Is anti-revisionism a form of "reactionary" behaviour?

[ComradeMan]

Seeing as "reactionary" is that which seeks to return or maintain a previous order or condition, status quo ante, could it be argued that in a certain way anti-revisionists were "reactionary" within a leftist framework?

Is not the denial/refusal of progress/development/change not aa form of anti-modernism all too similar to some, albeit not all, fascist and nazi doctrines?

Any thoughts?

[Skooma Addict]

The definition you provide of recationary is not the one people actually use.

When people say something is "reactionary," they mean: An opinion or belief that is not socialist or leftist.

[revolution inaction]

Seeing as "reactionary" is that which seeks to return or maintain a previous order or condition, status quo ante, could it be argued that in a certain way anti-revisionists were "reactionary" within a leftist framework?

Is not the denial/refusal of progress/development/change not aa form of anti-modernism all too similar to some, albeit not all, fascist and nazi doctrines?

Any thoughts?

all leftist ideology is reactionary, Stalinist are just the worst of that :)

[#FF0000]

Seeing as "reactionary" is that which seeks to return or maintain a previous order or condition, status quo ante, could it be argued that in a certain way anti-revisionists were "reactionary" within a leftist framework?

Is not the denial/refusal of progress/development/change not aa form of anti-modernism all too similar to some, albeit not all, fascist and nazi doctrines?

Any thoughts?

No.

[TC]

Seeing as "reactionary" is that which seeks to return or maintain a previous order or condition, status quo ante, could it be argued that in a certain way anti-revisionists were "reactionary" within a leftist framework?

Is not the denial/refusal of progress/development/change not aa form of anti-modernism all too similar to some, albeit not all, fascist and nazi doctrines?

Any thoughts?

I am no anti-revisionist - if anything a neo-marxist, as "revisionist" as one can get - but progress is not the same as development and change, chronological development and change are often not progressive but are themselves reactionary - so opposing developments that are simply chronologically new is not reactionary.

In fact "reactionary" developments such as the fascist revolutions were new developments and changes - surely denying/refusing them support was not "reactionary" but progressive.

Finally your use of the term "modernism" is just, not conventional, though the concept is too complicated to explain in a short post, i suggest you google it to read more about the concept of "modernity."

[Comrade_Stalin]

all leftist ideology is reactionary, Stalinist are just the worst of that :)

And this is why the Anarcho-communist or Ultra-Let has never been on the left.

[Comrade_Stalin]

In fact "reactionary" developments such as the fascist revolutions were new developments and changes - surely denying/refusing them support was not "reactionary" but progressive.


I'm sorry, but are you saying that fascist are not "reactionary"?

[ComradeMan]

^^^^^^^^^^ This is the problem

The facists were indeed revolutionary in many senses and were also modernists. Futurism as an art form flourished in fascist Italy.

My use in the OP was when thinking of dogmatists- they would not deviate from works of Marx and Lenin of between 140-90 years ago.

Re Modernism:

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism#cite_note-11)

Some commentators approach Modernism as an overall socially progressive trend of thought, that affirms the power of human beings to create, improve, and reshape their environment, with the aid of practical experimentation, scientific knowledge or technology.
"In the twentieth century, the social processes that bring this maelstrom into being, and keep it in a state of perpetual becoming, have come to be called 'modernization'. These world-historical processes have nourished an amazing variety of visions and ideas that aim to make men and women the subjects as well as the objects of modernization, to give them the power to change the world that is changing them, to make their way through the maelstrom and make it their own. Over the past century, these visions and values have come to be loosely grouped together under the name of 'modernism'" (Berman 1988, 16)
From this perspective, Modernism encouraged the re-examination of every aspect of existence, from commerce to philosophy, with the goal of finding that which was 'holding back' progress, and replacing it with new ways of reaching the same end. Others focus on Modernism as an aesthetic introspection. This facilitates consideration of specific reactions to the use of technology in The First World War, and anti-technological and nihilistic aspects of the works of diverse thinkers and artists spanning the period from Nietzsche to Samuel Beckett. See:- Lee Oser, The Ethics of Modernism: Moral ideas in Yeats, Eliot, Joyce, Woolf and Beckett (Cambridge University Press, 2007); F.J. Marker & C.D. Innes, Modernism in European Drama: Ibsen, Stringdberg, Pirandello, Beckett; Morag Shiach, "Situating Samuel Beckett" pp234-247 in The Cambridge Companion to the Modernist Novel, (Cambridge University Press, 2007); Kathryne V. Lindberg, Reading Pound Reading: Modernism After Nietzsche (Oxford University Press, 1987); Pericles Lewis, The Cambridge Introduction to Modernism (Cambridge University Press, 2007). pp21

[Thirsty Crow]

The facists were indeed revolutionary in many senses and were also modernists. Futurism as an art form flourished in fascist Italy.

You are hopelessly confused, I'm afraid.
Any social movement or political for that matter may be characterized as revolutionary insofar it strives for a transformation of society - or more specifically, its relations of production. I think this is the best criterion, since the "micro-revolutions" in fact do not alter the basic structures which shape people's lives and experience. And by that criterion, Fascists were not revolutionary, in any sense although they did bring changes in the form of political governance).

And guess what - futurism, as well as other historical avant-garde styles/movements, also flourished in early USSR. But I do not see a point to calling Fascists revolutionary because a specific for of art flourished under their rule (art which was readily appropirated by the ruling class, for its own interests).

[ComradeMan]

You are hopelessly confused, I'm afraid.
Any social movement or political for that matter may be characterized as revolutionary insofar it strives for a transformation of society - or more specifically, its relations of production. I think this is the best criterion, since the "micro-revolutions" in fact do not alter the basic structures which shape people's lives and experience. And by that criterion, Fascists were not revolutionary, in any sense although they did bring changes in the form of political governance).

Fascists were revolutionary- you know little about fascism if you think they weren't. They were anti-clerical, anti-catholic, anti-aristocratic, anti-monarchic and anti-romanticism in many senses. The fascists even used the word reactionary for themselves to describe their new world and society.

It's not so clear cut when you look behind the rhetoric.


And guess what - futurism, as well as other historical avant-garde styles/movements, also flourished in early USSR. But I do not see a point to calling Fascists revolutionary because a specific for of art flourished under their rule (art which was readily appropirated by the ruling class, for its own interests).

Guess what, futurism started in pre-fascist Italy, it developed in parallel to Mussolini's ideas and development of fascism and was particularly favoured by fascisti- see Boccioni too.

[Thirsty Crow]

More confused nonsense:

Fascists were revolutionary- you know little about fascism if you think they weren't. They were anti-clerical, anti-catholic, anti-aristocratic, anti-monarchic and anti-romanticism in many senses. The fascists even used the word reactionary for themselves to describe their new world and society.

It's not so clear cut when you look behind the rhetoric. Yet it is you who fails to see beyond the rhetoric. So we are supposed to take their word for granted.
First of all, I laid out the grounds on which, in my opinion, a movement or a political party may be called revolutionary. And you failed to even comment on that, or on your view on the subject matter. Instead, you continue with mere unsubstantiated babbling.
What practical implications/consequences did "anti-monarchism" entail? Sole power to the parliament under universal suffrage? Oh, wait, in effect parliamentary procedures were dropped in favour of authoritarian rule.
And hod did "anti-romanticism" exist in practice? What did it enable, what did it do? This question goes for all of your "antis".

But considering the anti-clericalism:


Fascism sought to accommodate Italian conservatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism) by making major alterations to its political agenda – abandoning its previous populism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism), republicanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism), and anticlericalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticlericalism), adopting policies in support of free enterprise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_enterprise), and accepting the Roman Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church) and the monarchy as institutions in Italy.
De Grand, Italian Fascism 145

To appeal to Italian conservatives, Fascism adopted policies such as promoting family values, including promotion of a woman's role as a mother. Fascists and Conservatives, 14

But again, it is not the issue of supporting the church or opposing it, but rather it is the issue of support for a radical transformation of society by means of the abolition of capital. Not only did the fascist fail to do that (of course, that ideology in no way does equate with even the most vague anti-capitalism), but they savagely attacked and crippled the Italian workers' movement.
And if you decide to call such measures revolutionary...then I have nothing to say but fuck off you idiot.


Guess what, futurism started in pre-fascist Italy, it developed in parallel to Mussolini's ideas and development of fascism and was particularly favoured by fascisti- see Boccioni too.
Inherently, futurism has nothing to do with the Fascist notion of a strong, united nation, hierarchically structured and led by a strong authoritarian figure. And what the hell have fascist liking futurist art with anything? Again, demonstrate the revolutionary character of futurism.
Oh yeah, you can't since it cannot be demonstrated in the case of most broadly conceived stylistic formations.

[TC]

I'm sorry, but are you saying that fascist are not "reactionary"?

I suggest rereading the post more carefully ;)


And Menocchio (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=26240), you're being pointlessly rude to ComradeMan, cut it out okay, - if anything he/she just isn't conforming to your preferred set of terminology - terminology that doesn't have universal acceptance.

[Bud Struggle]

[QUOTE=ComradeMan;1964205
The facists were indeed revolutionary in many senses and were also modernists.
[/QUOTE]

I don't see the problem with calling Fascism Revolutionary. It's not of course a "Left" Revolution. When Fascism happened in Spain, Italy and Germany it was brought on by Revolution, and was a complete restructuring of power and economics. Also, it is a mondern phenominon. It couldn't have happened in the 1800s or 1900s.

It was a viable option for the human race to turn to for economic and social order. For obvious reasons it didn't work out--but for a time it was a possibility.

I'm not saying Fascism was good in any respect, but there was a chance it could have been a complete modern world order if it haden't been checked.

It was Revolutionary--but it was a Right not a Left Revolution.

[Dimentio]

Fascism could be understood as right-wing extremism if we look at right-wing vs left-wing not as a matter of economic regulation, but of the view on human equality.

[Thirsty Crow]

I suggest rereading the post more carefully ;)


And Menocchio (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=26240), you're being pointlessly rude to ComradeMan, cut it out okay, - if anything he/she just isn't conforming to your preferred set of terminology - terminology that doesn't have universal acceptance.
No, it's not okay, not by a long shot.
Nowhere did he/she indicate that he/she doesn't conform to the idea of what properly constitutes something revolutionary regarding an ideology or movement.

And moreover, implications of a fierce defense of the position that Fascism was revolutionary (in whatever sense)...is just, wow, and I mean, wow. Delusion or covert defense of something that must be fought at all costs.

Fascism could be understood as right-wing extremism if we look at right-wing vs left-wing not as a matter of economic regulation, but of the view on human equality.

Most appropriately, Fascism can be understood by studyinga ctual history and actual actions undertaken by the Fascist state and the broader historical and social context, most significantly related to the social base and class base of Fascism. Views and ideas are not what ultimately (and that is not to say that studying these and their history is irrelevant).

But I guess I am yet again being intolerant, rude or something else, something which disrupts the blessed pluralism of opinions and approaches...well, there are reasons for the existence of these, but as a matter of fact some approaches are more fertile for a thourough historical analysis, one which could reveal the nature of the ideology in question. Studying viewpoints is fine, but we shouldn't stop at that.


So cut the crap about being polite and anything. With Fascism and whatsoever defense of it, be it rhetorical - there is no way someone reasonable will stay polite and cool-headed.


I don't see the problem with calling Fascism Revolutionary. It's not of course a "Left" Revolution. When Fascism happened in Spain, Italy and Germany it was brought on by Revolution, and was a complete restructuring of power and economics.
No it fucking wasn't a complete restructuring of the economy. Private property, free enterprise, anyone can understand that these factors cannot be taken to meaningfully constitute the term "complete restructuring of the economy" or "revolution".

Moreover, Fascism was brought on by Bonapartist tactics and outright war and terror (Spain).

[Thirsty Crow]

And final question: how was Fascism revolutionary? Describe me the exact way Fascists revolutionized social and economic life.
And by that I don't mean "just throw around meaningless phrases, like 'anti-this', 'anti-that'", but describe the concrete, groundbreaking change, in social life.

(hint: if fascism was revolutionary, so too was the welfare state).

[ComradeMan]

Well then smart ass, until a state is founded that is not based on property rights then all fucking states are reactionary, including the USSR, Cuba, etc etc etc....

[#FF0000]

Except that a lot of people do see the USSR, Cuba, etc etc as capitalist states.

[ComradeMan]

Except that a lot of people do see the USSR, Cuba, etc etc as capitalist states.

Agreed but a lot of people would see them as revolutionary too and a lot of people would also find it difficult to consider them "reactionary"....

But yeah....

[Bud Struggle]

No it fucking wasn't a complete restructuring of the economy. Private property, free enterprise, anyone can understand that these factors cannot be taken to meaningfully constitute the term "complete restructuring of the economy" or "revolution".

Moreover, Fascism was brought on by Bonapartist tactics and outright war and terror (Spain).

It's no different than the way Communism has completely restructured the economy in China or the way it did in the SU and Eastern Europe. Lots of private property there. So really Fascism in real life is about as Revolutionary as Communism has been in real life.

Now if you are talking about pie in the sky Communism or Fascism, well that's another story. You shoudn't mix reality with fantasy.


(hint: if fascism was revolutionary, so too was the welfare state). In real life--Fascism is just as Revolutionary as Communism has been.

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

Seeing as "reactionary" is that which seeks to return or maintain a previous order or condition, status quo ante, could it be argued that in a certain way anti-revisionists were "reactionary" within a leftist framework?

Is not the denial/refusal of progress/development/change not aa form of anti-modernism all too similar to some, albeit not all, fascist and nazi doctrines?

Any thoughts?
Anti-revisionists(most) are not trying to "maintain a previous order or condition" in society. Revisionism in reality is something which negates the revolutionary aspect of Marxism. Anti-revisionism(in its original sense) is against this "revised" version of Marxism which is just Democratic Socialism. Many "anti-revisionists" like to call people revisionist who don't ignore the need for revolution, but just because people like to water down the true meaning of the term doesn't make the term mean what they make it seem to mean.

If the "anti-revisionists" promoted cultural backwardness and opposed building Socialism(which some might), then they can be called reactionary, but the idea of maintaining the idea of revolution within Marxism is not reactionary, whether it means denouncing "new ideas" of working within the present-day fucked up political system.

When someone is genuinely an anti-revisionist they support the "old" idea of revolution; when someone opposes revolution(like the real revisionists) or is stuck in the '30s or '40s(like many "anti-revisionists") then they can be labelled a hinderance to the workers' movement or reactionary.

These are just my thoughts, at least.

[ComradeMan]

.....

That was by far one of the best answers to any thread on RevLeft to any of my questions!

:cool:

[Rafiq]

I'm sorry, but are you saying that fascist are not "reactionary"?

Speaking technically, no they're ultra conservative

[Comrade_Stalin]

Speaking technically, no they're ultra conservative

Is that not the same thing?

[Comrade_Stalin]

That was by far one of the best answers to any thread on RevLeft to any of my questions!

:cool:

So my answer "A reactionary is against the revolution in thoery, and the revisionist is against revolution in practices." was not a good answer.

[Thirsty Crow]

Well then smart ass, until a state is founded that is not based on property rights then all fucking states are reactionary, including the USSR, Cuba, etc etc etc....


It's no different than the way Communism has completely restructured the economy in China or the way it did in the SU and Eastern Europe. Lots of private property there. So really Fascism in real life is about as Revolutionary as Communism has been in real life.

I see. So there is no chance whatsoever of a concrete answer to my question. I take that as a demonstration of the inability of providing concrete arguments in favour of the ridicuous idea that Fascism was revolutionary.

And Bud, "lots of private property" as a description of the political economy of USSR is completely wrong. Sorry, it just is.
As far as China is concerned, dengist restoration cannot be considered a "communist restructuring". If you refer to the initial alliance with the bourgeoisie - you are mistaking a concrete line which the Communists in China took, for very practical reasons, for Communism in general.

[ComradeMan]

I see. So there is no chance whatsoever of a concrete answer to my question. I take that as a demonstration of the inability of providing concrete arguments in favour of the ridicuous idea that Fascism was revolutionary.

Fascism in Italy was revolutionary, just not revolutionary in a left sense. Fascism did not seek to maintain the "old order" whatsoever.

Fascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the ‘people’ into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence.
Roger Griffin, Nature of Fascism, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991, p. xi

And what was that decadence? It was the same bourgeois state that the Marxists were against.

Oops....

Mussolini was also big into agrarianism/ruralism too. Let's not forget he had been a socialist and was fully aware of the ideas of the left.

Rivoluzione fascista è la definizione utilizzata da molti teorici, intellettuali ed esponenti politici del fascismo, e da alcuni storici, per indicare la serie di mutamenti radicali, sociali e politici, programmati o attuati dal movimento fascista in Italia, a far data dalla fondazione dei Fasci italiani di combattimento, nel 1919, il cui inizio attuativo è generalmente fatto coincidere con la marcia su Roma del 1922.

George Mosse, Zeev Sternhell and Emilio Gentile justify the use of the word revolutionary to describe fascism in Italy- even though this is obviously controversial. Gentile maintains that the fascism was radical "anthropological revolution" aimed at creating a new type of humanity.
Emilio Gentile, Il Fascismo in tre capitoli, Laterza, Roma-Bari, 2004

You see the fundamental dialectic difference is only one- the communists divided by class and the fascisti by nation/people. The rest is interpretation and theory derived thereof.

[Red Future]

Always regarded Fascism as revolutionary conservatism and a scavenger ideology which picks up reactionary views and attitudes and presents it as a new viable path.

[Bud Struggle]

And Bud, "lots of private property" as a description of the political economy of USSR is completely wrong. Sorry, it just is.
As far as China is concerned, dengist restoration cannot be considered a "communist restructuring". If you refer to the initial alliance with the bourgeoisie - you are mistaking a concrete line which the Communists in China took, for very practical reasons, for Communism in general.

Do you think there was any "worker control" of the means of production in the SU? There was no difference between being a worker in a factory in the SU than a worker in a non union factory anywhere else in the world.

"For practical reasons"--means that the Maoist tact didn't work. Blame it as you will, the bad bad Capitaliss not playing fair or evil betraying leadership or whatever. It didn't work--so they turned to a quasi Capitalism, which seems to be working fine. Welcome to the the post Marxist age.

[Dean]

The definition you provide of recationary is not the one people actually use.

When people say something is "reactionary," they mean: An opinion or belief that is not socialist or leftist.
Incorrect.

[ComradeMan]

reactionary- insisting on the status quo ante.

[Comrade_Stalin]

reactionary- insisting on the status quo ante.

No, reactionary- insisting on the going back to a time before. Something has changed, and reactionary don't like it, so they wish to go back to the system before.

[ComradeMan]

going back to a time before.

= status quo ante?

I think people may have missed/misunderstood the point of the OP.

Surely a situation in which an ideology is dogmatised to the extent that any reform, change or revision is condemned then ceasing to be revolutionary and becomes conservative within in its own ideological framework...