七十年后重温胡风案：《红日风暴》和一场莫须有的文字狱
Revisiting the Hu Feng Case 70 Years Later: Storm under the Sun and a Baseless Literary Inquisition
作者：马奇诺
By Ma Qinuo
The English translation follows below.
2025年，是胡风逝世40周年，也是著名的“胡风反革命集团案”发生70周年。
胡风于1985年6月8日与世长辞。前溯30年，1955年5月，胡风被以反革命罪逮捕，中共建政后的一起大规模文字冤狱就此拉开大幕。“胡风反革命集团案”在全国涉及2100多人，胡风本人被判刑14年，文革时期又被重判为无期徒刑。
作为一名中共党内的诗人和理论家，胡风被认为是鲁迅新文学运动的继承人，1930年代曾任左翼作家联盟的宣传部部长，创办《七月》和《希望》杂志，培养了一大批左翼的诗人和作家。1949年中共建政之后，胡风因为在文艺理论的主张上，与中共当时主管文艺宣传方向的周扬冲突，并被毛泽东认为反对其《在延安文艺座谈会上的讲话》，他最终沦为共产党的阶下囚。胡风案影响深远，最终虽然只有胡风等三人被正式判刑，但受株连者多达2100人。事后据官方统计，这场运动中有92人被逮捕，62人遭隔离监禁，73人被停职审查。多名被认定为“骨干分子”者经历了数十年的监禁和劳改。
70年前的 “胡风反革命集团”案轰动一时，在全国几乎各主要城市，都有人被抓下狱，许多人为此家破人亡。文革结束后，此案的昭雪平反过程也是一波三折。但是，在今天的中国社会，即使在知识阶层中，了解事件胡风事件详情的人，也已经不多了。而彭小莲和魏时煜执导的纪录片作品《红日风暴》，则十分难得地为胡风事件留下了一个影像记录。
中共迄今70多年的统治史上，有导致70万人人头落地的“镇反”运动；有55万知识分子沦为政治贱民的反右运动；也有饿殍遍野的三年大饥荒；以及夺去众多无辜生命的文革。如果从其惨烈程度上来看，胡风事件在今天淡出公共记忆，也并不是一件让人意外的事情。但是，胡风案是中共建立政权后第一次向思想文化界露出狰狞面目，比反右更早，算是大规模清算知识分子的序幕。70年之后，当我们回头再看胡风案，重温其中的革命与反噬、忠诚与背叛、内疚与自省，每一个主题都有助于更清晰地认识极权政治的特性。
一言难尽谈胡风
回想当年，胡风辞世的1985年，我还是一个埋头准备高考的青涩少年。胡风去世后的3个月，我正式成为北京一所大学的新生。而我的大学老师，至少有两个人先后卷入过胡风案。其中一位曾为此被流放新疆，九死一生。另一位在给我们上课讲《浮士德》时，结合自己因胡风事件历经坎坷的经历，来阐释人生悲剧，我至今记忆犹新。
1988年，著名文化记者李辉的《胡风集团冤案始末》全文在《百花洲》杂志首发，这是中国国内第一部对胡风事件进行全景式扫描的非虚构作品。次年，也就是1989年3月正式结集出版时，著名文学评论家刘再复专门作序言《历史悲歌歌一曲》，也非常动人。
李辉在复旦大学中文系读书时，曾在资料室巧遇贾植芳教授，那时，这位“胡风反革命集团”的骨干分子已坐完12年的大牢，在复旦大学的印刷厂扛了几年书包之后，刚到中文系的资料室做资料员。好学的本科生李辉遇上贾先生，于是就从本科一路读到研究生，也就此与胡风研究结缘。因为有贾植芳介绍，李辉在北京与出狱后的胡风，以及胡风案相关人员交往颇多，对文献资料也下了大功夫，他写这部作品，不仅在于历史记录，更有对胡风由衷的敬意在内。
但是，一部作品完成了，它就不再只属于作者。传播的效果是非常微妙的。那时我年轻肤浅，读了这部作品，很长一段时期，说起胡风，总觉得五味杂陈，一言难尽。
面对高压下的服从测试，胡风的沉默已属难得
胡风虽说也是红朝受难者，但我总感觉他在1949年之前，就是遵命文学的忠实践行者。1949年之前，他长期在周恩来领导下为中共工作，为红色政权的建立出力颇多。1949之后，又在《人民日报》上发表长诗《时间开始了》，现在看来，这首诗讴歌领袖，文风之夸饰，读来令人有严重的生理性不适，想到这样的文字，居然出自一个自称鲁迅追随者的笔下，更有些不可思议。
胡风与他的反对者，可能有观念与思想上的差异，但是，至少上个世纪50年代，他们都狂奔在“比忠诚”的赛道上，互不相让。他们所争的，不是表达自由，不是人格独立，事实上，他们更在意的，是头衔和位子，1949后周扬系的人马得势，胡风一直被闲置，处处受排挤，这应该是胡风“奋起战斗”的重要动因，他后来写的三十万言书（即《胡风三十万言书：关于解放以来的文艺实践情况的报告》），谈到一些人与事，也不乏上纲上线，以及深文周纳之词。
甚至，我还在想，假如那一场对垒中，胜出的是胡风而不是周扬，会有什么不同吗？
如今，40年过去了，我已经由一个青涩少年成为年过半百的中年人。今年有机会看到导演彭小莲和魏时煜女士于2009年制作完成的纪录片《红日风暴》， 再看所谓胡风集团案，虽然我仍对胡风《时间开始了》那样的作品难有好感。但是，作为一个经历了一些世事，也屡屡遭受过社会吊打的中国人，我对时代洪流中个人的渺小与无奈有了更多的理解。我看着纪录片中那些劫后余生的老人满脸的沧桑，不禁为之泪下。我开始为自己之前谈论胡风事件时的刻薄无知而惭愧。
重看包括李辉《胡风集团冤案始末》等文献，我看到胡风和他的那些同路人，当年虽也在政治上竞相效忠，但他们面对自己从文艺思想上难以认同的《延安文艺座谈会上的讲话》时，在当时众口一词的歌颂拥戴声中，他们沉默以对。这种态度，不要说在密不透风的五十年代，即使今天，面对这种高压下的服从性测试，有多少人在胡风的地位上，能比他有更多的勇气？
胡风1949年之后的遭遇，周扬负有最直接的责任，但文革中，周扬被打倒，有人找到正在四川省劳改农场服刑的胡风，要他揭发周扬的问题。管教干部还特地把报纸上姚文元写的《评反革命两面派周扬》给他做参考，但胡风以自己是待罪之身为由，委婉地拒绝了。后来他只是按照当时报纸上的口径，交了一个千字左右的表态。
不只是对周扬，还有对乔冠华。乔是胡风多年好友，胡风要被赶出北京到四川劳动改造时，曾给几个故交写信告别，其中一封信就是写给乔冠华的，但乔冠华转手把信上交组织，要求组织“不要搭理他”。文革结束，乔冠华阴差阳错被认定是四人帮在外交部的代理人，此时，外调人员要求还是待罪之身的胡风提供有关乔冠华的材料，他仍然一如既往，只是如实地回忆自己与乔冠华的交往，如实地谈对乔冠华的印象和看法，尽管文中一些地方也透露出一些情绪，但绝无任何乘机构陷和栽赃之词。
愧疚之情，是人对良心的基本确认
遥想1940年代，胡风是声名赫赫的左翼文坛领袖，舒芜经路翎介绍而认识胡风，幸获青眼，从此20岁出头的舒芜开始在名报大刊屡屡发表作品，成为当时文坛的耀眼明星。但是，1949之后，舒芜眼看着许多文坛要角都在京沪大城市占据要津，他不甘久居边陲之地，只在南宁做个中学校长，曾指望胡风能再帮他实现这一愿望，但是，很快他就发现当时的胡风，已四面受敌，早已不再是那个10年前有能力“挈我掖我教我望我”的胡风了。舒芜是何等聪明之人，于是他果断选择了站在胡风的对手一边，1952年以自我检查为名，发表了《从头学习<在延安文艺座谈会上的讲话>》这篇背刺胡风的文章，很快，他就如愿以偿进京做了《人民文学》编辑，后还蒙领袖召见，一时风光无比。待胡风案发生时，舒芜更是多次发文检举胡风，甚至把私人信件都交给组织。
纪录片《红日风暴》的导演之一彭小莲女士，其父亲彭柏山就是胡风案的所谓“骨干分子”。1950年代曾任中共上海市委宣传部长，也是“胡风骨干分子”中级别最高的党员领导干部。他先是因为胡风案件被牵连，被监禁1年7个月，流放8年，文革中，于1968年被人活活打死。
彭小莲曾回忆说她1980年代去看望出狱后的胡风，胡风问起她的父亲彭柏山，眼含热泪，一个劲儿地说对不起、对不起。彭小莲说，事实上，她自己知道，在她父亲的遭遇上，胡风什么都没有做错，但是，胡风见到受害人的女儿，内心仍有无限的愧疚。而这种愧疚，很多人并没有，比如反胡风运动中最早披挂上阵的林默涵，比如带着公安上门抓捕胡风夫妇的刘白羽，他们不但毫无愧意，而且在文革之后的政治运动中，比如批判电影《苦恋》、反对精神污染、反对资产阶级自由化、以及1989年之后对知识界的政治清算，这两个人都无役不与，至死方休。
“我不杀伯仁，伯仁却因我而死。”晋人王导对朋友的这种愧疚之心，是人对良心的一种基本体认，但是，极权统治的所谓革命文化，却让良心成为人世的稀有品。今天看来，那种在极权悍然横行之下，依然保有一份愧疚之良知的人，都难能可贵，为世人留下了一抹人性的希望。
现在回望，中共1949年夺取政权之后，率先在全国范围内进行的所谓土改运动，实质是一场抢夺乡村士绅的土地与财产的运动。它不仅消灭了中国乡村千百年来累积的精英力量，更是摧毁了产权，根本上瓦解了社会道德的基本根基，随后而来的历届政治运动，都以政权的力量，来破坏人与人之间最基本的信任关系。
而胡风，作为清洗官方知识分子事件中的受难者，能在极为艰难的环境里，不告密、不背叛，并在走出冤狱时，对因他的冤案受牵连的同类，有最真切的愧疚和关心，这并不是一件那么容易的事情。作为深受意识形态影响的中共体制内知识分子，他有种种的局限和缺点，但是，在那一片道德的废墟上，他依然算是一根伤痕累累的石柱，葆有了作为一个人的基本良知与尊严。
本期推荐档案：
彭小莲、魏时煜纪录片《红日风暴》
参考档案：
胡风《三十万言书》
Revisiting the Hu Feng Case 70 Years Later: Storm under the Sun and a Baseless Literary Inquisition
By Ma Qinuo
2025 marks the 40th anniversary of Hu Feng’s death and the 70th anniversary of the infamous case of the “Hu Feng Counter-Revolutionary Clique.”
Hu Feng passed away on June 8, 1985. Thirty years prior, in May 1955, his arrest on charges of counter-revolution ushered in a large-scale literary inquisition following the Chinese Communist Party’s establishment of the People’s Republic. The case of the “Hu Feng Counter-Revolutionary Clique” implicated over 2,100 people in China. Hu Feng himself was initially sentenced to 14 years in prison, a term later escalated to life imprisonment during the Cultural Revolution.
A poet and theoretician within the Chinese Communist Party, Hu Feng was considered a successor to the great Chinese writer Lu Xun, who helped found the New Literature Movement. In the 1930s, he served as head of the propaganda department for the League of Left-Wing Writers, founding the magazines July and Hope, and nurturing a significant number of left-wing poets and writers.
After 1949, his theoretical views on literature and art clashed with Zhou Yang, who was one of Mao’s favorite literary theorists. Mao Zedong also perceived his ideas as opposing the rules that Mao set forth in his 1942 “Talks at the Yan’an Forum on Literature and Art.” This ultimately led to Hu Feng’s imprisonment. The Hu Feng case had profound consequences; although only Hu Feng and two others received formal sentences, as many as 2,100 people were implicated. Official statistics later revealed that 92 individuals were arrested, 62 were held in solitary confinement, and 73 were suspended for investigation during the movement. Several designated key members endured decades of imprisonment and forced labor.
The Hu Feng case caused a stir 70 years ago, leading to arrests and imprisonment in almost every major city across the country, shattering many families. The process of rehabilitating and overturning the case after the Cultural Revolution was itself a winding and difficult process. However, in contemporary Chinese society, even among intellectuals, very few people are still familiar with the details of the Hu Feng incident. The documentary Storm under the Sun, directed by Peng Xiaolian and S. Louisa Wei, thus provides a rare and valuable visual record of the event.
In over 70 years of Communist Party rule, China has witnessed the Campaign to Suppress Counter Revolutionaries, which resulted in 700,000 deaths; the Anti-Rightist Campaign, which reduced 550,000 intellectuals to political pariahs; the Great Famine, leaving tens of millions dead from starvation; and the Cultural Revolution, which claimed millions of innocent lives. Given the extreme brutality of these events, it’s not surprising that the Hu Feng case has faded from public memory today.
However, the Hu Feng case was significant as the Chinese Communist Party’s first brutal crackdown on the intellectual and cultural spheres after establishing its power. Preceding the Anti-Rightist Movement, the Hu Feng case can be considered the prelude to a large-scale purge of intellectuals. Seventy years later, re-examining the Hu Feng case and revisiting its themes of revolution and backlash, loyalty and betrayal, guilt and self-reflection, each topic offers a clearer understanding of the nature of totalitarian politics.
Rediscovering Hu Feng’s Complex Story
Looking back, in 1985, the year Hu Feng passed away, I was a naive teenager preparing for my college entrance exams. Three months after his death, I officially became a freshman at a university in Beijing. At least two of my university professors had been implicated in the Hu Feng case. One was exiled to Xinjiang because of it, barely surviving. Another, while lecturing us on Goethe’s Faust, connected his own arduous experiences from the Hu Feng case to explain life’s tragedies. I still remember it vividly to this day.
In 1988, renowned cultural journalist Li Hui’s work, The History of the Wrongful Persecution of the Hu Feng Clique, was first published in Baihuazhou magazine. This marked the first non-fiction work in China to offer a comprehensive overview of the Hu Feng incident. The following year, in March 1989, when the book was formally published, the distinguished literary critic Liu Zaifu wrote a profoundly moving preface titled “A Song of Historical Tragedy.”
While studying Chinese at Fudan University, Li Hui serendipitously met Professor Jia Zhifang in the reference room. At that time, Jia, as a “key member” of the “Hu Feng Counter-Revolutionary Clique,” had just completed a 12-year prison sentence and, after several years of working at Fudan University’s printing factory, had recently become a librarian in the Chinese department’s reference room. The eager undergraduate Li Hui encountered Mr. Jia, and thanks to Jia’s introduction, Li Hui had extensive interactions with Hu Feng after his release from prison, as well as with others involved in the Hu Feng case. He also dedicated considerable effort to collecting documentary materials. His motivation for writing this work was not merely historical record, but also a deep, heartfelt respect for Hu Feng.
However, once a work is completed, it no longer belongs solely to the author. The way it resonates is remarkably nuanced. Back then, I was young and naive, and for a long time after reading the book, whenever Hu Feng was mentioned, I felt a complex mix of emotions that were difficult to articulate.
Hu Feng’s Remarkable Silence Under Pressure
Although Hu Feng was a victim of the Communist Party, I always felt that prior to 1949, he was loyally obedient to the Party. Before 1949, he worked for a long time under Zhou Enlai, contributing significantly to the establishment of the communist regime. After 1949, he published the long poem “Time Has Begun” in People’s Daily. Looking back now, the poem’s extravagant praise for the leader and its exaggerated style are nauseating. To think such words came from someone who claimed to be a follower of Lu Xun seems unbelievable.
While Hu Feng and his opponents might have had differences in ideas and concepts, at least in the 1950s, they were both frantically racing in a loyalty competition. Their contention was not over freedom of expression or personal independence. In fact, they were more concerned with titles and positions. After 1949, the leftist literary critic and Mao supporter Zhou Yang and his faction gained power, which marginalized Hu Feng. This likely served as a significant impetus for Hu Feng to fight back. His later 300,000-character letter (i.e., Hu Feng’s 300,000-Character Letter: A Report on the Practice of Literature and Art Since Liberation) discussed certain individuals and events with what could be seen as exaggerated accusations and intricate, misleading statements.
I even wondered if anything would have been different had Hu Feng, rather than Zhou Yang, emerged victorious in that confrontation.
Now, 40 years have passed, and I have transformed from a naive youth into a middle-aged person. This year, I had the opportunity to watch the documentary Storm under the Sun, completed in 2009 by directors Peng Xiaolian and S. Louisa Wei. Although I still can’t appreciate toadying works like Hu Feng’s “Time Has Begun,” as a Chinese person who has experienced life’s ups and downs, I now have a greater understanding of the insignificance and helplessness of individuals within the torrent of time. Watching the weathered faces of the elderly survivors in the documentary, I couldn’t help but shed tears.
Re-examining documents, including Li Hui’s book The History of the Wrongful Persecution of the Hu Feng Clique, I saw that while Hu Feng and his comrades were also vying for loyalty back then, when faced with Mao’s “Talks at the Yan’an Forum on Literature and Art”—which they found ideologically difficult to accept—amidst the unanimous praise and support of the time, they responded with silence. This stance, even today, when facing such high-pressure tests of obedience, is rare. How many people in Hu Feng’s position would have shown more courage, especially in the 1950s?
Zhou Yang bore the most direct responsibility for Hu Feng’s plight after 1949. However, during the Cultural Revolution, when Zhou Yang was persecuted, someone approached Hu Feng, who was serving his sentence in a labor reform farm in Sichuan Province, asking him to add to Zhou Yang’s problems by adding his own criticisms. The correctional officers even specifically gave him Yao Wenyuan’s article “Critique of the Counter-Revolutionary Double-Dealer Zhou Yang” from the newspaper as a reference. But Hu Feng subtly refused, citing his status as a convicted criminal. Later, he merely submitted a statement of about a thousand words, adhering to the official tone of the newspapers at the time.
His integrity wasn’t limited to Zhou Yang; it extended to Qiao Guanhua as well. Qiao was a long-time friend of Hu Feng. When Hu Feng was about to be expelled from Beijing for forced labor in Sichuan, he wrote farewell letters to several old acquaintances, one of which was to Qiao Guanhua. However, Qiao Guanhua immediately handed the letter over to the Party, requesting that they “not bother with him.” After the Cultural Revolution, Qiao Guanhua was mistakenly identified as an agent of the Gang of Four in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. At this time, external investigators asked Hu Feng, who was still a convicted criminal, to provide information about Qiao Guanhua. Hu Feng remained consistent, simply truthfully recalling his interactions with Qiao Guanhua and giving his honest impressions and opinions of him. Although some emotions were evident in certain parts of his account, there was absolutely no attempt to frame or falsely accuse Qiao.
Guilt as a Fundamental Affirmation of Conscience
Thinking back to the 1940s, Hu Feng was a highly acclaimed leader in left-wing literary circles. Shu Wu, introduced to Hu Feng by Lu Ling, was fortunate to gain his favor. From then on, the young Shu Wu, in his early twenties, frequently published works in prominent newspapers and major magazines, becoming a dazzling star in the literary world. However, after 1949, Shu Wu observed many influential literary figures securing key positions in major cities like Beijing and Shanghai. He was unwilling to remain in a remote area, merely serving as a middle school principal in Nanning. He had hoped Hu Feng could help him fulfill this aspiration again, but he quickly realized that Hu Feng at that time was embattled on all sides and was no longer the Hu Feng who, ten years prior, had the capacity to “guide me, support me, teach me, and inspire me.” Shu Wu, an exceptionally intelligent person, chose to align himself with Hu Feng’s opponents. In 1952, under the guise of self-criticism, he published “Relearning ‘Talks at the Yan’an Forum on Literature and Art’ from the Beginning”—an article that betrayed Hu Feng. Soon after, he successfully moved to Beijing to become an editor for People’s Literature magazine and was even summoned by Mao, enjoying immense prestige for a time. When the Hu Feng case occurred, Shu Wu went further, repeatedly publishing articles to attack Hu Feng, even handing over private letters.
Peng Xiaolian, one of the directors of Storm under the Sun, is the daughter of Peng Boshan, a so-called “key member” of the Hu Feng case. In the 1950s, he served as the Propaganda Minister of the Shanghai Municipal Committee, making him the highest-ranking Party leader among the “key members.” He was first implicated in the Hu Feng case, imprisoned for one year and seven months, and exiled for eight years. During the Cultural Revolution, in 1968, he was beaten to death.
Peng Xiaolian recalled visiting Hu Feng after his release from prison in the 1980s. Hu Feng, tearfully asking about her father, Peng Boshan, repeatedly said, “I’m sorry, I’m sorry.” Peng Xiaolian stated that she knew her father’s suffering was not Hu Feng’s fault. Yet, Hu Feng felt immense guilt upon meeting the victim’s daughter. This kind of guilt, however, was absent in many others, such as Lin Mohan, who was among the first to attack in the anti-Hu Feng movement, or Liu Baiyu, who accompanied public security officers to arrest Hu Feng and his wife. Not only did they show no remorse, but they also actively participated in subsequent political movements after the Cultural Revolution—including the criticism of the film Unrequited Love, the campaigns against spiritual pollution, against bourgeois liberalization, and the political purges of intellectuals after 1989—continuing their involvement until their deaths.
Looking back, the land reform movement that the Chinese Communist Party first launched nationwide after seizing power in 1949 was essentially a campaign to seize the land and property of rural gentry. It not only eradicated the elite forces that had accumulated in Chinese rural areas over millennia but also destroyed property rights, fundamentally eroding the basic foundations of social morality. Subsequent political movements, one after another, used the power of the regime to destroy basic relationships between people.
And Hu Feng, as a victim in the purge of official intellectuals, was able, in extremely difficult circumstances, to not inform, not betray, and upon his release from unjust imprisonment, to show genuine guilt and concern for those who were implicated by his case. This was no easy feat. As an intellectual deeply influenced by ideology within China’s political system, he faced limitations. However, amidst that moral wasteland, he stood as a scarred stone pillar, preserving his fundamental conscience and dignity.
Recommended archives:
Li Hui: The History of the Wrongful Persecution of the Hu Feng Clique
Related archives:
Hu Feng: The 300,000-Character Letter