What exactly is a reactionary?

[CubanFox]

I hear it all the time, but I'm not sure what it means.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

A reactionary is basically a right-winger. There are social reactionaries--anti-gay, anti-reproductive rights, sometimes pro-racism, pro-sexism... and there are economic reactionaries who are basically unabashed capitalists...

[blackemma]

The above is a good answer, but I would say that in terms of using the word in political dialogue, it has different meanings depending on who's using it. Since this is a Marxist board, I'll deal solely with the way Lenin and others used it. A reactionary is similar to being bourgeois except that while the bourgeoisie constitutes a class and a certain class ideology, a reactionary can belong to any class, though most frequently reactionaries are found within bourgeois or petty bourgeois circles. Basically, a reactionary does precisely what his or her name implies: reacts. But the reaction is not based on intelligent or scientific analysis of a given situation or type of thinking, but an emotional, irrational reaction based on miniformation, etc.

For instance, the reactionary elements of the bourgeoisie are terrified by anything dubbed "socialist", no matter how reformist or bourgeois said socialism may be. The more intelligent of the bourgeoisie would recognize the possibilities of reformist socialism as a means of easing class antagonisms, etc. Or take this example: let's say a worker recognizes that the system he or she lives in is an unfair one and exploitive in nature. Now, this particular worker wants something to change but he or she is not sure what should change or how it should change. Now let's suppose a socialist of some stripe -- anarchist, Marxist, syndicalist, it doesn't matter -- approaches this worker and presents an idea of how to change society, let's say through industrial sabotage and general strike resulting in some sort of workers' commune. If the worker were to respond, "What you're proposing is Communism! Communism slaughtered millions of people! I will have nothing to do with you!" that worker would be a reactionary.

While reactionaries are present throughout society, it is principally the media and religion with serve as the principal sources of reactionary thought: religion with its tendency to stress subservience to authority; the media with its tendency to label anything leftist as either 'utopian' or 'tyrannical'. In many cases, the reaction to the Russian Revolution was reactionary. Many condemened Lenin without considering the situation in which he took power, the conditions that were present in Russia at the time, and many other factors. "Communism is against democracy!" was the battle cry of the reactionaries in the West and abroad. That's not to say Lenin didn't do things worth condemning, but that such condemnations ought to based on a close study of the facts and a thoughtful consideration of all the forces influencing what happened.

Hope this helps.

[YKTMX]

http://www.rusgoods.ru/poljot/foto/stalin.jpg

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I agree with Comrade blackemma's post. It is a rather comprehensive answer.

[elijahcraig]

http://www.tankmuseum.ru/images/red/trotsky.jpg

[YKTMX]

Oh god, you really are dead behind the eyes.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 08:37 PM
Oh god, you really are dead behind the eyes.
He answered the question using only a picture; quite clever. In my eyes these quotes prove comrade elijahcraig's intelligence:

no one gave Lenin or you the “right” to “herd” people as if they were “sheep”.-redstar2000

I turn sheep into wolves to kill the pigs. -elijahcraig

Che was a Stalinist. If che-lives, stalinism-lives, and if stalinism-lives, marxism-leninism-lives. -elijahcraig

Maybe Marx could've not written Capital, and maybe the workers would've just one day "figured it out"...but that's not the truth. The truth is that they need help. And giving that help is not wrong. It is Marxism. -elijahcraig

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 26 2003, 09:31 PM


I turn sheep into wolves to kill the pigs. -elijahcraig

That is quite good actually.

[Invader Zim]

A reactionary is the oppersit of a liberal, a liberal is open mindet towards change etc, a reactionary see's change as damaging, and reacts in a hostile manner towards these changes and those who would make them. I think the best example you could possibly use from all of history is the "white" terror after the 2nd restoration of Louis XV111 in 1815, when the royalists hunted down as many Bonapartists, liberals, bourgoisie and republicans and killed them. Thats really reacting badly to change.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

no, ak, a reactionary is the opposite of a revolutionary. not all liberals seek revolution or reform, most seek minor reforms. Classical liberals, for example, are extremely reactionary. leftist liberals, however, are reformist. see the thread on liberalism.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+Aug 26 2003, 09:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (YouKnowTheyMurderedX @ Aug 26 2003, 09:40 PM)
Chairman [email protected] 26 2003, 09:31 PM


I turn sheep into wolves to kill the pigs. -elijahcraig

That is quite good actually. [/b]
That one, as Leninists (believing we are); we can all agree on.