I have read that there are two ideologies within the Esperanto community, regarding what people think Esperanto should be: One being Finvenkismo, and another being Rauxmismo.

My questions are:

  • Are these the only ideologies?
  • How many people adopt them?

Please note for the second question, while answers such as "I feel xx% of people adopt xxismo" are still appreciated, I prefer numbers based on objective facts: Statistics, Surveys, Journal Papers, Conference Proceedings, etc.

A definition of Rauxmismo and Finvenkismo is not produced on purpose, since that is a question for the researchers. I will take whatever definition they produced.

  • 1
    could you please add your definitions of the two terms into your question? – eMBee May 2 '18 at 4:56
  • 1
    if you use a term, then you have some definition of it. please share that. i can't respond to the question because i have never heard either terms and i can't figure out what they are supposed to mean. the video you link does contain definitions, so you could copy those definitions into the question without adding anything that you didn't already express. – eMBee May 2 '18 at 5:58
  • 1
    I am disappointed that this question has been put on hold. But I guess this is stack exchange, and that's the kind of thing that happens here. Definitions, in any case, are straightforward, are in opposition (which is why the Rauma Manifesto happened to begin with), and are indeed not quite what is in the YouTube video. Finvenkismo is the notion that the point and value of Esperanto lies in its adoption as a universal language. Rauxmismo is the notion that the value of Esperanto lies in the culture it already supports. The former treat Esperanto as a political cause. (Cont) – Nick Nicholas May 4 '18 at 23:05
  • 1
    Giorgio Silfer, the main ideologue of Rauxmismo, referred to Esperanto as a cultural diaspora, which makes it identity focused. Reformulating the question as whether people think of Esperanto as an ideology or an identity would get to the core, but the opposition had been express in those particular terms since the 1980s. – Nick Nicholas May 4 '18 at 23:08
  • 2
    I kind of feel like the people who are commenting that raŭmismo is a rare term or don't know what it means - that they should just stay out of the conversation. If you're not familiar with the topic enough to know what this means, then you've got no business answering the question. It's a fairly common term, and defined by an entire manifesto. Don't get your info from YouTube. Read the manifesto. – Tomaso Alexander May 8 '18 at 0:25

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.