Talk:Revolutionary spontaneity
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 31 December 2018. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This redirect is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Something More could be said
[edit]But of course a lot of it's would all be OR, synth, etc. First, the loss of spontaneity, the notion that it is generally necessary to prevent revolutions from "descending into mob rule" translates into the loss of the revolutionary phase of social organization itself so something in terms of new classes, permanent revolution, etc. should be able to be said here. Second, since historical revolutions often were in fact started from below but inevitably resulted in the re-imposition of class structures, typically with the revolutionary leadership as either a new transitional or permanent ruling class, this aspect of class struggle could be mentioned. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Mao-Spontex
[edit]Some good structure/sourcing for this topic discussed at Talk:Mao-Spontex. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 14:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Mao-Spontex section very lacking
[edit]First off, Mao-Spontex primarily existed in media, not physical reality. I have never found any evidence of a Mao-Spontex party which lasted more than a few months. I would love to see the evidence. Second, the theory of Mao-Spontex *as described in this article* is absolutely no different from post-Cultural Revolution Maoism. Zhang Chunqiao and those belonging to his power base in Shanghai put forward the idea of the necessity of inner-party struggle in this way. Mao also had his theory of the two-line struggle. These are basic historical facts. So is the fact that Lenin himself criticized his own work, WITBD, as dated, so this perspective on spontaneity is really not any different from Leninism, except for where it incorporates Maoism. My point is that, as it stands, the section is misleading and should either be heavily revised with better sources or deleted. 217.116.228.10 (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Mao-Spontex section lacking
[edit]Some sources for my claims, although I am just citing the texts from memory now, would be yiching wu- Chinese socialism in crisis and Lars t. Lih- Lenin Rediscovered 217.116.228.10 (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Mao-Spontex should go
[edit]I agree that this section is misleading, it seems to have no connection with the original context of revolutionary spontaneity or German Left Communism, but more importantly "Mao-Spontax" doesn't seem to actually refer to anything substantial other than an obscure neologism and is a reflection of one Wikipedia editor's intellectual pursuits. Perhaps it would be better as an appendix entry on Maoism in general rather than here (if it in fact is noteworthy enough to be included at all)? FSAB (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
