"The Revolution of 1911 and Its Frustration" Maruyama wins life
This paper attempts to discuss Lu Xun's experience in the two years before and after the Revolution of 1911. Shoichi Maruyama's anti-takeuchi judgment does not think that the period when Lu Xun copied ancient monuments in Beijing was the key to Lu Xun's change of heart, but that the setbacks that Lu Xun encountered before and after the Revolution of 1911 were the turning point when Lu Xun became Lu Xun. Unlike Takeuchi's view that the enlightener Lu Xun (politics) revolves around the writer Lu Xun, Maruyama Katsuma believes that the revolutionary issue (politics) is the core of Lu Xun. For Lu Xun, the theme of Lu Xun, such as human spiritual salvation, was actually intertwined with political issues from the beginning. Inseparable inseparable
Lu Xun in the Debate of Revolutionary Literature
Judging from the title, this article should discuss Lu Xun's actions and thoughts in the debate on revolutionary literature. The focus of Maruyama's propaganda is how Lu Xun accepts Marxism as the main body, and at the same time, he never forgets to bear the reality of China. The first and second parts, that is, based on this argument, have a dialogue with Japanese academic circles. The third part emphasizes that Lu Xun always believes that the revolution must advance with the existing people (although ignorant). The fourth part emphasizes that Lu Xun attaches importance to ordinary reality and refuses dialogue. The fourth part is the most wonderful, opposing to explain Lu Xun within the framework of politics and literature, but in thought and action; Grasp Lu Xun in the framework of theory and reality. In other words, Lu Xun is constantly rooted in reality. Obviously, this article is aimed at the Japanese academic atmosphere, but it is also enlightening for China readers. Although the theory is wonderful, if it is not combined with China's reality, no matter how wonderful the theory is, it will always be theoretical, which can neither transform reality nor explain it.
Three papers on two slogans
As a Japanese scholar, at the moment of the Cultural Revolution, he made his own judgment on the two slogan debates with limited data, and in turn refuted the remarks made by China scholars during the Cultural Revolution, which undoubtedly made people admire! It is in these articles that I realize that Maruyama is the real Marxist. Of course, as a reader today, Maruyama Shenghua spent so much energy refuting the remarks of the Cultural Revolution. At first glance, he would feel that he had made some minor mistakes, because it seems that there is no need to refute the Cultural Revolution today. The Cultural Revolution itself has been demonized and has become a den of evil. However, Maruyama realized from his criticism of the Cultural Revolution that in the face of historical problems, we should not cover up historical facts with a certain concept, but restore to the reality at that time and deal with history with more complicated relations. And his attitude towards Mao Zedong, that is, to regard Mao Zedong Thought as the result of learning and tempering with his contemporaries, instead of having a fixed and always correct Mao Zedong Thought to fight against other heretical ideas (the so-called two routes). This view is not new today, but Maruyama can be refined in the early days of the Cultural Revolution, which is admirable.
"1930s as a problem" Maruyama wins
Maruyama's papers are all like textual research, but there is obvious problem consciousness in them. The object of his dialogue is the study of modern literature in China during the Cultural Revolution. From the perspective of fracture, he opposed using a certain route to explain the literary phenomena in the 1930s, and interpreted all literary phenomena as a struggle between two routes. From the standpoint of legislation, it requires researchers to go back to history and judge people, things and relationships at that time in complex relationships. In a sense, this may be a cliche. However, it is obvious that the research community is still unconsciously caught in the logic of Maruyama's criticism from time to time. In particular, Maruyama's materialistic attitude of refusing to use personal character or power desire to explain events (today we constantly see papers with similar tendencies) is something we should learn in particular.
Reflections on the manuscript of Answering Xu Maoyong and Discussing the Anti-Japanese United Front, Maruyama wins the battle
Most of the space is being researched, but the core of the argument is still to treat people and things in the history of literature with a materialistic attitude and reject any transcendental judgment and theory. And thus "think about the possibilities of history and the significance of the realistic historical development path."
It seems a bit boring to keep remembering Maruyama's article. Under its solid textual research, I found a firm and realistic Marxist ethics. What is worthy of China intellectuals' attention is probably not the facts verified by Maruyama, but his attitude towards research. At the height of the Cultural Revolution, Maruyama refused to agree with ultra-left remarks and insisted on Lu Xun's historical attitude. When the Cultural Revolution ended, China people began to reflect with the attitude of refusing to reflect, and repeated the logic of the Cultural Revolution with the opposite words, Maruyama Shengsheng pointed out, "Today, many serious weaknesses of existing socialism have been exposed, and criticism of it has even prevailed, what is the significance of doing so" (p. 285). Maruyama's attitude undoubtedly requires us to ponder.