Manifesto of Non nationalism ( Preamble )

For ten years, now, the spirit of non-nationalism has been abroad in the ranks of the Workers' Esperanto movement. Throughout the world, thousands of workers are using the same language, either in groups among themselves, or for their correspondence with comrades in far distant lands. This fact has begotten the idea of the possibility of the working class organising itself in an original manner and of considering new methods in the struggle between the classes.

So far non-nationalism has often been discussed in the organs of the Workers' Esperanto Association, Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda, and there was never any very considerable opposition to this new idea. But it was to be expected that some day orthodox internationalists would oppose such heresy. And as a matter of fact for some time already a vast agitation has been methodically undertaken in order to resist the new theory.

Consequently, comrades who are sympathetic towards the idea, but have not a very clear conception of it, may waver. Many, without sufficient corsideration, have even identified non-nationalism with a " working-class internationalism " . It is, therefore, absolutely necessary to put forward our point of view clearly and to defend it against the attacks of orthodox internationalists. This has become all the more necessary because if we do not, vigorously oppose our arguments to the sophisms and cliches spread abroad by internationalists, the latter, in the confusion, will succeed in persuading Esperantists that they represent the only evolutionary tendency. Yet, it is easy to show that their internationalism is only a species of opportunism admissible for party leaders who ignore the language problem, but unpardonable among worker Esperautists.

We feel certain, that the practical application of esperanto for several years on the part of class conscious workers must inevitably lead them, first, to the beginnings of a non nationalist state of mind, and later, to a clear presentation of problems from a non nationalist point of view. We have no doubt that many comrades will find in the following pages the explanation and the confirmation of what they have more or less vaguely felt and thought for a considerable time.They will no doubt agree with us that a real revolutionary must be capable of thinking ahead. Otherwise he is only narrowly conservative. Worker Esperantists must therefore draw all the logical conclusions which would follow from the general application of an artificial universal language.

We are well aware that our point of view is at present Utopian, since up to the present, Esperanto has not very widely spread. But in the eyes of many who will regard non nationalism as something fantastic, a universal language is also considered Utopian. And yet we Esperantists know, from our own experience, that it is an object capable of realisation, that it is even now a fact, a living fact. We thelefore advance fearlessly with our Manifesto into the ideological arena.
January 1931

In a famous Manifesto which appeared 83 years ago the workers of all countries were called upon to unite. With that object in view, several Internationals have already been set up, whose leaders have more or less frequent relations with one another either by correspondence or during congresses; most often through the medium of translators and interpreters. Generally speaking, however, the rank and file, in actual fact, still remain completely separated in national territories, and have no contact whatever with one another except on the battlefields during terrible wars.

Within these national confines the minds of men are so worked upon by the school, the press, and all the other resources of the State, that with the passing of several generations these nationals form, mentally, a real race. It is true that, according to the admission of the specialists themselves, real races, in the biological sense of the word, have not existed, in the so-called civilised countries for several centuries.

According to Frederiek Lefevre, one finds, for example, in the short-headed inhabitants of France, descended from ancient stocks, evidence of Mongolian race. And Professor Johann Brunhes has proved that the present day Jews of Bessarabia, of the Ukraine and of Poland are to a great extent Slavs and Tatars, who, a thousand years ago, were converted to Judaism by the political and military influence of the Chazars. Further, these latter were themselves Tatars who had become Jews. The surprising result of this is that the Jews of to-day in Cracow and Warsaw look more Jewish than tbose of Jerusalem !

But philosophers and psychologists can rightly speak of " historic races " and of the " souls of peoples ". Such " races " and such " souls ", are artificial. They do not constitute anything essentially incapable of variation, of modification. They have, as it were, been kneaded by history. Yet there are people, even among those who call themselves revolutionaries, who consider, that the actualitly, which is called a nation, is something quite natural, sacred, and worthy of preservation.

Such a point of view is essentially reactionary. Among these men one of the most eminent was Jean Jaures. In his book " The New Army " there is a very brilliant vindication of patriotism or nationalism, and of internationalism. Commenting on the famous phrase of Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, that " the workers have no country ", he explained its real meaning with a wealth of argument, and showed that the authors ot the Manifesto were also adherents of the policy which stands for the independence of nations and their right to self - determination.

Marx and Engels, by saying that " the workers have no country " were only stating a fact. Since the workers do not own their right share of the country, it can be argued that they are without a country. But one must not ignore the fact that the authors of the Manifesto immediately went on to add: " since the working class must first attain political power, must become the national ruling class and itself constitute the nation the national ruling, it is itself so far still national, though not at all in the bourgeois sense " and a little later in the same work one may read: "To the extent that the exploitation of one individual by another is abolished, so the exploitation of one nation by another is abolished. With the end of antagonism between the classes within the nation will also end the antagonistic attitude of the nations toward one another. " We agree entirely with Jaures that in these words no condemnation of the existence of nations is to be found.

Marx and Engels, therefore, did not help forward their disappearance, and took up a purely internationalist point of view. They were not, then, non nationalists. Jaures further argued, that even in the capitalist system, the workers have a country. And that, too, is, in a sense, true. Within a natlonal territory a member of the ruling classes and a worker are influenced in much the same way by the same resources of the state. Speaking the same language, through that powerful bond they feel themselves to belong to the same great family. People confined within national frontiers thus acquire a similarity of mind and character; they feel that there is some kind of kinship between them, especially at historic periods as, for example, during wars.

It is in this way that such forms of mental sickness as that which we experienced in 1914 at the outbreak of the war, can come into being. Class combativeness was swept away and forgotten and for the first few months a kind of " holy alliance " prevailed between the classes. Patriotic enthusiasm easily overruled all other feelings, and paralysed the remnants of reason.

Nations are realities; they are facts. To recognise a fact, however, is not to justify it. Religions and epidemics are facts, but their existence is not justified on that account. But it is also a fact that Jaures and with him Bebel, Lenin ( 1) and other less famous leaders of the Working-Class Movement, looked upon the nation as something natural and worthy of being defended. Paraphrasing a saying of Francis Bacon, " a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion, " Jaures concluded his argument as follows: " A little internationalism weakens patriotism; much internationalism strengthens it.

( I ) In a really national war, the words : "defence of the Fatherland " are not a deception and we in no way oppose them. " complete Works ol Lenin ", vol. xiii p. 342, of the French edition.

" A little patriotism weakens internationalism, much patriotism strengthens it. " That very clearly means that internationalism in no way aims at the abolition of nationality in the world. Further, all congresses of the various Internationals have declared themselves for the independence of nations, for the autonomy of all countries.

Internationalism, therefore, is only a system which aims at the setting up of a juridicial organisation among the nations in order to avoid conflicts and wars, but which in no way pretends to abolish the national peculiarities constituted by languages, customs, tradition, and so forth. Internationalists, not all of them, (1) admit the possibility and the desirability of adopting an artificial auxiliary language, such as Esperanto. But they do not agree that national languages, national cultures, and other national sanctities should disappear, or, at least, become archaic, dead things, like the ancient Greek and Roman languages and cultures.

They consider it quite Utopian and undesirable that an artificial language should become the sole instrument for the propagation of a universal culture. With regard to this problem, however, Karl Kautsky occupies a distinct position. In his book, The Liberation

Manifesto of Non nationalism 2 ( Preamble )

Sennactulo, # 278, 30 Jan. 1930, there appeared the following information from Karl Lindhagen, Mayor of Stockholm, who once during a conversation tried to interest Lenin in Esperanto. The famous leader of the Comintern said: " We have already three world languages and Russian will become the fourth. " He argued that an artificial language is an impossibility.

of the Nations ( 1917) he opposes the view of Otto Bauer, who like Jaures, regards the nation as something sacred which must be preserved. Among other things this is what he says: " Individual states are becoming mere separate administrative districts with self-administration. This in its turn facilitates the adjustment of boundaries in such a way that each of them may embrace the territory covered by one language. Only in a socialist society will the possibility arise of realising the national state to the full extent that the condition of affairs permits. But that would occur only at the same time as the individual sovereign state ceases to exist. Not national sovereignty, but only national self-administration would be the goal of this evolution. "

" But finally the boundaries of administrative districts on a national basis would lose their significance, owing to the fact that the higher educational standards of the people would make it possible for everybody to acquire a world language in addition to his mother tongue, so that everyone would be able to get his bearings, make himself understood, and feel at home anywhere in the world. "

" It is not the differentiation, but the assimilation of national characteristics, not the attainment of national culture on the part of the masses, but the attainment of a European culture that is coming more and more to mean the same thing as a universal culture, which is the goal of socialist evolution. " Kautsky's argument tries to show that the assimilation of national characteristics is something that is inevitable, and that this must not be prevented. May we conclude from this that the famous Social Democratic thinker was a non nationalist ? Certainly not ! He, like all other socialists, communists, and even anarchists (1) saw the

( I ) Cp. article in Sennaciulo, n� 297, " Anarchism and Non-Nationalism " . Without doubt anarchists oppose the idea of nationality. But it must be pointed out that they identify the " fatherland " with the state. Trying to destroy the state does not mean that they also aim at destroying national appurtenances as constituted by languages and cultures. In the article referred to, Sebastian Faure while describing how the anarchist society would function preserves the national framework. It could not be otherwise wlth this author, for he does not take into consideration the language problem, which Esperantists have solved.

socialist order of society functioning within national boundaries. He talks of a world language as an auxiliary lanuage side by side with the mother tongue. And which is to be that auxiliary language? That he does not tell us. Perhaps he was thinking of French or English, if not of German. We shall show, later on, that non nationalists have a quite different understanding of the problem.

Internationalists, do, indeed, generally agree that the absolute sovereignty of states or nations, as it has existed up to the present, must be limited. More or less explicitly they recommend the establishment of a super-national organisation, which should legislate for all nations. Those who defend this point of view sometimes call themselves super-nationalists. But their system of organisation also preserves national divisions and consequently it is essentially different from non nationalism.

It is certainly true that not all internationlalists have agreed with the view that workers should go to the defence of their nation when a war breaks out. The Bolshevists, for example, think that, in the imperialist state of capitalism, the workers must not support a war in defence of their native land. They explain, that in such an event it is not the question of defending the country, but a matter of war between rival imperialims for a new division of the markets of the world, or for colonies. Everybody knows Lenin's slogan: " Turn the imperialist War into a civil war. ".

But that does not mean at all that the great leader of the Third International agreed that the peoples should give up fighting for their "national rights�" when these were in jeopardy. The passage already quoted is very clear in this connection. Furthermore in the most recent Programme (1928) of the Communist International there is this paragraph: "Recognition of the right of all nations, irrespective of the race to which they belong, to complete self-determination, that is, to the extent of setting up a separate state. "

A similar point of view is also accepted by the Second International. It is the internationalist point of view, and is, moreover, the only one applicable in present conditions. As is well-known, Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg engaged in a controversy on the national problem, but it would be a great mistake to think that Rosa assented to the non nationalising of the peoples. In the "Junius " Pamphlet which appeared in 1915, in reproach of the German Social Democratic Party, she put forward the thesis that in time of war, the workers must not cease to wage the class struggle, because: "As the centuries testify, it is not the state of siege, but the uncompromising class struggle, which awakens that self-respect, that self-sacrifice and that moral strength among the people, which is the best shield and best defence of the country against external enemies. " And Rosa Luxemburg, at the end of this little work, comcludes as follows:

"... German Social Democracy could act as a light house if it would remain consistent... The German working class would be the keeper of the light house of socialism and of the liberation of mankind, and that would be decidedly a patriotic work, not unworthy of the disciples of Marx, Engels, and Lasalle. "

That is not how a non-nationalist would talk. Let us quote further the opinion of one of the most authoritative of contemporary Marxists, Otto Bauer. In his book entitled The Problem of Nationalities and Social Democracy, he argues that socialism is, as it were, the apex of nationalism: " Only a socialist society will make national culture the possession of the whole people and by so doing, make of the whole people a nation. Therefore every evolutionary national policy is, of necessity, a socialistic policy. (Page164).. The fact that socialism makes the nation autonomous, its destiny the product of its conscious will, has as its effect an increasing differentiation of the nations in a socialist society, a sharper distinction between their peculiarities, and a sharper cleavage of their characters one from the other (Page 105)... The bringing of the whole people to one national community of culture, the acquisition of complete self-administration by the nation, and increasing differentiation between the nations , that means socialism. " (Page 108).

We could multiply instances to prove that internationalism and non-nationalism are not synonymous terms. That is unnecessary. Let us add, however, one other remark on this point. Everyone will agree with us that the past and present leaders of the various Internationals were and are men of sufficient education to know that there is, in all the principal Languages, the word cosmopolitism, which etymologically has approximately the same meaning as that which we give to the Esperanto word "sennaciismo " (non- nationalism). If these men had wanted to put into the programmes of their respective Internationals, that their aim was the non-nationalising of the world, they would certainly not have talked of internationalism but of cosmopolitism. They did not do so, and that is the best proof that nations are regarded by them as something worth preserving and defending.

They may be right. That is another question, and so far we have only tried to refute the groundless assertion of a few people, who want to make Esperantists believe that the word " internaciismo " (internationalism), is synonymous with " sennaciismo " (non nationalism), which has begun to germinate in the Workers' Esperanto Association, S.A.T.. Such people are either politically illiterate or deliberate deceivers. They make us think of the monk who christened a rabbit with the name "carp " so that he could eat it without sin on a holy Friday. But we refuse to allow " sennaciismo " (non nationalism), to be identified with " internaciismo " (internationalism) in order that it may become the orthodoxy of a political party. The truth is, that neither etymologically nor historically, can one identify these twoisms or theories.

The fact remains that the most authoritative men in the working class movement esteem and revere their national culture and advocate its perpetuation. And are we to wonder at the above mentioned facts ? Not at all. Generally speaking political parties are out to secure power in their respective countries. Every party therefore, must utilise in its propaganda the human material to which it directs its appeal. Since this material has been made what it is by centuries of education given in a national language through a national literature, art and so forth, it is quite natural that political agitators (1) have no inclination to confront the prejudices of the masses, and to recommend the pursuit of the class struggle by methods which ignore national characteristics. Usually they only follow, or at best, keep abreast of progress. Their task is to bring existing conditions into order, to adapt themselves to existing circumstances and to discover some sort of equilibrium among many diverse social forces, but in no way, to perform pioneer work. The above assertion is well substantiated by the nationa-

( I ) In using the word " agitator " we wish to express the difference between rank-and-file party members and others who, as it were, make a business of politics and are principally desirous of becoming M.P's. or of attaining other positions.

list policy of Soviet Russia. There, those in power are not trying to abolish national differences; on the contrary, they are helping small peoples to acquire a separate national culture. That is a purely internationalist policy.

Non-natiollalists would introduce the teaching of Esperanto into all schools, and so promote a universal non-nationalist culture. Further, since a common language is necessary to the intercourse of all the nations which are contained within the vast territory of the Soviets, it is the Russian language which is becoming, more and more, the official auxiliary lauguage. We do not, of course criticise this linguistic imperialism. On the contrary, we prefer to see one language supreme over a huge territory rather than the awakening of patriotic sentiment in the Ukraine, White Russia and elsewhere.

One sees such typical examples of patriotism even among Esperantists, which goes to prove, that the wide-spread idea of a national culture, of the right of peoples to separation and self-determination, is, at best, only opportunism, but is capable of becoming even a reactionary, dangerous, subjective force. Many facts prove the existence of this danger. We will quote only the opinion of a Comrade in the Ukraine: ".... In U.S.S.R. nationalism is advanced under the aegis of the official national policy, which favours nationalism. There are very few Communists who raise their voices against the nationalism which is being encouraged, and they are not listened to.

For example, not long ago there appeared a very interesting book On National Culture, by a well known Communist Vaganjan, which was attacked by the official press, in which the author bitterly attacks the position and action of the supporters of national culture and puts forward the thesis that all national culture is advantageous only to the bourgeoisie and that a national culture cannot be the culture of the working class. Yet even this author does not quite arrive at non-nationalism, but hesitates half way and says that the working-class must create an international culture in national languages!

The orthodox leaders of the Communist Party (Stalin etc. ) favour a renaissance, an artificial resuscitation, re-creation of national cultures. Krupskaja, the widow of Lenin, for instance, recently made a speech on national and international culture in which she attacked non nationalism, pleading for national culture. It is noteworthy that she associated non nationalism with Esperanto and directed her attack simultaneously against both.

Here is a striking illustration of this national policy in practice: The Kharkov Wireless Station arranged the broadcasting of talks on Esperanto and an Esperanto Course to be given in Ukrainian. This did not please some of the Ukrainian nationalists who control the station, because their aim is to make good Ukrainians, not Esperantists. Pretexts were sought to prevent the undesirable series of talks and this is the one they found.

The lecturer said in one of his talks that " a time will come when, on the basis of a universal economic system, a universal culture will take shape and, little by little, national languages will die out." That was enough: the next talk was not given!...(2, 12. 271).