The content of this article comes from the Internet, if it is inconsistent with the actual situation or there is infringement, please contact to delete.
In the long river of history, there is a thought-provoking story about a man named Hu Feng, who made waves in the field of literature, and now we look back on this history and may be able to gain some profound truths.
Hu Feng, this name may not be unfamiliar to most people, but his thoughts and actions have caused an uproar. He put forward a concept of literature and art that was incompatible with the party's principles, and believed that literature and art should be freed from the party's guidance and give free play to the subjective initiative of creation. This idea, regarded by some as a liberation of literature, has also caused widespread controversy.
In looking back at this history, we cannot ignore the social context of the time. In the early days of the founding of China's new China, the literary and art circles adopted an open and inclusive attitude, encouraging a hundred flowers to bloom and a hundred schools of thought to contend. However, Hu Feng's ideas are incompatible with this purpose. His insistence that literary and artistic creation was a free cause of the individual and did not need to be directed by the party, a view that was seen as liberal and caused a series of controversies.
In 1951, some readers began to write to the "Wenyi Bao", suggesting that Hu Feng's literary and artistic ideas should be criticized. This shows that Hu Feng's ideas are not recognized by the majority of readers. Soon after, People's Daily reprinted an article criticizing Hu Feng's literary and artistic thought as a kind of individualism belonging to the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. The author of this article, Shu Wu, was close to Hu Feng's views, but he began to reflect on his mistakes.
Hu Feng did not immediately respond to these criticisms, but a year later, in 1954, he submitted a 300,000-word report to the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, known as the "Report on Literary and Art Practice Since Liberation." In the report, he criticized the party's literary and artistic officials, arguing that they distorted Mao Zedong and the party's principles, forcing writers to go deep into the lives of workers, peasants and soldiers, and ignoring the dark side of society. He advocated that writers should organize their own magazines and promote diversity. The report, seen as a challenge to party leadership, sparked even greater controversy.
However, the controversy caused by Hu Feng's thoughts and actions did not stop there. His personal correspondence with some of his literary and artistic peers was exposed, and these letters were full of obscurity, innuendo and invective, raising doubts about his motives. The existence of these letters gradually upgraded Hu Feng's characterization from "a small literary and artistic group engaged in sectarianism" to "anti-party and anti-people".
In the end, Hu Feng was arrested in 1955 and sentenced in 1965, and he lived to be 83 years old, far exceeding the average life expectancy at the time. This historical story may make us reflect on whether a person's thoughts and actions challenge the bottom line of society, should they be censored and sanctioned.
When reviewing this period of history, we must not only see Hu Feng's persistence, but also see the complexity of the society at that time and how the leadership of the Party coped with this complex situation. History will not be completely repeated, but the logic will show similarities in different eras.
Ultimately, everyone will judge this history according to their own views and values, but in any case, this history is a part of our that cannot be ignored, reminding us of the complexity of the intertwining of literature and politics, and the scrutiny and reflection of thought and behavior in society.
The above content and materials are derived from the Internet, and the author of this article does not intend to target or allude to any real country, political system, organization, race, individual. The above does not mean that the author of this article endorses the laws, rules, opinions, behaviors in the article and is responsible for the authenticity of the relevant information. The author of this article is not responsible for any issues arising above or related to any of the above, nor does it assume any direct or indirect legal liability.