Article: PDF
DOI: 10.26170/FK19-04-07
Abstract: The article is a study of Andrei Platonov’s ethical principles’ evolution and of the reasons for his writings’ victimization by the Soviet critics and authorities. One of the main charges against the writer was his “unhealthy Karataev-apery”. Trying to counter roughening and dehumanization caused by war i.a., Platonov was searching for new moral ideals capable of opposing evil. The article author traces Leo Tolstoy’s ethics influence on Platonov’s personal convictions and work. He pays special attention to the ethical conflict between the developing writer’s principles and the official Soviet ideology which interprets negatively Platon Karataev’s image and any accord with it. Today, the local military conflicts’ consequences, totalitarian regimes’ politics, consumerism contradictions constantly revert us to the basic notions of good and evil. The 20th century has taught us a lot, however not all its lessons have been adopted, and the task of highlighting the underlining of attacks against Platonov using modern experience seems important. This article traces Platonov’s views’ evolution using his works, letters and other sources. The author shows the way personal experience of Platonov – a Bolshevist mentality adept – lead to conviction that humanity saving depends on personal feeling unconnected to social or political surroundings. Keeping to the communist ideals, the writer attempts to reconcile them with love and compassion to one’s fellow creature which brings together Tolstoy’s and Platonov’s ethics. The author concludes that the utopian reasoning of both Tolstoy and Platonov is based upon belief in a human community founded on feelings immanent to every man’s soul. Such a community needs neither constraint nor administrative institutions – which represents its conflict with any state, most of all with a totalitarian one.

For citation

Hodel, R. Platonov and a Reproch against Karataev Philosophy: Do Moral Principles Undermine Bolshevist Revolution? / R. Hodel. In Philological Class. 2019. №4 (58). P. 57-65. DOI 10.26170/FK19-04-07.