Send me another book about Mao! ! ! 19 1 198 126

Comrade Mao Zedong wrote the Investigation Report of Hunan Peasant Movement1March, 927. At that time, there were many disputes about the peasant revolutionary struggle inside and outside the party. Comrade Mao Zedong specially visited Hunan for 32 days and wrote this report.

At that time, Hunan peasant movement was divided into several periods. The first period is the organizational period, starting with secret activities and then making it public. The second is that during the revolutionary period, the membership of peasant associations increased sharply and the mass base expanded.

The main targets of the peasant movement are local tyrants and evil gentry, illegal landlords, various patriarchal ideas and systems, corrupt officials and bad habits established in rural areas. When the landlord's rights fall, the peasant association becomes the only organ, and all rights belong to the peasant association. The vigorous peasant movement in the whole country was described as "very bad" by the middle class and above to the Kuomintang Rightists. But this is a revolution, a revolution that overthrew the feudal forces for thousands of years, and it is the real goal of the national revolution.

Some people say that in the peasant movement, the peasant association has supreme power, and the landlord is not allowed to speak, which sweeps the landlord's prestige. The peasant movement has gone too far. On this issue, Comrade Mao Zedong pointed out that the peasant revolution was a revolution in which the peasant class overthrew the feudal landlord dictatorship. Without strong power, farmers will never be able to overthrow the landlord forces that have been ingrained for thousands of years.

Comrade Mao Zedong summed up the peasant movement in Hunan for several months, and * * * did 14 major events, 1. Organized farmers in farmers' associations; 2. politically crack down on landlords; 3. economically attack the landlord; 4. Overthrow the feudal rule of local tyrants and evil gentry-overthrow the overseers; 5. Overthrow the landlord armed forces and establish the peasant armed forces; 6. Overthrow the regime of the county magistrate's yamen attendants; 7. Overthrow the clan power of the ancestral hall patriarch and the theocracy and even the husband power of the Chenghuangdi Bodhisattva; 8. Popularize political propaganda; 9. Farmers' ban; 10. Eliminate bandits; 1 1. Waste and exorbitant taxes; 12. Cultural movement; 13. cooperative movement; 14. Repair roads and ponds.

Through reading this article, I learned about the influence of the Hunan peasant movement on the national and China revolutions at that time, corrected some people's wrong views on the peasant movement and praised it as "very good".

Second, explore $ discovery to find a good rough reading

Category: Reading Notes

Thoughts on Reading Speech at Yan 'an Forum on Literature and Art

Mao Zedong's "Speech at Yan 'an Forum on Literature and Art" (hereinafter referred to as "Speech") is not only an important document in the development history of China's * * * production party, but also a classic document in the development history of China's modern literary theory, which has had a great influence on the development of China's modern literary theory. A correct understanding of the historical rationality and limitations of The Speech is of great practical significance for us to correctly understand and evaluate Mao Zedong's literary thought, develop socialist literary theory and clarify people's confused understanding of literary concepts. This paper attempts to expound the position, rationality and limitations of The Speech as a rich text in the history of the development of modern literary theory in China from the perspective of the development of literary theory.

First, establish a scientific literary and artistic system.

In the history of China's modern literary theory, The Speech systematically and deeply expounded the nature and characteristics of China's literary theory for the first time. From a macro point of view, it is a sign that China's modern literary theory is moving towards a scientific form, and it is also the embryonic form of the scientific literary theory system. It is systematic because it involves many basic problems of literature and art, and describes and explains their internal relations. It is scientific because it summarizes and generalizes the law of the development of China's new literature with Marxist viewpoints and methods, develops the literary concept of Marxist classic writers, gives a reasonable explanation of the relationship between literature and social life and other superstructure factors besides literature, and also puts forward important opinions on the basic theory of literature. As far as the depth and breadth of the theory are concerned, it was beyond the reach of any theorist at that time.

First of all, the speech summed up and solved the experience and lessons in the development of new literature since the May 4th Movement. Since the May 4th literary revolution, there have been some problems in the new literary camp, such as the theory of human nature in literature, the popularization of literature and art, the left-leaning mechanism and literary dogmatism that have always existed in the revolutionary literary camp, and the "praise" and "exposure" that have not been solved in the Kuomintang-controlled areas and liberated areas during the Anti-Japanese War. The speech made a realistic analysis and evaluation of one of them, and put forward.

In the May 4th literary revolution, bourgeois humanitarianism was a powerful banner provided by enlightenment thinkers when they attacked feudal literary thoughts. However, with the development of the revolutionary situation, humanitarian thought has shown its limitations more and more. In the 1940s, when class struggle and national struggle were extremely fierce, it played a role in paralyzing people's ideological understanding and will to struggle to a certain extent. The speech pointed out that "there is only concrete humanity, not abstract humanity". In a class society, human nature is inevitably branded with class, that is, "only class human nature, but not super-class human nature", "human nature advocated by some petty-bourgeois intellectuals" and "only bourgeois individualism in essence" [1]. This understanding in the speech fundamentally points out the essence of the abstract theory of human nature and clears the fog for the understanding of literary and art workers.

The popularization of literature and art, to put it bluntly, is also a question of why literature and art are human. This problem is not only a problem of literary axiology, but also a problem of literary acceptance theory. From the "civilian literature" advocated by the pioneers of the literary revolution during the May 4th Movement, to the literary popularization movement initiated by the revolutionary literary camp in 1930, to the dispute between "China Putonghua" and "Latinization" in the literary language in 1932, to the popular language debate in 1934, and then to the literary popularization after the Anti-Japanese War. Because former literary and art workers, including left-wing literary and art workers, were not clear about the nature and motivation of China's new-democratic revolution, they could not understand why literary and art issues were first and foremost a matter of class stance and class feelings, and the discussion of the issues stayed at the level of literary forms, so it was difficult to solve the problems in essence. On the basis of pointing out the nature, motive force, object and task of China's new-democratic revolution, the Speech defines the scope of "people" during the new-democratic revolution, that is, the revolutionary masses of workers, peasants and soldiers. It is pointed out that "popularization" is not only a problem of literary language or literary form, but also a problem of "the integration of the thoughts and feelings of literary and art workers with those of workers, peasants and soldiers" [2]. The problem of popularization of literature and art has not been completely solved because literary and art workers "are still the kingdom of petty-bourgeois intellectuals in their hearts". To truly serve the broad masses of workers, peasants and soldiers, literature and art must first stand on the people's side in terms of position and feelings, that is, "move one's own foothold" and "move to the workers, peasants and soldiers and the proletariat". Only in this way can there be real literature and art of workers, peasants and soldiers, and real proletarian literature and art "[3]. The problem of "different opinions" was originally caused by an article by Mao Dun. Mao Dun published "On Strengthening Criticism" in the Anti-Japanese War Literature and Art 1 July 2, 937. In view of the fact that the literary works at that time mainly expressed the enthusiasm of the anti-Japanese soldiers and civilians, and lacked a thorough and comprehensive understanding of real life, which led to the tendency of simplification of literary themes, it was pointed out that literary works should not only praise the light, but also expose the darkness, that is, search in the name of the anti-Japanese war. The discussion on this issue in Kuomintang-controlled areas continued until the second half of 1940, and spread to Yan 'an Liberated Area. It is also in this case that some confusing concepts such as "all literary and artistic works are written with equal emphasis on light and shade, and half-divided" and "the task of literature and art is to expose" have emerged. It stands to reason that truly reflecting social life, including the dark side in social life, is not only the proper meaning of realistic literature, but also the characteristics of literature under the literary proposition that "literature is the reflection of social life". However, the goal of literary creation is not to expose for the sake of exposure, let alone to expose indiscriminately. The speech pointed out that "literature and art are never just about exposure." For progressive writers, "the object of exposure can only be aggressors, exploiters, oppressors and their bad influence among the people, not the people." The people also have shortcomings, which should be overcome through criticism and self-criticism among the people. In short, "all the dark forces that endanger the people must be exposed, and all the revolutionary struggles of the people must be praised" [4].

The Speech also gives a corresponding explanation and play to the relevant literary theories of Marxist classic writers. Judging from the influence of Marxist literary thought on the literary world at that time, Engels' realistic literary judgment and Lenin's related literary thought should be the most important. On the understanding of realistic literary creation methods, the speech puts forward the concept of typicality, and interprets its spiritual essence as "gathering everyday phenomena". On this basis, artistic fiction and imagination can and should be higher, stronger, more concentrated, more typical and more ideal than ordinary real life, so they are more universal [5]. On the basis of Lenin's two national cultural thoughts, the Speech puts forward the inheritance of literary heritage. "We must inherit all the outstanding literary and artistic heritages and critically absorb all the beneficial things as a reference for us to create works from the literary and artistic raw materials in people's lives here and now. There is a difference between having this reference and not having this reference. There are differences in literary field, thickness, height and speed. Therefore, we must never refuse to inherit and learn from the ancients and foreigners, even those who belong to the feudal class and the bourgeoisie. But inheritance and reference can never be replaced by your own creation, and it can never be replaced. " [6] The speech criticized that in literary and artistic creation, "uncritically copying and imitating the ancients and foreigners is the most useless and harmful literary dogmatism and artistic dogmatism" [7]. We should not only inherit the literary heritage of our own nation, but also the literary heritage of foreign nations. In this regard, the speech embodies a broader sense of compatibility, which is the embodiment of the self-confidence mentality unique to the strong culture, and also shows the broad mind of the increasingly powerful producers in China. The speech fully affirmed the party spirit principle of literature put forward by Lenin and pointed out that "in today's world, all culture or literature and art belong to a certain class and a certain political line. Art for art's sake, art beyond class, art parallel to politics or independent, actually does not exist "[8]. The speech also quoted Lenin's metaphor that the party's literary cause is a "gear and screw" in the whole revolutionary machine, emphasizing that "proletarian literature and art are a part of the whole revolutionary cause of the proletariat" and that "the position of the party's literary and artistic work in the whole revolutionary work of the party is determined and stipulated; It is subject to the revolutionary tasks stipulated by the party in a certain revolutionary period "[9]. On this basis, the speech put forward the proposition that literature and art are subordinate to politics [10].

The orientation and understanding of the relationship between literature and politics in speeches is the most easily misunderstood place in the world. In particular, the literary proposition that "literature is subordinate to politics" was used by a few people in the literary development after the founding of the People's Republic of China, which really brought disastrous consequences to the literary cause. It is necessary for us to clean up and analyze it accordingly.

The positioning and understanding of the relationship between literature and politics in the Speech is based on the party spirit principle of literature, and it is carried out within such a range, namely, "an inner-party relationship, a relationship between the party's literary and artistic work and the overall work of the party, another relationship outside the party, and a relationship between the party's literary and artistic work and the non-party literary and artistic work-the United front of the literary and artistic circles" [1 1] As for the meaning of politics, the definition of speech is: "When we say that literature and art are subordinate to politics, this politics refers to class politics and mass politics, not the politics of a few politicians" [12]. Obviously, the expression "literature and art obey politics" in the speech means that literary and art workers should proceed from the overall situation, obey the overall and directional requirements of the revolutionary line and policy, and artistically describe the general trend of social development and the general task of the revolution, rather than asking literary and art workers to obey the specific political tasks of a place and a period, let alone the will of some people. In addition, the speech also revealed the particularity of literature and art serving politics from the aesthetic characteristics of literary and artistic creation. "Politics is not equal to art, and the general world outlook is not equal to artistic creation." "Works lacking artistry, no matter how politically advanced, are powerless" [13]. This also shows that the meaning of "literature and art obey politics" in the speech means that literature and art should reflect the trends and characteristics of social development in a specific historical period in time, and writers should adjust their aesthetic views and creative goals at any time according to the needs of the development of society and people's lives, instead of asking writers to be passive in Nuo Nuo and explain political principles and policies.

After the founding of the People's Republic of China, the ideological creation tendency of the literary and art circles was related to the extreme left tendency of the literary and art circles at that time to set creative themes for writers and even impose certain policy concepts. This situation undoubtedly deviates from the spirit of the speech. Later, the formulation of "leading people to think, people to live and writers to be skillful", which is extremely harmful to creation, far deviates from the spiritual essence of speech and is the extreme expression of idealism in the field of creation.

The speech also summed up the most basic literary theory problems. Based on Marxist dialectical materialism and historical materialism, it makes a popular interpretation of the characteristics of literary reflection theory. The Speech holds that "literary and artistic works, as ideology, are the products of certain social life reflected in people's minds. Revolutionary literature and art are the products of the people living in the minds of revolutionary writers, and social life based on the masses of the people is the only inexhaustible source of all literature and art, which is the only source, because there can only be such a source, not a second source "[14]. Starting from the requirements of typification of literary and artistic creation, the speech also discusses the hypothesis of literary and artistic creation, that is, life in literary works should be higher and more ideal than real social life, as the original material of creation. This provision distinguishes the dynamic literary reflection theory of Marxism from the literary reflection theory of mechanical materialism. The Marxist literary reflection theory displayed in the speech has at least three meanings: first, the understanding that social life is the source of literature and art has fundamentally cut off the retreat of the aestheticism literary view of "art for art's sake", swept away the last refuge of idealistic literary concept, and thoroughly cleaned up Augias's bullpen in the field of literature and art; second, the literary view that social life is the ultimate source of literature and art has pointed out the initial starting point and final destination for writers, and has also been an unsolved literary mass since the May 4th literary revolution. Because, the people's

Since the real life of the masses is the source of writers' creative materials, if writers want to better serve the society and the people, they must go deep into the masses of workers, peasants and soldiers, be familiar with their lives, and change their world outlook and position, otherwise it will be difficult for them to correctly reflect and describe their own living world and emotional world. Thirdly, this dynamic view of literary reflection reveals the correct attitude of inheriting and carrying forward the heritage of ancient and modern China and foreign countries, and points out the way for literature to move in the right direction. The Speech pointed out that past literary works, no matter how great and how many artistic achievements are worthy of recognition, can only be a reference for later literary development and a "stream" rather than a "source" of literary development [15], because these works themselves are only a reflection of the social and living conditions of the times in which they lived. This shows people that both the search for literary motives and the interpretation of literary laws can only be based on social life and cannot be reversed.

Second, the rationality and limitations of political criticism

The Speech is Mao Zedong's comprehensive summary of the development law of China literature at that time on the basis of concentrating the literary thoughts of party member and ordinary literary and art workers at that time. Its position and significance in the development history of China's literary criticism and literary theory is beyond doubt. However, the emergence of this scientific theoretical system of literature and art is not an academic exploration made by party member simply to study the law of the development of literature and art. In fact, the Speech was an important decision made by the China * * * production party in terms of literary route and policy in order to solve the problems of the political and military revolution at that time, complete the task of the national democratic revolution, and make literature and art better adapt to the needs of the political and military struggle at that time. In other words, it is the product of the docking of science and political research. We should not only respect and take care of the aesthetic characteristics of literature and art, but also emphasize the command and leading role of politics in literature and art.

In the introduction, the speech clearly pointed out that the purpose of holding this "symposium" is to exchange views with you, study the relationship between literary and artistic work and general revolutionary work, seek the correct development of revolutionary literature and art, and seek better assistance from revolutionary literature and art to other revolutionary work in order to defeat the enemies of our nation and complete the task of national liberation "[16]. More specifically, "it is to make literature and art a good part of the whole revolutionary machine and a powerful weapon to unite the people, educate the people and strike and destroy the enemy" [17]. The problem it wants to solve is "the position problem, attitude problem, work object problem, work problem and study problem of literary and art workers" [18], rather than solving the inherent problem of studying literature and art itself. This determines that the research point of view and the way to cut into the problem in the speech are from "outside" to "inside", that is, to explain and explain literature and art by factors other than literature and art, rather than from "inside" to "outside", that is, to explain and explain things other than literature and art and even the whole society based on its own laws and characteristics. In other words, although the speech is aimed at literary problems, its starting point is social ontology rather than literary ontology. From this, we can understand why the Speech put forward a double standard of politics and artistry in summing up literary criticism, and put "political standard first, artistic standard second" [19]

Putting political standards first is not that * * * party member is ignorant of art. The summary of the basic theory of literature and art in his speech shows that * * * Party is more familiar with the laws and characteristics of literature and art than any other party. In the political structure with three pillars at that time, although the Kuomintang, the ruling party in the Kuomintang-controlled areas and the Japanese puppet rulers in the occupied areas also issued corresponding policies on literature and art, neither party could properly explain and explain the nature and characteristics of literature and art like the * * * production party. Emphasizing the guiding and regulating role of politics in literature and art is precisely because the * * * production party saw that literature and art played a powerful role in propaganda and encouragement in the political and military struggle at that time, which was irreplaceable by other ideologies. This shows that the * * * production party understands better than any other party the respective positions of literature, art and politics in the superstructure and the relationship between them.

From a realistic point of view, it is mainly because of the special living environment in the war years that politics plays a leading role in the development of literature and art, and even literature and art are regarded as tools of political struggle. At the critical moment of life and death, any class will put utilitarian goals first. When there are differences between literature and politics, literature and art are naturally required to make sacrifices for politics. At that time, ordinary literary and art workers could understand and agree with this. [20]*** The production party combines the development of literature with the development of politics, and regards literary and artistic work as a part of political work in a broad sense. It is precisely from the specific situation that solving practical problems is the embodiment of the scientific spirit of seeking truth from facts in the practice of struggle, and it is also a flexible application of the principle that Marxist social existence determines social consciousness. Dare to admit the close relationship between literature and politics, and do not shy away from the fact that in a specific historical period, literary and artistic work should be subordinated to the needs of political work. This is the place where the * * * production party is aboveboard, and it is also the place where the * * * production party is superior to other political parties in political character.

Even ordinary literary and art workers realized the priority of politics for literature at that time. Ouyang Fanhai said in "Achievements, Disadvantages and Tasks of Literary Mobilization", "The value of literature and art in China today is not mainly measured by the scale of literature and art itself (but we will never cancel this scale and only put it in a secondary position), but needs to be' mixed' with the trend of national liberation. This trend of thought ... is the objective need and reflection of China today "[2 1]. In the occupied areas, aestheticism's view of literature and art was also criticized by writers and artists. Zhang Wuwu, a literary critic famous for Shangguan Zheng's pen name, criticized the decadent literary world at that time in The Crisis of the New Literary World under the name of Kung Fu Khan, saying that "it is a terrible thing to escape from reality, and it can also be said to be the crisis of the new literary world". His works "began with" knickknacks ". Teapot today, tea bowl tomorrow. The taste of this is the taste of that. In the name of advocating the nationalist literary movement, Chen Quan, a right-wing scholar who advocated the Kuomintang's literary policy, also declared that "literature and politics are often inseparable" and that the nationalist literary movement is not only a literary issue, but also a political issue [23]. Although left, middle and right literati hold different political views and ideological orientations, they are exactly the same in adhering to the utilitarian view of political literature. It can be seen that political needs became an overwhelming need in wartime, which was people's knowledge at that time and was not valued by the * * * Party.

From the academic point of view, this situation is the result of the natural continuation of China's literary tradition centered on the theory of value, a special embodiment of the concept of "carrying Tao" in modern society, and only the "Tao" contained in literature. Due to the special needs of the war environment, moral rationality has been replaced by political rationality. In this case, the ideology of literature is prominent, and it is reasonable for the aesthetic attribute to fall to the second place; As Zhu Ziqing said, "It is imperative and reasonable for literature to carry this Tao" [25]. Therefore, the formulation of "political standards first" is the product of the special historical environment in the war years. When evaluating this view, the latecomers should not criticize the predecessors, and measure the past facts with the changed and developed social reality, let alone deny the rationality and correctness of the "speech" of that year. We should look at all historical things from a historical perspective, which is the basic requirement of historical materialism.

Needless to say, the result of the docking of literature and politics naturally produces a series of limitations.

First of all, literature and art is an aesthetic ideology. After all, it has its own law of development and can play a propaganda role. However, there are few excellent works that can be directly used as propaganda materials for political mobilization. Otherwise, there is no difference between literary and artistic works and political slogans. As Lu Xun said, literature and art can be used as propaganda, but propaganda will never be literature and art. Emphasizing "literature and art are subordinate to politics" and "literature and art are subordinate to politics" and taking political standards as the "first" criterion for evaluating literature and art will, under certain conditions, exaggerate the role and influence of politics in literature and art, leading to a bad tendency to despise or even ignore the aesthetic characteristics of literature and art, thus replacing the rich diversity of aesthetic practice forms with the singularity of political forms and replacing aesthetic characteristics with value norms, which will inevitably lead to vulgar sociology. This situation was quite obvious in the late 1940s. [26]

Secondly, overemphasizing the guiding role of politics and ignoring the aesthetic characteristics of literature and art will form a formulaic tendency to explain political concepts and policies and then explain the intentions of some leaders, weakening or even dissolving the artistry of literary works; More inevitably, at a certain time, it will be used by a few conspirators who have infiltrated into the revolutionary leadership. They will use literature and art as a convenient tool to exercise their political intentions on the pretext that literature and art are subordinate to politics. The so-called "literature and art serve politics" or "literature and art belong to politics" has become "literature and art serve a few politicians" or "literature and art belong to the will of a few politicians". All these will hinder the development of literature and art, and eventually lead to the degradation of literature and art and even the demise of literature and art itself. The tragic situation of the literary and art circles during the "Cultural Revolution" is the best footnote of the evil consequences brought about by the politicization of literature and art and even the replacement of literature and art by politics. In the case of political commander-in-chief and mastery of literature and art, the so-called "unity of politics and art, unity of content and form, unity of revolutionary political content and perfect art form as far as possible" [27] can only fail in the end; In this case, what is left in the work is probably only "revolutionary political content", and there is no "perfect art form" to match it. Even the so-called "letting a hundred flowers blossom" later became empty talk. What actually appears may be a "single flower", that is, a runaway wild horse in politics gallops freely in the garden of literature and art, trampling on the flower of art wantonly.

Thirdly, the speech summarizes the development history of new literature and art and the basic laws of literature and art from the policy level, and puts forward some directional requirements for literary and art workers on this basis. Therefore, it did not and could not explore and study the specific characteristics and laws of literature and art, and the Speech itself did not evade this point. In the last part of his speech, Mao Zedong said: "What I am talking about today is only some fundamental problems in our literary and artistic movement, and there are still many specific problems that need to be studied in the future." [28] Indeed, the "Speech" did not specifically analyze and study many specific aspects of the basic laws of literature and art. Although it was put forward that literature and art are a reflection of social life, the "Speech" did not explain the ways and characteristics of this reflection, and how it is different from other spiritual activities that reflect social life. The speech did not mention the laws and characteristics of "thinking in images" involving the important characteristics of literary and artistic creation, as well as the differences and connections between various arts. It is also mentioned in the speech that literary and artistic creation needs to be "typified", but what is the means of typification and what content it includes are ignored in the speech. An important rule of theoretical research is that the more concrete, the more real and the more convincing, which is what the classic Marxist writers have long told people. Due to the lack of corresponding analysis on some specific issues, the speech inevitably gives people the impression of "talking in general terms" and produces the illusion that it seems to be "all-inclusive" but actually "nothing".

Creation is a very complicated process of spiritual creation, and the writer's spiritual world is a deep and mysterious "small universe" containing emotions, psychology and thoughts. Therefore, the discussion on the basic problems of literature and art cannot ignore the subjectivity of literary and art workers. Although the speech also talked about the change of the subject's world outlook and noticed the important role of the writer's emotion in creation, it only put forward the creative requirements for the writer from the perspective of political stance, without mentioning the writer's deep psychological motivation, that is, the hidden unconscious power, and without giving corresponding analysis. It is conceivable to ask writers and artists to carry out ideological transformation only from political standpoint and viewpoint without touching the deep-seated factors of writers and artists. In the actual situation, under the strong political pressure, a writer or artist may verbally agree with literary or even political ideas that he does not agree with, but what he thinks psychologically is another matter. Although the ideological transformation of intellectuals after the founding of the People's Republic of China has received some superficial effects, the "petty-bourgeois intellectual kingdom" in their hearts has not been fundamentally eliminated, that is, this transformation cannot fundamentally make intellectuals give up their concepts and beliefs in literature and art. This is the truth. Moreover, the relationship between the writer's world outlook and creation is also a very complicated topic. Writers with progressive political thoughts may not be able to create works that truly meet the aesthetic needs of workers, peasants and soldiers in practice. The works created by backward writers are not necessarily "poisonous weeds", which has long been pointed out by Marxist classical writers when they interpret Balzac and Tolstoy's works.

In 1930s and 1940s, the spread of foreign literary thoughts was very active. Some aesthetic schools of European and American psychology, such as Lipps's empathy theory, Bloch's psychological distance theory, Freud's psychoanalysis theory and Jung's collective unconsciousness theory, are widely known in the literary and art circles, but these thoughts are not reflected in the speeches. The speech mainly takes China's traditional literary thoughts and Soviet literary thoughts as its own ideological resources, ignoring the reasonable factors in European and American literary theories, which is not comprehensive enough from the perspective of ideological inheritance. From a practical point of view, the speech did not realize his own proposal that "we must inherit all outstanding literary and artistic heritages ..."