本文以鲁迅、冯雪峰、胡秋原为讨论中心，将他们在1928-1933年前后所参与的文艺论争与无产阶级文艺理论译介实践，放回其生成的历史语境中进行考察。本文重探了“革命文学论争”，指出李初梨如何将青野季吉、福本和夫、马克思、列宁等多重思想资源杂揉进他的文章中，重构他们回应大革命失败语境所提出的无产阶级文学建设论。而鲁迅在与他们的论争中，一方面针对李初梨等自认乐观并深具自信的方案提出批评，另一方面则投入大量心血进行无产阶级文艺相关译介。此外，本论文考察了鲁迅翻译的《壁下译丛》与《现代新兴文学的诸问题》，呈现出鲁迅如何设想自己的译介实践应扮演的角色。他不仅指出了当时中国无产阶级文学所应采取的最适方案，也为此建设的前进提供了能够依循的方向感。当时，世界与中国文学界的目光都聚焦在苏联成立后对无产阶级文学推动与发展的经验上。鲁迅与冯雪峰对苏联“文艺政策阶段”相关理论的译介，从译者的不同位置出发形成了相异的特征。鲁迅在他的译介实践中，一方面以“风向标”式的敏感捕捉其中每一个细微的变化，另一方面以开阔的视野看待苏联文坛生成的历史社会条件，对当中理论变迁与流派论争的内里与表象有着“雷达图”式的观照。冯雪峰的译介方式，则从带有载体性质的“转运”，变为更具主动性与行动性的“内吞”式实践。这些译介实践将苏联“文艺政策阶段”的理论与经验织入中国文坛时，经历了“左联”成立到“九一八”事变“一?二八”事变接连爆发的变化。这些使得文坛对中国无产阶级文学发展的思考，有了新的现实针对性，中国文坛也进入“转型期”。“左联”进行了改组，吸收国际革命作家联盟在哈尔可夫大会上的决议，进入组织形态的转型期；而文艺理论上，中国文坛也出现响应斯大林所提出的向“列宁主义阶段”前进的号召，进入无产阶级文艺理论与批评的转型期。在此背景下，本文考察了胡秋原所提出的“自由人的文化运动”如何揭开了论争的序幕，并成为论争真正的主轴，故本文以“文化斗争论争”来命名这场论争，并试图紧贴胡秋原在论争每一次交锋中的言论，呈现出他为回应论敌的批评和时局的变化，承担对中国现代历史的责任，而提出的挑战与自身的苦恼。

The goal of this article is to focus on Lu Xun（鲁迅）, Feng Xue-Feng（冯雪峰） and Hu Qiu-Yuan（胡秋原）, and to put their literary debate and the translation practices of the proletarian literary theories back to the historical context around the years from 1928 to 1933. The article explores “the debate of the Chinese revolutionary literature” all over again, points out that how Li Chu-Li organized the multiple resources of thoughts from Aono Suekichi（青野季吉）,Fukumoto Kazuo（福本和夫）, Marx and Lenin into his articles, and re-constructed their theories of proletarian literary construction in response to the failure of the Great Revolution. In the debate, Lu Xun, on the one hand, criticized the solutions that the people like Li Chu-Li, who were optimistic and confident, proposed. On the other hand, he devoted great effort to the translation of proletarian literature. The article investigates Lu Xun’s translation works like The Collection of Translation That Was Translated Beside the Wall and The Problems of Modern and Newly-Emerging Literature, and indicates the ideas of his own translation, which not only pointed out the best blue print of the Chinese proletarian literature at that time but also provided the direction of the literary construction.At that time, the literary circles of China and the world focused on the experiences of promotion and development of proletarian literature after the establishment of the Soviet Union. Due to the different positions, Lu Xun and Feng Xue-feng’s relevant translation of the theories of “the stages of literary policy” from the Soviet Union demonstrated the various features. In his own translation, Lu Xun, on the one hand, sensitively caught the delicate variation, and on the other hand, he open-mindedly observed the historical and social conditions of the literary circles and the transitions of the theories in the Soviet Union. Feng Xue-feng’s translation demonstrated the changes from “transportation”, which had the feature of carrier, to the practices of “endocytosis” that possessed the active thinking and action. As these practices of translation weaved the theories and experiences of “the stages of literary policy” into the Chinese literary circles, the Chinese Left-Wing Writers’ League established and September 18th incident and January 28th incident broke out. These made the Chinese literary circle confront the new realities as thinking of the development of the Chinese proletarian literature. This was the crucial moment for the Chinese literary circle as going to the “transformation phase”. The Chinese Left-Wing Writers’ League proceeded with the re-organization, absorbed the decision of the International Revolutionary Writers’ League in Kharkov Conference, and entered the transformation phase of organization. As to literary theories, the Chinese Left-Wing Writers’ League appealed for moving to “the phase of Leninism” proposed by Stalin, and entered the transformation phase of the proletarian literary theories and criticism. In such circumstances, the article investigated that how the so-called “ideal reader” like Hu Qiu-Yuan, who felt touched by the question of “the debate of revolutionary literature”, intended to give a new way of thinking and participated in the design and execution of the project, and started the debated with the Chinese Left-Wing Writers’ League. “The free man’s cultural movement” presented by Hu Qiu-Yuan lifted the curtain on the debate and became the principal axis in the debate. This is the reason that the article names the debate as “the debate of cultural struggle” rather than “the debate of literary liberalism”. The article tries to follow the speeches by Hu Qiu-Yuan in each debate, and demonstrates that the challenges he posed and his worries responding to his opponents in the debate, the changes of the realities and the responsibility for the Chinese modern history.