中国革命文学影响下的马华左翼文学 [前言]

 序 言
谢诗坚先生的博士学位论文《中国革命文学影响下的马华左翼文学》，正式出版了。谢诗坚先生是我的博士生，他一生好学不倦，不辞劳苦负笈中国，其求知之心，令人感佩。谢诗坚先生在青年时代曾经参加新马的左翼学生运动，作为学生领袖终于受到打压。以后他又从事新闻业，擅长政治评论，有著作多部。同时还致力于华人社群事务，担任韩江三校（小学、中学及学院）的董事总务兼韩江学院的名誉院长。由于有了这些经历，他选择了马华左翼文学作为研究方向，就具有了某种优势。但论文的成功毕竟取决于他的努力，当我在他家里看到堆满书案的参考资料时，不由得心生敬意。后来，他写作了长达数十万字的初稿，几经修改，才终于定稿。在博士学位论文答辩会上，他受到了答辩委员会的好评，获得了文学博士学位。在厦门大学颁发博士学位证书大会上，朱崇实校长亲自把学位证书授予谢诗坚先生，并且破例单独与他合影留念，表达了对这位老而好学的外国学生的敬意。

马华文学与中国文学之间有天然的联系，马华左翼文学也是在中国革命文学的影响下发生、发展起来的；同时也由于中国极左思潮的影响而走向结束。这一段历史经验，值得认真总结。谢诗坚先生占有了大量第一手的材料，并且运用现代性理论，考察了马华文左翼文学与中国革命文学的关系，梳理了马华左翼文学的历史。这个历史的基本线索是：伴随着现代民族国家的建立和现代性的来临，马华左翼文学也完成了自己的历史使命。他还特别揭示了马华文学发展的内在矛盾：为革命服务与文学自身发展的矛盾；追随中国革命文学与马华文学民族特性的矛盾。正是由于这两种矛盾的转化，导致马华左翼文学最终退出历史舞台，而让位于现代主义文学。谢先生的这一论述，清晰而深刻地揭示了马华左翼文学由兴而衰的原因。

关于马华文学的研究，现在已经很热了，有众多著作出版。但是，从中国革命文学的影响角度研究马华左翼文学，似乎还是一个空白。而谢诗坚先生的研究填补了这个空白，从而为马华文学的研究作出了一份宝贵的贡献。在祝贺这本专著出版的同时，我也祝愿和期待谢诗坚先生在学术领域有新的建树。

杨春时
2007年11月23日

内容摘要
当“创造社”于1926年大力鼓吹和提倡“革命文学”时，已把1919年“五四运动”开创的文学革命路线逆转过来，将文学带进政治的轨道；却又反过来被政治拴在铁道上，成为改革社会的火车头。这对处于半封建半殖民社会的旧中国确是产生巨大的作用，有力地改造旧世界和建立新中国。
“革命文学”在因势利导下终于登上文学主流，配合着中共主导的解放战争一统天下。毛泽东文艺理论和思想已成为“革命文学”的最高和最重要的指南和境界。换句话说，“革命文学”统领了中国文坛达半个世纪之久，而在“文化大革命”终结后才逐渐退出政治及文学舞台。

这五十年的革命文学不仅影响中国的政治、经济和社会的结构，而且也牵动中国人民的思想和心灵，那是因为“革命文学”本身就是一种政治运动，一种不断变化的全民运动。

不仅于此，中国的“革命文学”运动也在同一个时期辐射海外而历久不息，尤其是华人麕居的马新社会，终于形成马华文学的主流而被称之为“马华左翼文学”或现实主义文学。究其因，不外是马新社会的独特性，拥有数以百万计的从中国移居的华人，与中国人民血脉相连，命运休戚与共，起而响应中国的革命和民族解放运动；尤其是抗日促使马新社会追求独立，以摆脱殖民统治，进而跟着中国的革命步伐起舞，因此中国的“革命文学”与“马华左翼文学”也就不可避免地成为政治革命和改革的急先锋。

就此而言，“革命文学”与“马华左翼文学”基本上是两位一体的，名称不同，实质没有差别。在战前是通过南来的文人建立起马华左翼文学；在战后则是通过左派统战培养的本土文化人继承和坚持既定的左翼文学路线，并赋予现实主义文学这一普遍性名词，在不同的时间和空间表达同一个思想和立场，以为政治议程服务。

本文就是针对这一历史事实，从1926年到1976分开五个阶段论述中国的“革命文学”如何在不同的时期影响了马华文学的走向。几乎每个时期的变化，都是中国主流文学在牵动马华左翼文学。尽管在这个过程中，马华文学曾力图建立起其独特性和自主性，以有别于中国“革命文学”，但因出自同一思想源流，先是以马克思主义及苏联的社会主义文学作为导向，后是以毛泽东思想为依归，始终无法构建本身的理论系统，反而是亦步亦趋与中国的“革命文学”一道宣扬为工农兵服务的“无产阶级”文学，最终因背离了国情而与中国的“革命文学”一道为“文革”的失误付出了沉痛的代价。换句话说，马华左翼文学也因“文革”的终结而走向尽头，失去了导航方向和理论依据，迷失在文学的十字路口，不得不在80年代退出文学阵地。

因此文中所阐述和评论与总结各个阶段的“文学与政治”的二合为一的关系，旨在提供一面历史镜子，揭开一个时代的文学如何在政治大风大浪中浮沉与共而失去其主体地位，成为政治斗争的一个工具和舆论武器。结果它也因政治气候的转变而宣告消失，结束了中马文学长达50年的“父子关系”。

关键词：革命文学；马华左翼文学；马克思主义；毛泽东文艺理论；无产阶级文学

Abstract
It was in 1926 when “Chuang Zaoshe” (Literature Creative Society) was introduced and pushed forward the “Revolutionary Literature” in China effectively reversing the direction of the “Literary Revolution”, inspired by the May Fourth Movement, and incorporating literature into politics, had subsequently evolved literature into one of the driving forces of political change which became known as “Revolutionary Literature”. At the time when China was semi-colonized, such an idea was indeed radical and thus, was able to propel the development of a new China.

The “Revolutionary Literature” supported by the Chinese Communist Party, had become the mainstream literature during the communist revolutionary era due to historical circumstances. It nurtured the principal literary and political figure of Mao Zedong and had since then, led China for 50 years until the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1976. It then diminished slowly from the mainstream political and literature discourses. Constant changes during those 50 years had not only shaped the political, economical and social structures in China, but also guided the social and spiritual conscience of the Chinese people monitored by the influential “Revolutionary Literature”.

Consequently, such literature and political movement in China had also begun to spread overseas, influencing the Chinese populace particularly those residing in Malaya and Singapore. It then became impetus to the inception of the Malaya Chinese Leftist Literary Movement (realism literature) which dominated the then Malayan Chinese Literary Movement. With deeply rooted ties and tribal spirits between China and the millions of overseas Chinese, the nationalistic fervor had affected the Chinese in Malaya and Singapore and had encouraged them to push for independence from their colonial masters. The Chinese Literary Movement together with the Malayan Chinese Leftist Literary   Movement hence became the thrust for political change and reform at that time. 

Strictly speaking, the two movements were similar in core, but only different in their titles. The movement in Malaya, pioneered by literary figures from China, was however, activated by local scribes firmly rooted in leftist literary traditions which maintained consistent ideology and stand over the years to surge its political discourse.  

This thesis chronicled the history of the Chinese Literary Movement in five stages - from 1926 to 1976, and its influence on the movement in Malaysia. It concluded that the movement in China had had a hand in the development of the local arena. Although the latter had attempted from time to time, to forge its own autonomy and to be unique from the mainland, it failed as the two movements had derived their literary thoughts and directions initially from Marxism, then Soviet-Socialist Literature and later the Maoist Literary Ideology. Hence, what transpired of the local movement was related to its main counterpart who had advocated Proletariat Literature. However, the digression into the Cultural Revolution slowly led to their demise and the local movement faded out in the 1980s.

This thesis also unveiled the relationship of “Literature and Politics” as two in one and uncovered the manner two movements became subsume to politics, then lost their autonomies, and eventually became political tools in power struggle leading to their deaths to end their “father and son” relationship.

Keywords: China Revolutionary Literature; Malayan Chinese Leftist Literature; Marxism; Maoist Literary Ideology; Proletariat Literature