Barrett Ziegler Platonov and his Communist Critiques: Not invited to the Party Andrei Platonov’s dedication to communist ideology should have made him a significant figure within the Party. His extensive technical training allowed him to write with knowledge on the current and future state of communist economics in the Soviet Union. His writings were often rooted in his exposure to common Soviet people and the Party’s economic projects. There was a “genuine” quality in his writing that lost him the Party’s favor and complicated his relationship with Joseph Stalin. Once, in a meeting with Party elite, Stalin called Platonov a “fool, idiot, and a scoundrel,” only to later call him “a prophet, a genius.” It is curious that such a “prophet” would not be published uncensored within his home country, within his own lifetime. Also odd is that such a disgraceful author would survive the Stalinist Purges with little harassment by the Party. Platonov’s communism evolved with the politics around him; he often tried to appeal to what the Party, and Stalin, wanted from him. His devotion to communism would make the Party’s ideology a type of religion to Platonov – and its patriarch: Stalin. But, he would be accused of departing from the approved communist ideology a number of times, most pointedly in Kotlovan and Schastlivaia Mockva, surrounding the development of his literary voice. The beliefs of Platonov and the communist Party were based on popular schools of thought present in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Most notable for Platonov were the futurist movement and the Proletkul’t, both founded by Alexander Bogdanov. Ayleen Teskey attributes the optimism present in much of Platonov’s early works to Bogdanov’s considerable Ziegler 2 influence on the young author1. One focus of Bogdanov is the influence of laborers on the world around them. This writing on the agency of humans on their surroundings also becomes a primary focus for his paper on “Organizational Science”2 where he describes a system of four organized realities. Bogdanov presented his thoughts to the All-Russian Association of Proletarian Writers in October 1921, where a young Platonov was in attendance: “(1) The primal world environment-- … where the world is a chaotic mass of elements with practically no organization. ... (4) The highest level—the human collective-- …On this level life expands and reconstructs the world.”3 This speaks to the very nature of communism; to establish a human collective based on class- consciousness. This consciousness would expand the value of life beyond the individual and would work to encompass the entirety of the collective and was necessary for humanity to exist apart from the chaos of nature. An idea prevalent in Platonov’s later work, Kotlovan4 (1930), is that of a conflict between the worker and the natural world. It is by exhibiting their agency upon the world that the workers have meaning and develop value. This leads towards the 1Ayleen Teskey, “Platonov and Fyodorov. The influence of Christian philosophy on a Soviet writer”, page 23. 2Published in Tekhtologiya 1922. 3Ayleen Tyskey, Platonov and Fyodorov. The influence of Christian philosophy on a Soviet writer. 25. Emphasis added. 4In this essay, The Foundation Pit is occasionally referred to by its phonetically Russian title, Kotlovan, depending on the sources’ preferences. Ziegler 3 production of an ideal collectivized society where the value of life has expanded beyond the individual to affect the world. This theme that the idea of being human is expanded by the expression of agency on nature is another founding principle of the Prolitkul’t movement, “the connection of spiritual and physical labor.”5 Considering this connection between the spirit and labor, we can see how many in the Party saw Platonov as a counter-revolutionary; the Party, too, subscribed to Bogdanian ideas of labor. Platonov’s writings display a common theme of the proletariat overcoming a lack of efficiency -- this to mean that protagonists often faced challenges such as too little food, too few tools, or corrupt officials. If read by a Party member Platonov’s work could be seen as an attempt to discredit the Soviet industries and, ultimately, Soviet labor. As the contemporary Bogdanov equates the two, labor with spirit, Platonov’s writings now become an attempt to discredit the Soviet spirit as well -- the spirit of Stalinist communism. Both the Party and Platonov were influenced by Nikolai Fyodorov’s ideas as well. His contribution to futurist thought is significant. His writings introduce many ideas from the manipulation of Earth’s weather patterns to a solar energy replacement for expendable fossil fuels.6 While Fyodorov does assert the importance of human agency on the workings of nature, like Bogdanov, his conclusion differs from simply expanding human consciousness. Cosmism 5Ibid. 26. 6Ayleen Tyskey, Platonov and Fyodorov. The influence of Christian philosophy on a Soviet writer. 15-16. Tyskey hints at the drought of 1891 as a point of history which drew Fyodorov’s attention toward the mortality of man, holding humanity back from developing themselves ethically. The fight against death was a distraction from man’s true “ethical commitment” (93). These projects mentioned above are the first step in his “Regulation of Nature”, to be followed by the reduction of human reproduction. Ziegler 4 focuses strongly on humanity overcoming death through the efforts of “men themselves”.7 This, Fyodorov asserts, will allow mankind to pursue their “predestined…ethical commitment”8 of turning away from a past of self-centered egoism and using their knowledge to resurrect other lost civilizations. With the use of revived ethical knowledge, mankind could develop a greater human consciousness. The role of life, death, and individual value had a strong influence on Platonov’s works, especially prevalent in Kotlovan and “Fourteen Little Red Huts” (1932), as well as on the development of Soviet ideology in the early to mid-20th century. In communist ideology, there developed the theme of a “Bright Soviet Future”9-- one of a united, ethical, mankind that was derived from Fyodorov’s ideology. In Platonov’s work the labor of the individual is valued as progress towards a similar utopian future. While this is less prevalent in his later works, such as Vozvrashchenie (1946), it is a present theme in his earlier writings. Among these philosophical influences on Platonov, the influence of the Party’s rhetoric is not to be underestimated either. Lenin’s campaign to electrify the country drove Platonov to technical school and, after graduation, into the countryside. The work, Elektrifikatsiya (1921), details Platonov’s work with the Voronezh Land Commission. In this piece we begin to see how a young Platonov has combined Bagdanov’s theories of agency with Fyodorov’s futurism to communist ends, “communism is not only a struggle against Capital, but also against nature. Electrification is our best form of artillery in this struggle.”10 This work is very detailed when it 7Ibid, 93. Here, I interpret this to mean the ‘sciences’, a founding tenant of futurism and a testament to rationalist ideology. The action of “men themselves” excludes the belief in religion and focuses all action on the ability of man to comprehend and control his world. 8Ibid. 9Joseph Stalin, Marxism and the National Question, 7. 10Andrei Platonov, Elektrifikatsiya. Page 12. Translated by Ayleen Teskey. Ziegler 5 describes what is to be done to accomplish the quest for electrification. His technical background allowed for specific criticisms within his work and many of the suggestions are Platonov’s own designs when he worked with Voronezh but, were overlooked at the time due to corruption and favoritism within the Party. It may have been here that he began to feel a need to earn the Party’s recognition. This devout communist may have felt rejected by minor Party officials and so began looking for recognition and value from the higher Soviet powers, from Stalin. I have already discussed some similar ideological roots for both Platonov and the communist Party in Russia. But this appears to be a “chicken and egg” scenario; were the ideas present at the time influencing Platonov toward the Party or did the Party’s interest in these ideas draw an already communist Platonov towards these ideas? What I hope to explore is how the Party leaders’ voices influence Platonov, Stalin in particular. But, we should also consider Lenin’s influence as the Father of Russian Communism and why he had less of an effect on Platonov. It is peculiar that Platonov should be so enamored with Stalin’s communism. Why not Lenin’s? His would be closer to the “pure communism” Brezhnev would campaign for after Stalin’s fall. But what made each iteration of communism different? In 1917, Lenin explicitly defined communism as “merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the whole people.”11 This interpretation of Marxism explains the deviations Lenin performed in serving the Soviet Union. These policies had varying degrees of separation from Marx’s original definition of communism. Lenin’s New Economic Policy worked to provide 11Ayleen Teskey, Platonov and Fyodorov. The influence of Christian philosophy on a Soviet writer, 93. Ziegler 6 the bourgeois infrastructure Marx required for a Socialist state, but was executed under a “communist” government. This would “serve the people” but also gave concessions to capitalism. Other policies were explicitly contrary to the idea of communism, such as Lenin’s endorsement of a dictatorship.12 But here, Lenin was enforcing his idea of a “state monopoly”. Oddly enough, Bogdanov was a strong rival to Lenin in the years leading up to the 1917 revolution concerning the ideological leadership of the Party.13 The ideas put forward by Lenin were greatly warped by Stalin, but the results of Stalin’s reign would draw Platonov toward him instead of toward the traditional “Father of Communism.” Let us divide Lenin’s quote into four points; a capitalist aspect, the state, a monopoly, and service to the whole people.