What defines reactionary/what is reactionary?

[Sinister Intents]

I feel like I pretty much know, but just for sake of asking, because I can't for the life of me think of how to begin personally defining and explaining it: What defines reactionary and what is reactionary? I know racism, sexism, homophobia, and so on are reactionary, but I need more in depth discussion outside of prejudices and so on.

[PhoenixAsh]

Reactionary in the revolutionary vocabulary, for the purpose of this thread, is defending the current socio-economic reality and its elements and wanting to preserve this reality (or its elements). In a more general way you could say that reactionary is the resistance against the left-revolutionary abolishing of class society in its broadest sense and trying to maintain patriarchal class society...or systems of repression.

It is in this sense entirely possible to be completely reactionary or partially reactionary.

[RedWorker]

It seems that the word reactionary has two meanings: one who would like to go back to the previous system, and a more extreme conservative. I know Marx used at least the first one.

[Tim Cornelis]

Reactionary in the revolutionary vocabulary, for the purpose of this thread, is defending the current socio-economic reality and its elements and wanting to preserve this reality (or its elements). In a more general way you could say that reactionary is the resistance against the left-revolutionary abolishing of class society in its broadest sense and trying to maintain patriarchal class society...or systems of repression.

It is in this sense entirely possible to be completely reactionary or partially reactionary.

This is not true. Reactionary is used by liberal-democrats (or, mainstream bourgeois ideologues) and whatnot too. It's nothing more than wanting to revert to a previous stage in social development or social conditions of policies. For instance, wanting to re-criminalise abortion makes you a reactionary in the standard sense of the word, as it's used by liberal-democrats too.

Its buzzword meaning as used by left radicals is indeed "defending the current socio-economic reality and its elements and wanting to preserve this reality".

[Rafiq]

The hegemonic order only becomes reactionary when the Communist movement, or class struggle arises.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Reactionary in the revolutionary vocabulary, for the purpose of this thread, is defending the current socio-economic reality and its elements and wanting to preserve this reality (or its elements). In a more general way you could say that reactionary is the resistance against the left-revolutionary abolishing of class society in its broadest sense and trying to maintain patriarchal class society...or systems of repression.

It is in this sense entirely possible to be completely reactionary or partially reactionary.

In disagreement with Phoenix Ash, and in agreement with Tim Cornelius, I shall answer the question by saying that reactionary mentality is a belief that current conditions are bad (which reactionaries, of course, share with communists), but that the current conditions are so flawed only because we lost what made a previous, ideal time good.

Thus, a reactionary, like a Communist, might say "look at all the devastation that liberal Capitalism is having in our community." Unlike a Communist, however, he would identify the devastation caused by liberal Capitalism not in the exploitation of labor and the dehumanization of the worker by the ruling class, but in the loss of some kind of traditional values which tied the community together. Thus, the way to solve liberal capitalism's flaws is not to create a radically new society but to restore the old society. Of course, the conditions of the previous society led to the emergence the our current society, which is a reality reactionaries must weave sophisticated, idealistic intellectual loops around to avoid confronting.

This is why we would consider ISIS reactionary - ISIS does not see current Arab society in Iraq and Syria as something worth preserving, but something worth destroying. Yet they do not seek to destroy it so that Iraqis and Syrians can be liberated from material exploitation and conservative tradition, but so they can restore what they think the 7th century Caliphate must have looked like.

That is why Reactionaries, in many respects, are more problematic for Communists than liberals and more traditional conservatives - the reactionary wants to take away even the modest benefits our new society has created, all for their idolized account of what previous societies must have looked like (note how reactionaries in the US who talk of a previous golden era often overlook its problems, be it the sexism of the atomic family and racism of Jim Crow of the 50s, or the slavery and mass genocide of the 1700s). It has also, on occasion, allowed for revolutionary socialists who identify these problems to become reactionaries, as was the case with Mussolini. He was, sadly, a charismatic advocate for socialism before the anti-war advocacy of Italian socialists during WWI stung his nationalist sentiments too deeply.

[Tim Cornelis]

Kinda reminds me of civics class in high school. We had to identify reactionary beliefs from various listed examples for a homework assignment. Which felt really weird since I had never seen it being used outside of radical-left contexts, so I felt like I was in the USSR or something.

[Sinister Intents]

In disagreement with Phoenix Ash, and in agreement with Tim Cornelius, I shall answer the question by saying that reactionary mentality is a belief that current conditions are bad (which reactionaries, of course, share with communists), but that the current conditions are so flawed only because we lost what made a previous, ideal time good.

Thus, a reactionary, like a Communist, might say "look at all the devastation that liberal Capitalism is having in our community." Unlike a Communist, however, he would identify the devastation caused by liberal Capitalism not in the exploitation of labor and the dehumanization of the worker by the ruling class, but in the loss of some kind of traditional values which tied the community together. Thus, the way to solve liberal capitalism's flaws is not to create a radically new society but to restore the old society. Of course, the conditions of the previous society led to the emergence the our current society, which is a reality reactionaries must weave sophisticated, idealistic intellectual loops around to avoid confronting.

This is why we would consider ISIS reactionary - ISIS does not see current Arab society in Iraq and Syria as something worth preserving, but something worth destroying. Yet they do not seek to destroy it so that Iraqis and Syrians can be liberated from material exploitation and conservative tradition, but so they can restore what they think the 7th century Caliphate must have looked like.

That is why Reactionaries, in many respects, are more problematic for Communists than liberals and more traditional conservatives - the reactionary wants to take away even the modest benefits our new society has created, all for their idolized account of what previous societies must have looked like (note how reactionaries in the US who talk of a previous golden era often overlook its problems, be it the sexism of the atomic family and racism of Jim Crow of the 50s, or the slavery and mass genocide of the 1700s). It has also, on occasion, allowed for revolutionary socialists who identify these problems to become reactionaries, as was the case with Mussolini. He was, sadly, a charismatic advocate for socialism before the anti-war advocacy of Italian socialists during WWI stung his nationalist sentiments too deeply.

I can agree with PA in so far as what he has said, but what you have said has made it click even more so and adds more emphasis onto who is reactionary. Reactionary are those that want to bring 'Murica back to the days when the 'Founding Fathers' were 'running the show.' They want to bring back the idealized early USA which was a state that allowed slavery and was murdering one group of people in vast quantities. They ignore history and facts for their idealist tripe.

[Squiggles]

Is the Islamic State reactionary? It seems like reactionary just depends on cultural context.

[PhoenixAsh]

This is not true. Reactionary is used by liberal-democrats (or, mainstream bourgeois ideologues) and whatnot too. It's nothing more than wanting to revert to a previous stage in social development or social conditions of policies. For instance, wanting to re-criminalise abortion makes you a reactionary in the standard sense of the word, as it's used by liberal-democrats too.

Its buzzword meaning as used by left radicals is indeed "defending the current socio-economic reality and its elements and wanting to preserve this reality".


Deep sigh. Ok. Lets nit pick.


Actually it is entirely true because of the bolded and underlined part and you are entirely wrong because of your oversight:


Reactionary in the revolutionary vocabulary

So there is that nasty reading part that needs to be done before clicking reply since I framed it in the context of the revolutionary perspective for the context of this thread. Everybody then disagreeing with that statement has not read the post and saying that the statement is not true is entirely...well...factually icnorrect.

To have been factually correct you SHOULD have said: "This is true from the revolutionary perspective but reactionary has applications outside the revolutionary perspective too."

This would have been wrong too given the fact that the liberals use a different defintion...but ok...lets overlook that for now and return to that later.

What you are in fact arguing is the general sense of reactionary and trying to apply that. This traditional definition means: returning to previous state of being. Which in out terminology does NOT cover the meaning since in OUR terminology it actually means to also include: maintaining the current state of being.

Hence reactionary from a revolutionary perspective has a different meaning than reactionary from a liberal perspective and describe two seperate and different classifications:

1). Reactionary as opposition to progress >> Liberal / non-revolutionary
2). Reactionary as opposition to a future change of the current situation to a currently non-existing situation (as well as return to a previously existing state) with regards to the socio-economic reality >> revolutionary

But by all means...lets use their definition of "progress' whatever the fuck that means. FYI the liberal defintion also includes: opposition to liberalism and being extreme conservatism. Good luck with that.

[Buttscratcher]

Advocate old-fashioned policies, I guess.

[John Nada]

I was thinking, could US liberals, progressives and social democrats be considered reactionary by all definitions in this age? Their rhetoric is often about "restoring the middle class", "no to austerity" or "no more cuts". They speak of going back to the "golden age" of post-WWII(which was apparently great for straight white men), pre-Reagan/Thatcher. Ignoring that much of the world's industry was destroyed after the war, and that the proletariat needed to be bought off in response to the USSR and PRC. All the "bold reforms" they propose were run of the mill for even conservatives of that time.

[PhoenixAsh]

What in this thread is denounced as a mere buzzword usage is actualy standard Marxist defintion of the term reactionary for more than a century which uses the term to point towards the defense of the ideals of the current ruling class or previous stages AND/OR movements which are new and strive for a new order such as fascism (described in literature as reactionary before modern fascism even became a political relevant movement in Spain and Italy and before Mussolini took up the term to describe the movement).

It is franky disconcerting that people here on this site seem to kneel for the liberal use of the term.

[Slavic]

What in this thread is denounced as a mere buzzword usage is actualy standard Marxist defintion of the term reactionary for more than a century which uses the term to point towards the defense of the ideals of the current ruling class or previous stages AND/OR movements which are new and strive for a new order such as fascism (described in literature as reactionary before modern fascism even became a political relevant movement in Spain and Italy and before Mussolini took up the term to describe the movement).

It is franky disconcerting that people here on this site seem to kneel for the liberal use of the term.

Holy shit, ok

So,

Liberal version of Reactionary = Those who strive for a previous order
Revolutionary version of Reactionary = Those who strive to maintain the current order, or strive for a previous order.

So kneeling for the liberal use of the term basically means using a more specific definition of the term as opposed to the revolutionary one which sees everyone one except the most Communist of Communists as reactionary.

[PhoenixAsh]

Holy shit, ok

So,

Liberal version of Reactionary = Those who strive for a previous order
Revolutionary version of Reactionary = Those who strive to maintain the current order, or strive for a previous order.

So kneeling for the liberal use of the term basically means using a more specific definition of the term as opposed to the revolutionary one which sees everyone one except the most Communist of Communists as reactionary.


Nice subjective addition. Doesn't surprise me comming from you at all.

So let me make this easier for you to understand:

Marxism, and anarchism, defined the term reactionary from the perspective of the class struggle. Basically they have been doing that for the last century and a half. The term encompassed all previous stages as well as the current state. This specifically included the "current hegemonical order"; as Rafiq called it; and included non left-wing revolutionary forces (such as fascism and nazism) which, as you know, had no previous existance in its "modern" version.

Liberals however define the term from the perspective of the liberal ideological subsets and specifically making the term "progress" (whatever the hell that it) part of the definition. They also included such nice and concrete words as "extreme conservatism" (because a little conservatism is apparently a-okay). Reactionary was defined by them specifically as the reaction against liberalism.

Fascism ironically also used the term reactionary. They both defined themselves as such (based on earlier socialists applying the term to their ideology) and used it as a negative label of monarchism and catholicism. FYI Nazi's did not see themselves as reactionaries but as revolutionaries.

The essential difference however is that the revolutionary use of the term is based on the ideals of the class struggle and the stuggle for a classless society and is based on socio-economic classifications. As opposed to the liberal use of the term...which is based on meaningless phrases such as progress and liberalism as well as extreme conservatism.

Now...

To remind you....Because you may have obviously forgotten.

We are not on a liberal site. We are...mostly...not liberals here. The only defintion of the word that makes sense in a revolutionary context is the definition based on socio-economic classifications from the revolutionary perspective of class struggle. We can acknowledge that the word is used by other groups as well but it is used and defined in an entirely different fashion.