Radical_Pluralist
29th November 2013, 17:39
Hello all. This is my first post here. I do hope to have many more as we move forward together.
My question is a basic one regarding the definitions of the words "revolutionary" and "reactionary" and how those definitions play out empirically.
Marxists.org (I cannot link yet, due to insufficient post count) defines the two as follows:
Reactionary: political position that maintains a conservative response to change, including threats to social institutions and technological advances.
Revolutionary: Those who amplify the differences and conflicts caused by technological advances in society. Revolutionaries provoke differences and violently ram together contradictions within a society, overthrowing the government through the rising to power of the class they represent.
My question has to do with the recent technological advancements that have made domestic spying possible on unheard of scales and "war without war" (as Zizek would say) possible through remote drone strikes. The question is not a new one -- which is why I trust those of you here to provide some insight.
It could be seen as a revolutionary idea to some that a government can adopt new technologies to broaden its power. In regards to drone warfare specifically, it could be argued that the ability of the United States to wage war abroad without putting a single boot on the ground is a revolutionary one.
In both cases, the "reactionary" position might be the one that defends the American Constitution -- a very old document establishing a concrete rule of law -- while the revolutionary position would see the endless possibilities granted to the State -- and maybe even to its people in a legitimate democracy -- by burgeoning war technology.
Do the definitions come down to how the technology is used? Or is there something inherent to both meanings that says, "the revolutionary idea is supporting the NSA's advancements; the reactionary one supports the Constitution."
Or do these questions require historical perspective? For example, while new technologies allow the State to spy at greater levels, State-spying is nothing new. So perhaps it will always automatically be a reactionary position to support State-collection of data on private citizens, etc.?
To continue, if one agreed with the War on Terror, and, heck, even thought it was necessary to make way for fledgling democracies, it could be argued that the pursuit of drone warfare is an important, revolutionary step. Maybe you'd have some qualms over the lack of a declared war, and the death of civilians, but the technology itself would be seen as useful for securing the rights of people.
My questions, it appears to me now, are many.
Is it impossible, by definition, to be a revolutionary if one supports technological advancements that strengthen the State? Does it depend on the State and how responsive it is to the citizenry? Does it depend on the policies pursued?
Or are my examples above simply ones of undesirable revolution?
Just to clear up, before I finish, I do not want to give mistaken impressions room to grow. I am not arguing that revolutionary politics are always bad; or reactionary politics good.
I am merely asking, in the context of the struggle between these two forces, is the reactionary position sometimes the correct one? Is the revolutionary one sometimes supportive of the State? Can the revolutionary one ever be supportive of the State while also being correct?
Thank you, brothers and sisters. I hope I have been clear.
My question is a basic one regarding the definitions of the words "revolutionary" and "reactionary" and how those definitions play out empirically.
Marxists.org (I cannot link yet, due to insufficient post count) defines the two as follows:
Reactionary: political position that maintains a conservative response to change, including threats to social institutions and technological advances.
Revolutionary: Those who amplify the differences and conflicts caused by technological advances in society. Revolutionaries provoke differences and violently ram together contradictions within a society, overthrowing the government through the rising to power of the class they represent.
My question has to do with the recent technological advancements that have made domestic spying possible on unheard of scales and "war without war" (as Zizek would say) possible through remote drone strikes. The question is not a new one -- which is why I trust those of you here to provide some insight.
It could be seen as a revolutionary idea to some that a government can adopt new technologies to broaden its power. In regards to drone warfare specifically, it could be argued that the ability of the United States to wage war abroad without putting a single boot on the ground is a revolutionary one.
In both cases, the "reactionary" position might be the one that defends the American Constitution -- a very old document establishing a concrete rule of law -- while the revolutionary position would see the endless possibilities granted to the State -- and maybe even to its people in a legitimate democracy -- by burgeoning war technology.
Do the definitions come down to how the technology is used? Or is there something inherent to both meanings that says, "the revolutionary idea is supporting the NSA's advancements; the reactionary one supports the Constitution."
Or do these questions require historical perspective? For example, while new technologies allow the State to spy at greater levels, State-spying is nothing new. So perhaps it will always automatically be a reactionary position to support State-collection of data on private citizens, etc.?
To continue, if one agreed with the War on Terror, and, heck, even thought it was necessary to make way for fledgling democracies, it could be argued that the pursuit of drone warfare is an important, revolutionary step. Maybe you'd have some qualms over the lack of a declared war, and the death of civilians, but the technology itself would be seen as useful for securing the rights of people.
My questions, it appears to me now, are many.
Is it impossible, by definition, to be a revolutionary if one supports technological advancements that strengthen the State? Does it depend on the State and how responsive it is to the citizenry? Does it depend on the policies pursued?
Or are my examples above simply ones of undesirable revolution?
Just to clear up, before I finish, I do not want to give mistaken impressions room to grow. I am not arguing that revolutionary politics are always bad; or reactionary politics good.
I am merely asking, in the context of the struggle between these two forces, is the reactionary position sometimes the correct one? Is the revolutionary one sometimes supportive of the State? Can the revolutionary one ever be supportive of the State while also being correct?
Thank you, brothers and sisters. I hope I have been clear.