Is a hardline-idealist a better revolutionary figure than a reactionary?

[Riveraxis]

Among leftist circles you hear a lot about "reactionary politics". And I don't have much sympathy for them either, anymore than reformists. The anti-reactionary is the hardline-idealist. Who holds true to their revolutionary stance and will not budge. There's some merit to that, I spose. But that seems to be the wrong position to take when dealing with international revolution.
How can you take such an arrogant and non-compromising stance when you're dealing with other countries? That's almost, y'know, *imperialism*.

My goal isn't so much to defend reactionary politics as to doubt the hardline-idealist. Because sometimes, in the midst of world wars, revolutions, struggles, and solidarity, you have to budge and you have to adapt. The world just isn't black and white. And each situation is bigger than your own philosophical perspective. How is hardline idealism the route to anything but statism?

[subcp]

Honestly- I don't think it matters in either case. The tradesmen and steelworkers that beat up anti-war protestors in the 60's probably all voted for Nixon, made racist/sexist comments, etc. but their on-the-job actions (lots of wildcat strikes) hurt the war-by attacking the war industry at the point of production- more than peaceful protest marches; and did so indirectly. They weren't wildcatting over the war, it was over working conditions, wages, etc. Anti-semitism was widespread, as was Orthodox Christian traditionalism, among the Slavic proletariat during the Russian Revolutions. Patriarchical chauvinism was common during the Argentinian upheaval a decade ago- there's a few cases where husbands (who were active in the occupations or other struggles) murdered or beat their wives for going out and organizing themselves. The latest cycles of struggles in Mahalla's textile industry started off as protest strikes against the Dutch cartoons back in 2006- but over several years of near constant struggle (starting with those strikes), they were the 'cradle of the revolution' in 2011 and now are struggling against the new 'democratic' MB state.

If the potential for communism were based solely on the subjective morals and beliefs of majorities of the working-class, it would be just as likely as converting everyone to Catholicism. In the midst of struggle, people with reactionary beliefs have a tendency to continue the struggle for the 'transformation of all things' in the social realm when the traditional economy is attacked: like a mostly white workforce backing a black delegate to the worker's assembly in St.Louis during the 1877 Great Upheaval; the very young RSFSR in 1918, months after the October revolution, legalized abortion, homosexuality, etc.

So I don't think it has much to do with defending or covering up reactionary beliefs. Either there is struggle at the point of production and against capital, or there isn't. Lefty groups that give 'critical support' to regimes like Hamas or groups like Hezbollah are not communists- they have it completely backwards. Worker's in Mahalla are likely almost all Muslims and many probably have prejudices typical of society- but they are engaged in escalating struggles with the owners and the state and attempting self-organization. On the other hand, there's the Muslim Brotherhood state- which several groups support as 'progressive' even as that state attacks struggling workers.

[RedMaterialist]

A reactionary is a counter-revolutionary, a contra-revolutionary, as Pinochet, Reagan, Franco, Hitler, etc.

[GerrardWinstanley]

Racism, sexism and imperialism necessarily involve unequal power relations between races, between men and women and between nations of people. The freedom for reactionaries to exercise that power is easily mistaken for 'liberty' and thus the abolition of that freedom (which is inseperable from the abolition of capitalism) is easily characterised as 'statist'.

Ultra-leftism is different, which is where the very idea of interacting or taking part in reactionary or reformist formations such as trade unions or bourgeois parliamentary systems is ruled anathema.

A good example of this immaturity would be the defunct Revolutionary Communist Party in UK, which boycotted demonstrations against the introduction of internal markets in the NHS on the grounds that defending the welfare state was merely 'palliative'.

[Riveraxis]

How can a reactionary be the same thing as a counter-revolutionary? I thought a reactionary was still trying to further the revolution, but with headstrong and sometimes reckless methods. As in, reacting rather than revolting.

If a reactionary is the same thing as a counter-revolutionary, well, I don't understand why people around here call Trotsky a "reactionary". He was no Franco, no Reagan, no Hitler. Hah.

[TheEmancipator]

No, its my belief that a reactionary is someone who wishes to go back in time to the "glory days" as they call it ("let's recreate the Roman Empire" etc..). Or it is someone stuck in a time warp (i.e sexists, homophobes, bigots, racists)

A conservative is more counter-revolutionary, wishing to block any kind of radical reform proposed by visionaries and intent on keeping the status-quo. For me people like Stalin could be described as conservative yet non-reactionary, since he was intent on holding on to his own power and vision for society.

Both are logically-redundant, and go against the whole notion of our ideology.

[Orange Juche]

Among leftist circles you hear a lot about "reactionary politics".

Sometimes it's totally justified, but I'm finding that term more and more used as a straw-man against people who aren't actually reactionary, but have some (perceived to be) "annoying" disagreement with whoever flings out the straw-man.