakto, ke hodiau la plimulto ne volas socialismon, sed male akceptas kapitalismon (inkluzive de gia statkapitalisma formo rusia, cinia, ktp. . .). Kiel do atingi, ke plimulto deziru socialismon kaj tiel faru gin tuj atingebla?
Estontece, preskau certas, ke tiu ekkonsciigo okazos, car la geviroj estante raciaj estajoj pli-malpli frue ekkonscios, ke la nuna sistemo ne funkcias por ilia intereso kaj ke socialismo estas la nura solvo al la hodiauaj sociaj problemoj. Sed "estontece" estas tre malpreciza vorto kaj ec se ni estas profunde konvinkitaj, ke en pli-malpli malproksima estonteco la homaro vivos en socialisma socio, ni tamen devas demandi al ni kion ni povas hodiau fari por akceli procezon. Ne multon, vi diros, kaj tio estas vera. Sed oni povas almenau ne prokrasti gin, se oni ne lasas sin gluti per tiu au tiu a kapitalisma reformo, per tiu au tiu ci politika kverelo, sed male, se oni dedicas sin al ununura aktivado: la disvastigo de la socialisma ideo. (Same, ankau la sindikata aktivado restas utila, ne por konduki al sango, sed simple por rezisti kontrau la premoj de 1' kapitalo kaj defendi la vivnivelon de l'salajrularo). Dissemante la socialisman ideon, ni helpas al la ekkonsciigo, kiu pli-malpli frue okazos, kaj por tion fari ni organizigas en etaj organizoj nomitaj "partio", "grupo", "ligo", "asocio", ktp . . . lau la landoj.
Frontartikolo de "Socialisme Mondial 24" (n-ro 2 de nov. 83).
Adreso: BP 26, B 6700 ARLON
Elfrancigis Kribo
