1924年，国民党一大的召开宣告了国共合作的开始，轰轰烈烈的国民革命进入到了筹备阶段。国共合作的声势浩大，使得与共产党有隙的国家主义者、无政府主义者感受到了压力，纷纷也加紧了对于各自革命理想、革命方法的宣传。各种主张以革命手段改造社会的主义拉开了架势，誓要证明自己才是最为“革命”的一个。在这一过程中，文学凭借着能将抽象的革命思想转换为具象的故事的特质，负担起了实践理论之可行、回应旁人之质疑、许诺未来之胜利的责任，与革命产生了紧密的联系。而在现有的研究中，革命文学似乎是左翼知识分子的“专利”，实际上，无政府主义者、三民主义者、民族主义者以及国家主义者，都有着各自独特的革命论述与文学实践。从本质上来说，这些以各自主义理论中革命主张为核心表现对象的文学创作，其实都应当属于广义上的“革命文学”，但它们却长期被文学史所忽视。本文则以这种广义上的“革命文学”作为研究对象，考察1920年代中期开始的革命与主义政治为文学带来了怎样的影响和变化。

在研究方法上，本文选择用“革命伦理”作为解开主义与文学之关系的秘钥，伦理是小到个人，大至一个社会、国家都需要确立的概念，它是人与人之间相处的基本法则，规定着哪些行为可以做，哪些又是绝对的禁忌。在当时的中国，盛行着两套伦理观念，一套是中国传统的等级森严，要求忠孝节义的封建伦理，另一套则是五四带来的，追求个人解放、相信人人平等的现代伦理。但无论哪一种伦理观念，其实都不适用于革命者，老旧的传统伦理自然被自诩进步的革命者们弃如敝履，而五四以个人自由为基点的伦理观念也无法应用于革命这一以集体为先的场景之中。更重要的是，相比于仍可以用“夷夏之争”观念作为支撑的辛亥革命，国民革命时期的思想环境要复杂得多，不仅五四带来了新的伦理观念，革命的敌人也由作为“异族”的满清政府变成了军阀，此外，无政府主义、国家主义、共产主义、民族主义这些盛行的主义本身，也对于革命提出了不同的要求。无政府主义者幻想着一场纯洁的革命，共产主义者们希望革命由工农主导，国家主义者追求能和列强争斗的国力，民族主义者则呼喊着“非我族类其心必异”。这些存在于理论文字之中的主义，在真正需要落到现实中时，又势必需要一种符合主义思想且又具体可行的伦理标准。故而建构何种革命伦理，是1920年代参与革命的所有主义都要先回答的问题。而既要为主义理论负责，同时又要面对真实世界的“革命文学”，则成为了承载知识分子革命伦理设想的完美载体。只不过，先进的革命伦理注定在现实中会遭遇重重阻力、引发无数矛盾，这种种的伦理困境，也一并影响了“革命文学”的走向。因此，以革命伦理为视角，我们才能更清楚地看到并分析“革命文学”的本质。

    本文分为五个部分，导论部分介绍了“革命文学”发生的背景以及目前的研究现状，并提出了本文关注的问题以及研究方法。第一章主要梳理左翼文学、无政府主义文学、三民主义/民族主义文学、国家主义文学四者的“革命文学”团体、刊物和发展情况，以及各主义的“革命文学”所遇到的伦理困境有哪些。第二章研究各主义革命伦理中关于革命主体的思考及其在文学中的体现。其中左翼文学参与者面对无产阶级能否有阶级意识这一问题时陷入了两难的悖论，无政府主义者则试图说明“民众”比“无产阶级”是更合适的革命主体，民族主义者的国民性批判使得他们只信任少部分觉醒者成为革命者，而国家主义者的革命主体“全民”过于空泛以至于难以落地。第三章讨论各主义的“革命文学”如何体现并处理主义所遭遇的伦理困境，左翼文学参与者或是干脆接受阶级情感优先的说法或是试图弥合阶级情与血亲情之间的鸿沟，无政府主义者则挣扎于对人类爱的信仰和唯一能作为革命手段的暴力暗杀之间，民族主义者于政治和文化上的不同倾向影响了他们对于其它民族的看法，而国家主义者的文化守成主义常常使得他们的文学作品与古代小说有着相同的结构和主题。论文最后的余论部分则解答了何以左翼文学成为“革命文学”最终赢家的问题，并提出了更多有待后续研究的问题。

    本文通过分析各主义内部对于革命伦理的不同理解以及各主义之间的分歧，呈现出了更为真实、全面的“革命文学”创作环境，提供了全新的“革命文学”的解读方式，为以后的“革命文学”研究拓宽了些许路径。

In 1924, the convening of the First National Congress of the Kuomintang declared the beginning of cooperation between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, and the magnificent National Revolution entered the preparatory stage. The grand momentum of cooperation between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party has put pressure on nationalists and anarchists who have a gap with the Communist Party, and they have also intensified their propaganda of their respective revolutionary ideals and methods. The various advocates of using revolutionary means to transform society have kept up the momentum, vowing to prove that they are the most revolutionary. In this process, literature, with its ability to transform abstract revolutionary ideas into concrete stories, bears the responsibility of practicing theory, responding to the doubts of others, and promising future victories, and has a close connection with revolution. In existing research, revolutionary literature seems to be the "invention" of left-wing intellectuals. In fact, anarchists, Three Principles of the People, nationalists, and nationalists all have their own unique revolutionary discourse and literary practices. Essentially, these literary creations that focus on the revolutionary propositions in their respective theories should all belong to the broad category of "revolutionary literature", but they have long been overlooked in literary history. This article takes this broad definition of "revolutionary literature" as the research object, examining the impact and changes that the revolution and Marxist politics that began in the mid-1920s brought to literature.

In terms of research methodology, this article chooses "revolutionary ethics" as the key to unraveling the relationship between Marxism and literature. Ethics is a concept that needs to be established by individuals, societies, and countries. It is the basic rule of interpersonal interaction, which stipulates which behaviors can be done and which are absolute taboos. In China at that time, there were two sets of ethical concepts prevalent. One was the traditional feudal ethic that demanded loyalty, filial piety, and righteousness, and the other was the modern ethics brought about by the May Fourth Movement, which pursued individual liberation and believed in equality for all. However, no matter what kind of ethical concept is, it is actually not applicable to revolutionaries. Old traditional ethics are naturally abandoned by revolutionaries who claim to be progressive, and the ethical concept based on individual freedom in the May Fourth Movement cannot be applied to the scene of revolution. More importantly, compared to the Xinhai Revolution, which could still be supported by the concept of the "Yi Xia Controversy", the ideological environment of the National Revolution was much more complex. Not only did the May Fourth Movement bring new ethical concepts, but the enemy of the revolution also changed from the Qing government as a "foreign race" to warlords. In addition, the prevalent ideologies of anarchism, nationalism, communism, and nationalism themselves also put forward different requirements for the revolution. Anarchism fantasizes about a pure revolution, communists hope that the revolution will be led by workers and peasants, nationalists pursue national strength that can compete with foreign powers, and nationalists shout, "If it's not our race, their hearts will be different. " These ideologies that exist in theoretical texts, when truly need to be implemented in reality, inevitably require an ethical standard that conforms to the ideology and is concrete and feasible. Therefore, what kind of revolutionary ethics should be constructed is a question that all ideologies involved in the revolution in the 1920s must first answer. The revolutionary literature, which is responsible for both Marxist theory and the real world, has become a perfect carrier for carrying the revolutionary ethical ideas of intellectuals. However, advanced revolutionary ethics are destined to encounter numerous obstacles and trigger countless contradictions in reality, and this kind of ethical dilemma also affects the direction of "revolutionary literature". Therefore, from the perspective of revolutionary ethics, we can more clearly see and analyze the essence of "revolutionary literature".

This article is divided into five parts. The introduction section introduces the background of "revolutionary literature" and the current research status, and proposes the issues and research methods that this article focuses on. The first chapter mainly reviews the revolutionary literature groups, publications, and development of left-wing literature, anarchist literature, Three Principles of the People/Nationalist literature, and nationalist literature, as well as the ethical dilemmas encountered by the revolutionary literature of each ideology. The second chapter studies the reflection on the revolutionary subject in various revolutionary ethics and its manifestation in literature. Among them, left-wing literary participants are caught in a dilemma when facing the question of whether the proletariat can have class consciousness. Anarchists attempt to explain that the "people" are more suitable revolutionary subjects than the proletariat. Nationalist criticism of the national character makes them only believe that a small number of awakened individuals become revolutionaries, while the revolutionary subject of nationalism, the "people", is too vague to be implemented. Chapter Three discusses how the "revolutionary literature" of various ideologies reflects and deals with the ethical dilemmas encountered by ideologies. Left wing literary participants either simply accept the notion of prioritizing class emotions or attempt to bridge the gap between class emotions and blood ties, while anarchists struggle between their faith in human love and violent assassinations as the only means of revolution. The different political and cultural tendencies of nationalists influence their views on other ethnic groups, while the cultural conservatism of nationalists often leads to their literary works having the same structure and themes as the ancient novels. The remaining part of the paper answers the question of why left-wing literature became the ultimate winner of "revolutionary literature" and raises more questions for further research.

This article presents a more authentic and comprehensive creative environment for "revolutionary literature" by analyzing the different understandings of revolutionary ethics within different ideologies and the differences between them. It provides a new way of interpreting "revolutionary literature" and broadens some paths for future research on "revolutionary literature".