Reactionaries: a visual guide

[GPDP]

It is my belief that there are four fundamental kinds of reactionaries: those who spout stupid bullshit to deceive others, those who intelligently formulate bullshit as a result of their ideology, those who intelligently formulate bullshit to deceive others, and those who do not think for themselves and merely absorb the bullshit by all camps.

As such, I've created a graph that places a number of well-known reactionaries according to these criteria, which are represented by each corner of the graph:

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/2668/reactionaries.jpg

Thoughts?

[Chambered Word]

It is my belief that there are four fundamental kinds of reactionaries: those who spout stupid bullshit to deceive others, those who intelligently formulate bullshit as a result of their ideology, those who intelligently formulate bullshit to deceive others, and those who do not think for themselves and merely absorb the bullshit by all camps.

As such, I've created a graph that places a number of well-known reactionaries according to these criteria, which are represented by each corner of the graph:

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/2668/reactionaries.jpg

Thoughts?

Seems pretty accurate to me.

[#FF0000]

I'm not sure about B^Uckley. Think he should be just slightly more to the right, maybe.

EDIT: Oh christ I did that without even thinking. I need to shut the computer off for a few weeks.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Henry Kissinger is indeed the king of these people.

[GPDP]

I'm not sure about B^Uckley. Think he should be just slightly more to the right, maybe.

EDIT: Oh christ I did that without even thinking. I need to shut the computer off for a few weeks.

Hahahaha oh wow.

[Tyrlop]

what does opportunism mean?:bored:

[GPDP]

what does opportunism mean?:bored:

Basically, it means the reactionary in question aims to advance their career or gain power through manipulation and deceit, or by saying what is most convenient at the moment.

[ckaihatsu]

Uh, the font really should be *san* serif...(!)

x D


Just messin' around -- looks good.

[Honggweilo]

Uh, the font really should be *san* serif...(!)

x D


Just messin' around -- looks good.
comic sans would do fine among these people

[ckaihatsu]

comic sans would do fine among these people


Yeah, a *circus* font...!


x D

[the last donut of the night]

I think Glenn Beck should be higher on the opportunism scale.

[Nolan]

Shouldn't teabaggers be higher on opportunism?

[I Can Has Communism]

To the OP: Why did you choose these two parameters in particular?

[RHIZOMES]

Shouldn't teabaggers be higher on opportunism?

No because they believe that stuff just because they're fucking idiots.

The big media giants such as Fox promoting the tea baggers on the other hand are doing so due to opportunism.

[MarxSchmarx]

I'd be interested in seeing the counterpart for the left. Here are my suggestions:

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/5391/leftplot.png

The points are the same, the names have changed. Post yours!

[JAH23]

I think Glenn Beck should be higher on the opportunism scale.

I think so too. His damn show is on everyday. But, I also think he should be lower on the intellectual scale. He uses emotion and pity to get people to agree with him, instead of logical and rational arguments. The fucker.

[Honggweilo]

zerzan's position = fucking-a XD

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

you're giving those guys way too much credit
Beck, Limbaugh and Reagan are much closer to Bush II than to Kissinger in terms of stupidity
Pat Robertson is in no way less intellectual than W
Friedman is a lot more oportunistic
Rand is not so quote so oportunistic
Dobbs and O'Reilly are a lot more oportunistic than that
don't forget that these guys have huge ratings on TV
it's not because of their "intellectualism"

[Dimentio]

I'd be interested in seeing the counterpart for the left. Here are my suggestions:

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/5391/leftplot.png

The points are the same, the names have changed. Post yours!

Hugo Chávez should be higher on the opportunism-scale than Mao or Lenin.

[GPDP]

To the OP: Why did you choose these two parameters in particular?

It's basically a toy hypothesis of mine. In looking at various kinds of right-wingers, it dawned upon me that their main driving forces are either ideology, the pursuit of power, or both combined. In that way, you get at least four different kinds of reactionaries.

In the lower right corner, you get right-wing intellectuals like Ludwig von Mises who genuinely believe what they are saying and seek to make an impact through their work, but who end up as useful fools in the end (making them the biggest tools of all IMO). Basically, they are the providers of intellectual ammunition for the right.

In the upper left corner, you have your simple, boorish right-wingers whose main goal is the attainment of riches, prestige, and power. If they have a role as movement leaders or are otherwise influential figures, it is usually due to populist demagoguery. These are the kinds of people who make their careers blaming society's ills on immigrants, gay people, or a UN conspiracy. Think Glenn Beck or Pat Robertson.

In the upper right corner lie the most dangerous reactionaries, IMO. These are the kind of people who are not only power-hungry, but are intellectually equipped to get their way and figure out the best way to attain power, even if it means sacrificing their intellectual honesty if it suits their purposes at the moment. To use religious terms, here lie the people closest to the fucking devil. So, basically Henry Kissinger.

And, of course, we have the bottom left corner. These are the loyal footsoldiers of the rest of the reactionaries, whose job is to parrot what they say and blindly follow them or even help advance their careers. Think abortion clinic protesters, teabaggers, religious fundies... we've all had to deal with their shit. Their danger, of course, lies in their numbers.

[RHIZOMES]

we've all had to deal with their shit.

I haven't, because I don't live in your backwards as country.

The main problem in NZ is how fucking timid everyone is.

[Angry Young Man]

Seems pretty accurate to me.

The following users thank you for this useful post:
AYM

But those are all American reactionaries, and I think Glen Beck is the manifestation of opportunism.

[Angry Young Man]

I'd be interested in seeing the counterpart for the left. Here are my suggestions:

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/5391/leftplot.png

The points are the same, the names have changed. Post yours!

Engels was more intellectual, Connoley was more opportunistic, Chavez is much more opportunistic

[mikelepore]

I'd be interested in seeing the counterpart for the left. Here are my suggestions

As to De Leon's placement somewhere along a scale of opportunism, he was known best for this sort of attitude:

"The SLP never compromises truth to make a friend, never withholds a blow at error lest it make an enemy. In firm assurance of final victory, it pursues its course unswerved by weak desire for temporary advantage. It is ever outspoken and straightforward, believing that, in fearless independence, the integrity of purpose by which it is inspired will, in the long run, win the respect and confidence of those whom it aims to weld into a class-conscious, aggressive body. Its propaganda is not alone to educate, it is to organize the working class for the conquest of power, for the complete overthrow of capitalism. Until that mission is accomplished, it will stand like a rock, alert and watchful, yielding nothing."

-- Daniel De Leon

[Il Medico]

For the rightist graph: Would it be possible to do small picture of said person? And perhaps more colorful. Glenn Beck Higher on opportunism. Add Sean Hannity, low on intellectualism and high on opportunism.

For Leftist graph: Same thing about colors and pics, but I also think the Rosa should be lower on opportunism and Chavez should be higher.

[Gustav HK]

I'd be interested in seeing the counterpart for the left. Here are my suggestions:

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/5391/leftplot.png

The points are the same, the names have changed. Post yours!


Why "hoxhaists" and not "Hoxha"?

Or do you view hoxhaists as one person? Well hoxhaists may have a fetish for strong centralized vanguard parties, but that does not make them one person.:lol:

And why is Rosa Luxemburg so high on the opportunism?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'd be interested in seeing the counterpart for the left. Here are my suggestions:

The points are the same, the names have changed. Post yours!

What are you interpreting to be "intellectualism?" If it's merely how intellectual, intelligent, and revolutionary/creative the ideas of a person were, it's difficult to justify placing anyone above Marx in that category.

[Il Medico]

Why "hoxhaists" and not "Hoxha"?

Or do you view hoxhaists as one person? Well hoxhaists may have a fetish for strong centralized vanguard parties, but that does not make them one person.:lol:

I think Hoxhaist are supposed to be the average tea baggers of the left.

[Qayin]

in b4 flamewar

ill call the wahhbulance

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'd be interested in seeing the counterpart for the left. Here are my suggestions:

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/5391/leftplot.png

The points are the same, the names have changed. Post yours!

I object to where you place Kautsky on the intellectualism scale.

[MarxSchmarx]

Thanks for your feed back on the leftist graph, everyone! Do show us how you would rearrange your graph.

Here are some specific responses:


I object to where you place Kautsky on the intellectualism scale.

Ultimately I think Kautsky, Trotsky and to a lesser extent Castro were doers and organizers. In this, their talent was superb. These were people who were very pragmatic about their situation and sough to maximize their impact within the parameters given, rather than change those parameters. It wasn't so much that they couldn't envision a new social order; rather, it's that their effort was focused on how to use rather (comparatively) conventional means to attain a radicaly different vision. In this respect, Kautsky's position seems about right.


What are you interpreting to be "intellectualism?" If it's merely how intellectual, intelligent, and revolutionary/creative the ideas of a person were, it's difficult to justify placing anyone above Marx in that category.

It is both a general disposition and the accuracy/extent of their expertise. On these, Luxembourg, Malatesta, Chomsky and Zizak rank higher than Marx.

In all likelihood Chomsky understands all of Marx's economics and history (what Marx got basically right) and a whole lot more (linguistics, natural science, philosophy and mathematics) much better than Marxs did. I think the essential accuracy across the board of your ideas has to play a part. Zizak is similarly thrown in not because his intellectual ideas have more merit, but because he embodies the intellectualist disposition far more than Marx. Furthermore, I suspect (though do not know for sure), that Zizak has, in addition to being a pragmatist and a decent social scientist in his own right, an expertise on many fields Marx never even knew existed, like deconstruction.

In re: Malatesta and Luxembourg. While Marx's economic and history of philosophy, as well as interpretations of current events were spot on, his history broadly correct, but his sociology, and pragmatic political acumen were really disappointing. Moreover, there is something of an internal philosophical consistency and cogency in them way Malatesta and Luxembourg argue their cases that is, sadly, absent in Marx. With Marx, the persistent question of what alternative he has remains too elucive. This is not the case with either Malatesta or Luxembourg, in part, I suspect, because they learned about the struggle "in the streets" as opposed to in the British Library.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ultimately I think Kautsky, Trotsky and to a lesser extent Castro were doers and organizers. In this, their talent was superb. These were people who were very pragmatic about their situation and sough to maximize their impact within the parameters given, rather than change those parameters. It wasn't so much that they couldn't envision a new social order; rather, it's that their effort was focused on how to use rather (comparatively) conventional means to attain a radicaly different vision. In this respect, Kautsky's position seems about right.

It's just that I was putting a lot of emphasis on his originality re. imperialism (before Hobson), national liberation, and conditions for a revolutionary period.


In all likelihood Chomsky understands all of Marx's economics and history (what Marx got basically right) and a whole lot more (linguistics, natural science, philosophy and mathematics) much better than Marxs did.

I don't know about history, though. Chomsky ignores the history of the German worker movement, and thus fails to compare it to the sorry pseudo-example that is the British labour movement. This then flows into his misunderstanding of Marxist politics, especially in its orthodox form (critical votes for Obama, anyone?).


While Marx's economic and history of philosophy, as well as interpretations of current events were spot on, his history broadly correct, but his sociology, and pragmatic political acumen were really disappointing.

Did you re-read Chapter 1 of Lars Lih's book? To Lenin, Marx the economist, Marx the historian, Marx the philosopher, Marx the sociologist, etc. was not as important to the young revolutionary as Marx the political activist: the one who was active in the International Workingmen's Association.

[Angry Young Man]

You know, when I came on here, I was hoping for caricatures. Where are my caricatures? Where's George Liquor American?

[Nolan]

Trotsky and Castro should trade places.