Reactionary ?

[TheKingOfMercy]

What does this term reactionary mean ?

It seems to be bounced around a lot, but i dont really know what it means to this site, can somone tell me please ?

[Zingu]

Orginally, a reactionary meant a person wants to turn the wheel "back on society" so to speak. Not exactly a counter-revolutionary.

Other context I've heard the word used for is people who aren't truly revolutionary, but will join the revolution; their reaction to the revolution is to join it for other reasons. The peasentry class historically has been seen to be a reactionary class. As Marx said, the "social scum from the bottom of society" is also reactionary.

If that helps....

[redstar2000]

Sometimes the distinction is made this way...

Conservative: one who wishes to "keep things as they are"; one who "defends social traditions".

Reactionary: one who wishes to "turn the clock backwards"; one who wishes to overthrow a new social order and restore a prior one.

Bill Clinton is a conservative; George W. Bush is a reactionary.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:24 PM


Orginally, a reactionary meant a person wants to turn the wheel "back on society" so to speak. Not exactly a counter-revolutionary.

Unless off course, the revolution has taken place and this person actively participates in the swinging back of society into capitalism.


Other context I've heard the word used for is people who aren't truly revolutionary, but will join the revolution; their reaction to the revolution is to join it for other reasons. The peasentry class historically has been seen to be a reactionary class.

The peasants, who in general belong to middle class, can also become a member of the working class in they are put to work in a large farm factory.



As Marx said, the "social scum from the bottom of society" is also reactionary.

Did Marx really use those words?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The peasants, who in general belong to middle class, can also become a member of the working class in they are put to work in a large farm factory.

Not that this is generally desirable, or makes any sense . . .

[NovelGentry]

Me and non-sectarian bastard got into a speil about this the other day.

My take is a very simple take: Reactionary people are those who are prone to reaction. It would seem many people don't like this argument, but it is the basis for the actions they decide to take.

I personally feel reactionaries are something of a less conscious counter-revolutionary, and are indeed NOT one in the same.

Let me try to explain further. If one is to be characterized by reaction, it would be said they need a basis of reaction, thus they need a basis of normality. The normality (depending on the generation gap and time past since greater change) is of course the OLD system. It is their nature to react according to the programming of the old system, further to be frightened by the changes brought about by the new. In short, these people cannot think outside the box that they were placed in by the old and/or withering society and thus they react accordingly to what they've been taught.

This of course lays down a ground work for what makes a reactionary person "opposed to progress and change." But I don't think it should be so simply said that this is strictly what they are.

I'm guessing Zingu's post was directed towards things I had said in the past, which I firmly believe. Reactionaries can and WILL take part in revolution. This becomes somewhat of an interesting phenomenon simply because it is the very nature of the previous systems that creates this individual protection mechanism. Which is precisely what it is.

Take the Marx quote: "If, by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests; they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat." -- when referring to the petty bourgeoisie.

This seems like a contradiction of what they are when you read the preceeding sentence which flat out calls them "reactionary." However, if you look at the nature of the reactionary not just what they do, it becomes clear why this decision is made.


Did Marx really use those words?

These are Marx's words specifically about the reactionaries of the petty bourgeoisie, however, I have little doubt he would apply such words to all reactionaries. To Marx, it would seem as though the peasants are reactionary, and for the most part I would have to agree, but it is in light of the existence of early capitalism. Advanced capitalism doesn't really have peasants... we have poor yes, even those out of work, but these are something of the reserve work force. Peasants are of a different nature than simply "poor" as most people equate them.

The "dangerous class", the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue. -- Karl Marx

[Abstrakt]

I don't think i've ever been so confused in my life. Isn't everyone reactionary?

[NovelGentry]

No, some people strive to make change, within themselves AND within society. They strive to think before they act, and think more importantly about what is just, and then act on it.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

These are Marx's words specifically about the reactionaries of the petty bourgeoisie, however, I have little doubt he would apply such words to all reactionaries. To Marx, it would seem as though the peasants are reactionary, and for the most part I would have to agree, but it is in light of the existence of early capitalism. Advanced capitalism doesn't really have peasants... we have poor yes, even those out of work, but these are something of the reserve work force. Peasants are of a different nature than simply "poor" as most people equate them.

The "dangerous class", the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue. -- Karl Marx

Here you have it: Marx definitely isn't talking specifically about peasants, when he's saying this. He's talking about temporary members of the middle class, who in the stage of imperialist capitalism are becoming increasingly subordinate to the ruling class and are thrown into the working class or are willing to fight along side the working class since they feel that their interests are best served by doing this.

A certain amount of peasants will fall under this category and the portion of the middle class that hasn't become part of the working class and still has illusions in being able to become part of the capitalist ruling class after the current capitalist ruling class is is defeated, this portion can be described as reactionaries.

[NovelGentry]

Here you have it: Marx definitely isn't talking specifically about peasants, when he's saying this. He's talking about temporary members of the middle class, who in the stage of imperialist capitalism are becoming increasingly subordinate to the ruling class and are thrown into the working class or are willing to fight along side the working class since they feel that their interests are best served by doing this.

A certain amount of peasants will fall under this category and the portion of the middle class that hasn't become part of the working class and still has illusions in being able to become part of the capitalist ruling class after the current capitalist ruling class is is defeated, this portion can be described as reactionaries.

I'm not sure where anything I said disagrees with what you're saying, or what Marx is saying. I am, however, taking it one step further. First off, I don't think it's "a certain amount." I think it is a large majority. Secondly going back to Marx's "if by chance they are revolutionary..." we must ask ourselves exactly WHAT their interest is.

There is no "instant revolutionary." Take for example this quote from Non-Sectarian Bastard from the chat:

"But when reactionaires support progress, because they will think that it will be succesful, then from that moment they are revolutionair." -- Non-Sectarian-Bastard

I can't disagree with this more. Marx's line is "if by chance they are revolutionary," and though I cannot say for sure, I wouldn't be surprised if he says revolutionary for lack of a better word for those taking part in revolution. We know they have found it in their interest... but once again, those interests can remain reactionary. They may simply "want to win" for once. They may indeed think that their actions will bring them that position as members of a "new bourgeoisie."

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by Nove[email protected] 25 2005, 12:10 PM

Here you have it: Marx definitely isn't talking specifically about peasants, when he's saying this. He's talking about temporary members of the middle class, who in the stage of imperialist capitalism are becoming increasingly subordinate to the ruling class and are thrown into the working class or are willing to fight along side the working class since they feel that their interests are best served by doing this.

A certain amount of peasants will fall under this category and the portion of the middle class that hasn't become part of the working class and still has illusions in being able to become part of the capitalist ruling class after the current capitalist ruling class is is defeated, this portion can be described as reactionaries.

I'm not sure where anything I said disagrees with what you're saying, or what Marx is saying. I am, however, taking it one step further. First off, I don't think it's "a certain amount." I think it is a large majority. Secondly going back to Marx's "if by chance they are revolutionary..." we must ask ourselves exactly WHAT their interest is.

There is no "instant revolutionary." Take for example this quote from Non-Sectarian Bastard from the chat:

"But when reactionaires support progress, because they will think that it will be succesful, then from that moment they are revolutionair." -- Non-Sectarian-Bastard

I can't disagree with this more. Marx's line is "if by chance they are revolutionary," and though I cannot say for sure, I wouldn't be surprised if he says revolutionary for lack of a better word for those taking part in revolution. We know they have found it in their interest... but once again, those interests can remain reactionary. They may simply "want to win" for once. They may indeed think that their actions will bring them that position as members of a "new bourgeoisie."
And I would say that there's one big disagreement between us and that is that you think that Marx would have meant to use these terms towards all reactionaries: The "dangerous class", the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue. -- Karl Marx .

That's where I think you're wrong. Marx realised pretty well that a certain portion of even the vast majority of peasants and the middle class as a whole (not really worth the debate, since peasants and members of the middle class nowadays are more and more a minority because we're getting closer and closer to the full imperialist stage of capitalisme) would join the mass workers' movement.

About what their reasons for joining this movement are, we can't be absolutely sure. It can be the fact they actually have become a member of the working class during the imperialist stage of capitalism or that they - as I said earlier and this is where you and I agree - fight for ensuring their own position as owners of capital after the defeat of the current existing ruling class and thus becoming the new ruling class. This latter group is the one to which Marx words, as quoted above, apply.

[NovelGentry]

That's where I think you're wrong. Marx realised pretty well that a certain portion of even the vast majority of peasants and the middle class as a whole (not really worth the debate, since peasants and members of the middle class nowadays are more and more a minority because we're getting closer and closer to the full imperialist stage of capitalisme) would join the mass workers' movement.

Yes, he did, but I'm not so sure that makes them any less of the "dangerous class." And unlike Marx we have places like the USSR to realize just how dangerous reactionary thinking can be post-revolution. The last thing we should aim to do is to appeal to reactionary forces and then deal with their remaining desire for a more backwards system later.

I agree with your statement about the peasant members not so much existing anymore, however, we still must account for all reactionaries. And like I said, I have little doubt these people will "join" the mass workers movement, in fact, I think they will and I think it will be inevitable once they realize it may win, but I do not consider them any less reactionary simply for joining a movement ot serve their own INDIVIDUAL interest. I think this is something Marx is pointing out when he says they join to serve their future interests, regardless of timing, it is within their individual interests, not within the interest of a class.


About what their reasons for joining this movement are, we can't be absolutely sure. It can be the fact they actually have become a member of the working class during the imperialist stage of capitalism or that they - as I said earlier and this is where you and I agree - fight for ensuring their own position as owners of capital after the defeat of the current existing ruling class and thus becoming the new ruling class. This latter group is the one to which Marx words, as quoted above, apply.

And this is of course our fundamental disagreement. Let me first note that you say "it can be the fact they actually have become a member of the working class." -- This may be so, but otherwise can not ensure class consciousness, and depending on where capitalisms current status is as well as how long they've been that "working class," it may not even assure material consciousness. Most workers of the advanced capitalist countries don't have this now, and as capitalism grows to make third world nations a consumer market as well as a producer market (as it has done with China in it's recent years) you will see this melt away from others. I do tend to think capitalism as a whole has a longer ways to go (well maybe not a whole lot). If we were all stuck with this revolutionary consciousness it'd be damned by tomorrow.

But here we must realize the peasants, too, and even a small portion of the working class are part of this "dangerous class." If you realize the ability for reactionaries to become revolutionary (and I agree there is that possibility, and it may even happen with a decent proportion), then you must realize that some workers will remain reactionary. No matter how hard you try, revolutionary consciousness will not be spurred amongst all the individuals of an entire class, however, with the majority of the class itself, as Marx points out the working class is the only "truly revolutionary" class. I think it's important to point out that he says "truly" here -- which to me shows something about his recognition of these reactionary self-interests in other classes which may cause people to jump for revolution.

What is it exactly that makes you think Marx didn't think all reactionaries were of this nature? Was it not the peasants who became the new petty bourgeoisie to speak of the USSR under Lenin's NEP? Could Mao have even done as much as he did without a "cultural revolution" to curve the very reactionary nature of the entire society?

I suppose the better question is, IS there a neutral point? Is there a place between reactionary and revolutionary where these people can lie. And of course the answer I think is, yes. We don't have a name for it, at least not to my knowledge, but I think it is a place a great many of us are in (including myself) who don't even realize it. It's difficult to consider ourselves strictly one or the other, particularly when we're not making war out in the middle of the streets. Many of us are indeed one part reactionary, many parts revolutionary, but even in ourselves I think we can see this reactionary tendencies.

We beat off action with intellectual excuses that serve one of the most basic reactionary tendencies, the desire to live, and live unchained (physically). This is why I think it's important to realize the nature of the reactionary, and not just the fact that they are in opposition to this change. We here may have all the material consciousness in the world and a large portion of the class consciousness, but there is something we lack, and that too will come with time.

It will require that spark, something which sets us off, something which brings us so far down that we have truly nothing to lose but chains, including our lives because in essence we have already lost them. This, however, does not change the simple fears we all have of losing more for the cause. It is a fear that I have felt, knowing my book could be considered treason, knowing that what actions I will take throughout my life are opposed to the beast at the height of it's oppression.

It is a fear we all have, and certainly pushing on in spite of it must say something about who we are, and yet we sit here, waiting for "more" before, we as individuals, would take a bullet for the cause. We say "we would if it would make change", "individuals slaughtered for the cause will not fix the problem." Still it WILL fix the problem, and regardless of when people will be killed, individuals will die. Does this mean I think we need action now? No, I will continue making my excuses, but valid or not, they are still excuses.

[pandora]

There are many deeply felt ideals at state here, however, part of training a revolutionary army means taking a chance with reactionary members. This does not mean that such members should be used prematurely, but that these members possess a special strength. They should also not be unduly tested prematurely, but should be taught by modeling how to react to stressful situations. I believe they should be taught how to survive by their own means and resources as a of defeating reactionarism, but this has to be done a small scale one by one.

Why the effort? Often some of the most powerful members with the most potential are reactionary because they are survivors, they have survived incredible stress and trauma, street kids for example pick a country, but they have a lot of anger and a lack of trust. In the 1970's such young people were given opportunites to prove themselves, small jobs at first and as they learned to trust themselves and the people around them, more and more. This takes a stable party.

The reason reactionary members, survivors, are so powerful is that they have pushed the envelope in the past and are able to take risks. The key lies in teaching by example how to live for the benefit of others in the society, and to think of others first.

Why do I think exclusion is so dangerous of such people, who sometimes are very strong members, well it reminds me distinctly of the federalist movement in the United States following the French Revolution. Fear of reactionaries caused retribution that enabled Wall Street and the Adam Smith crowd through Alexander Hamilton to gain control of the United States government. They convinced Washington that the poor could not be trusted because they were reactionary so power to the masses was subverted.

Eventually this cycle of lack of trust must stop if we are to trust the people, and it requires great skill and patience, not eliminating so many revolutionaries out of fear that one is isolated, but teaching those who need help and are willing to learn how to defeat self interest for the benefit of others. Yes such individuals can initially be reactionary and harm the teacher, but if enough distance is established and ground rules, then if they are suitable they can be trained. If they are not still worthy at least they will have learned how to cooperate with others and reflect whereby they will be less dangerous. Leaving them without instruction thus creates a powerful force that may be counterrevolutionary. THis is not good and creates splinter groups. It is best to teach before and not have to deal after, but you have to trust such individuals will initially be selfish and plan accordingly.

[NovelGentry]

Why the effort? Often some of the most powerful members with the most potential are reactionary because they are survivors, they have survived incredible stress and trauma, street kids for example pick a country, but they have a lot of anger and a lack of trust.

I'm not sure the type of survivors you're talking about here are the type of survivors we really want. Changing the fact that they're on our side does not change their thought process, and when the air has cleared they will be looking just as much to the old system. Can we make reactionaries revolutionary? Probably... enough education and understanding can give anyone a clear vision to the proper consciousness. Should we rely or try and "use" these people because they have strong individualist survival mechanisms? No, because in the end that's only gonna turn around and fuck others over. We're trying to reform the whole of the system here, it will take two revolutions, one first of the mind (from which we must free the class of as many reactionary minds as we can) and then one of the hand, when we actually take the state.


The reason reactionary members, survivors, are so powerful is that they have pushed the envelope in the past and are able to take risks. The key lies in teaching by example how to live for the benefit of others in the society, and to think of others first.

They only direction in which they've pushed the envelop is in a direction that benefits them directly. And the only risks they take are those where those benefits outweigh the risk that they can't pass it up.

If you teach them to live for the benefit of others in society and to look towards a free and equal society you remove whatever individualist drive they once had, and in doing so you make them class conscious. I don't see their individualism as making them good survivors, someone who is class conscious can be as good as a survivor, but they will never put individual desire in front of class need. Reactionaries will, and while this might make them more profective of their own life, it gets class struggle no where.


Why do I think exclusion is so dangerous of such people, who sometimes are very strong members, well it reminds me distinctly of the federalist movement in the United States following the French Revolution. Fear of reactionaries caused retribution that enabled Wall Street and the Adam Smith crowd through Alexander Hamilton to gain control of the United States government. They convinced Washington that the poor could not be trusted because they were reactionary so power to the masses was subverted.

Come time of revolution there should be a big difference between reactionaries and "the masses." If it's even going to succeed in a place like the US you're going to need those masses to be revolutionary, in doing so you can supply both. You can exclude the previous reactionary group AND you give power to the masses. What do we benefit by giving these people power? even so much as a vote?


Eventually this cycle of lack of trust must stop if we are to trust the people, and it requires great skill and patience, not eliminating so many revolutionaries out of fear that one is isolated, but teaching those who need help and are willing to learn how to defeat self interest for the benefit of others.

I have no problem with teaching and education... there are already plenty of reactionary people who I try and do that with, and I try to make them revolutionary. But this is before the revolution, reactionaries, aside from those ones in powerful positions, are NOT a problem. Come time for revolution we are DONE educating, if you've not gotten it by then you never will. No matter how much "re-education" you go through. This is the point where we must exclude and separate revolutionaries from reactionaries, and it will be done so if indeed we avoid the tactics of previous revolutionaries who appealed directly to reactionary mindsets (Lenin and Mao specifically).


Leaving them without instruction thus creates a powerful force that may be counterrevolutionary.

If reactionaries and counterrevolutionaries post-revolution are a powerful force the revolution failed and it's post-revolutionary system has failed allowing the working class to be free from the previous system. Once again, I agree we have to educaiton, but this is LONG before we even start to think about picking up weapons.


It is best to teach before and not have to deal after

Yes, I agree, very early.


but you have to trust such individuals will initially be selfish and plan accordingly.

No reactionary person should be "planning accordingly" to hop on revolution at this point. This may not be the case for counter-revolutionaries looking to subvert the process. In ALL cases, reactionaries will be the last ones fighting, and they will choose a side. If they were not on our side from the moment we started destroying the old infrastructure (physically) they should not be on our side after. There should be no interest in the working class allowing reactionaries to hop on their bandwagon only ONCE they notice it's going faster than the capitalist one. And if they are indeed reactionary that is the only time when they will decide which side to take and if we are to win, they will be coming to our side. We can't stop someone from picking up a weapon and physically fighting off the capitalist system. What we can do from our earlier organization is ensure that those who are coming in to win are not ever in positions to gain power, ever, again.

[pandora]

I agree with 99% of what you said above. Education is the key. Someone who considers to put themselves first above others is not of use. I thank all my teachers who have had patience with me in the past I was a selfish prick, still am somewhat but working on it :lol: Trying to get educated here, bear with me :D


I was not saying that we should use these members because they are me first oriented, that would have to change. What I am saying as that does change, but it takes time. Do not drop new recruits prematurely because you find selfish characteristics, in this society that is a survival mechanism. Rather work to trust them slowly as they build to think of others first instead of themselves a kind word or gesture to let them know they are on the correct path is more than enough support.

This is not to say that individuals who act out of self interest, I certainly have made this mistake in the past, should not be punished. As we are learning we are making mistakes, this is part of the beauty of it, we are humbled by our mistakes.

This is one of the problems I have with a lot of religions is the whole intolerant sinner thing. Sorry we're human we're on the planet Earth, this ain't heaven, no body here is perfect :lol:

As we mature, if we have good models and study hard, and work for the benefit of others more and more we become of value to the community and help establish networks.

One "reactionary" street kid, reformed to be educated and patient towards others and not always think of themselves first and teach 10 more, because when you come out of the mindset you can relate to it better than someone who has not. Also you can see where some people are not ready, or need more time, etc. easier because you understand the levels of aggression in someone who is reactionary.

THere are many who find recruits who are reactionary to be "loose cannons" with love they can be reformed IF THEY ARE WILLING TO CHANGE! Also :lol: and I say this as a woman, one of the brain chemistry differences between males and females is that females have more of a tendency to be in touch with their emotions as well as their reason which can get them labelled as reactionary. But there are many women scientists and philosophers who do not fit this description so it is a tendency with estrogen nothing more, and not a fault, just a genetic difference. So you will see more emotion from some female recruits, however this does not excuse putting their concerns in front of others, and both sexes engage in this equally so set gender aside. There should be admonishment for this, but understanding.

I just reject what I perceived, all be it wrongly, as a tendency in your debate that could almost relate to the "Tragedy of the Commons" fallacy, with Communism being the commons. That's not to say that people do not need training, but sometimes the more troublesome recruits become great activists and learn great compassion that puts others first.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 12:23 PM
What does this term reactionary mean ?

It seems to be bounced around a lot, but i dont really know what it means to this site, can somone tell me please ?

Things have been a certain way for a long time now....almost forever!
There have been classes, and the UPPER class has always controlled everything.

So that is the way things are. Thats they way they've been! And the day the working people take control it is clearly a change....and the reactionaries react to the change.

[pandora]

I had a partially wrong definition, I thought reactionary simply meant someone who reacted without thought to new situations and that this encompassed those react to prevent change from the bougeouis as well as those who speak against others ideas without listerning all the way through, down to those in the "underclass" who react from a survivalist mentality, which I have definately been guilty of in the past.

For myself I always try to look at my own practice, and see where I have made mistakes towards trying to be less selfish and more considerate of others in the future. To me the antonym of reactionary would considerate, one who listens and considers others plights and reacts according to the wisdom of what is best for the group.

However such as with reversing the alienation of labor, I believe there can be that what is good for the individual and the group at the same time, without going against Marxist values, but rather with them.

[NovelGentry]

I had a partially wrong definition, I thought reactionary simply meant someone who reacted without thought to new situations and that this encompassed those react to prevent change from the bougeouis as well as those who speak against others ideas without listerning all the way through, down to those in the "underclass" who react from a survivalist mentality, which I have definately been guilty of in the past.

Your first part is right by me. My definition, as I said earlier, however, focuses on the reasons why, not simply what they are doing.


I thought reactionary simply meant someone who reacted without thought to new situations

This is what I consider to be the basic method to their madness.

What you have to take into account, however, is what Raisa said. Their reactions are built on society's current form. It is what programmed their reaction. "Take my land will you... give it back to the working class you say? BLAH!" It is a reactionary thought, based on the action occuring, however, it is built solely on the ideas of the old system. One which holds private property and peoples right to that property (even if by means of hiring wage slaves) above the equality for those who work that land.

They are intertwined, their simple "reaction" is a reaction which protects the old system which has created that mindset. "This is the way it is. No need to think of another way. No need to think outside the box." is their distinguishing thought from those who are revolutionary.

Where your definition deviates is in saying that they would, "those react to prevent change from the bougeouis as well." They would INDEED prevent change from the bourgeoisie, if it somehow infringed on the ways of the old system, but the old system is the bourgeoisie's system, so it's unlikely that they will change it, and thus unlikely that there would be any reaction to that desire to change.

As for "those in the "underclass" who react from a survivalist mentality." They too may be reactionary. Afterall we are instinctively programmed to act this way, it is a primary reaction to protect our own life above all other. But we know that people escape this, there are people willing to die for other individuals, willing to die for groups, and willing to die for entire classes. Thus, such an individual survivalist mentality may be a reactionary thought, but it is also what allows our material consciousness to exist, by realizing that without material sustainence, we are nothing.

What we must do beyond this is achieve class consciousness. Which will surpress individual survivalist mentality for the good of the class. After decades in a society where this is the prevelant method of thinking (socialism), one may hope that the new mentality can give way to communism as the old bourgeoisie disappears and all have become "working class" yet free of wage slavery, thus we are all working class, but no longer proletarian (As Engels would distinguish).

One class then is no class, for if there is no OTHER definitive class, there cannot be a single difinitive class. And thus, communism. It will by that time be our reaction to fight against change in opposition to the new system. And as someone said before, we may become reactionary. However, I'd like to think that such a grounded system would give light to new scientific enlightenment and reasoning surpasisng all other previous restrictive systems and thus allowing EVERYONE to think outside the box. Such a system would raise the awareness of people to such a great level that workers democracy would certainly be the only option.

What would be the system to move on to? That I cannot say, I cannot even be sure there would be a system to move on to. Only to move in reverse. To those that wish to institute a new system, or an old system in opposition to the current system of that time, we certainly may seem reactionary... and I would hope we would be. I would hope we would be more than reactionary, but counter-revolutionary if indeed the system was a regression in human evolution.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 08:49 AM


Where your definition deviates is in saying that they would, "those react to prevent change from the bougeouis as well." They would INDEED prevent change from the bourgeoisie, if it somehow infringed on the ways of the old system, but the old system is the bourgeoisie's system, so it's unlikely that they will change it, and thus unlikely that there would be any reaction to that desire to change.

Sorry I miswrote, time to count the chickens :lol:

I meant to say the Bougeouis prevent change to the status quo.

I look forward to a time without class when each has their daily work for the community and greater society and then goes home and lays in a hammock.

I think often of the Taino culture where they worked gathering and their gardens and fished and put the fish and ducks in small ponds outside the house, did some crafts and spent the rest of the day laying in hammocks with very little clothing or having fiesta. Sounds wonderful! Why continue the crappy legislative model of Europe into the future, perhaps council could be more like the Potlatch of the Pacific Northwestern tribes, or the Iroquios councils. I really would like to get more information on how Marx looked at tribal societies as possible models, does anyone know some good sources?

Of course the only problem with the Potlatch is it was one of the few that denoted wealth, one of the reasons it is so talked of in our culture, and one of the only tribal traditions honored by current government.
Also the Cherokee advocated owning slaves, and their was some dishonorable treatment of hostages from other tribes, but sometimes they were accepted.

Some of these forms lasted aeons without major changes until the White man came, though and that should be considered. One thing that often happened was tribal councils were and are inhabited by elders. In the past this was all the old people. The only problem is that elders tend to be more reactionary to change. But if the society is sustainable maybe that is less important, but still there could renovation. Young blood is sometimes important to intiate new ideas and justice.

Also the idea of a Shaman, a wacked out person who had understandings the rest of the tribe did not and had outside power is interesting. Points to the idea of a council but then an outside influence to stabilize for harmony.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Yes, he did, but I'm not so sure that makes them any less of the "dangerous class." And unlike Marx we have places like the USSR to realize just how dangerous reactionary thinking can be post-revolution. The last thing we should aim to do is to appeal to reactionary forces and then deal with their remaining desire for a more backwards system later.

I wasn't talking about making this an aim for the movement, but the point I was trying to make is that we have to be aware of the risk of reactionary forces joining the movement and thus be able to adopt a strategy to keep these forces under control.



I agree with your statement about the peasant members not so much existing anymore, however, we still must account for all reactionaries. And like I said, I have little doubt these people will "join" the mass workers movement, in fact, I think they will and I think it will be inevitable once they realize it may win, but I do not consider them any less reactionary simply for joining a movement ot serve their own INDIVIDUAL interest. I think this is something Marx is pointing out when he says they join to serve their future interests, regardless of timing, it is within their individual interests, not within the interest of a class.


Actually I was talking about the entire middle class (read the words between brackets as well) which is becoming smaller and smaller. I don't consider reactionary forces any less reactionary as well when they're in the movement in comparison as when they're out of the movement. So there's no disagreement here either.


And this is of course our fundamental disagreement. Let me first note that you say "it can be the fact they actually have become a member of the working class." -- This may be so, but otherwise can not ensure class consciousness, and depending on where capitalisms current status is as well as how long they've been that "working class," it may not even assure material consciousness.
Most workers of the advanced capitalist countries don't have this now, and as capitalism grows to make third world nations a consumer market as well as a producer market (as it has done with China in it's recent years) you will see this melt away from others. I do tend to think capitalism as a whole has a longer ways to go (well maybe not a whole lot). If we were all stuck with this revolutionary consciousness it'd be damned by tomorrow.

But here we must realize the peasants, too, and even a small portion of the working class are part of this "dangerous class." If you realize the ability for reactionaries to become revolutionary (and I agree there is that possibility, and it may even happen with a decent proportion), then you must realize that some workers will remain reactionary. No matter how hard you try, revolutionary consciousness will not be spurred amongst all the individuals of an entire class, however, with the majority of the class itself, as Marx points out the working class is the only "truly revolutionary" class. I think it's important to point out that he says "truly" here -- which to me shows something about his recognition of these reactionary self-interests in other classes which may cause people to jump for revolution.


We don't have that big a disagreement on this point: off course class consciousness is an aspect that can be lacking when former members of the middle class haven't been a member of the working class for long.

But on the other hand it may not, since class consciousness is, as you have said, also lacking by the majority of - what revolutionary socialists look upon as - the working class. This class consciousness can develop itself rapidly when capitalism makes a quick dive into the stage of "Verelendung".



What is it exactly that makes you think Marx didn't think all reactionaries were of this nature?

This is not exactly what I've said. I've said that there's a possibility that reactionaries will join the revolutionary movement and that some of them, which have seen the true nature of capitalism, will change from reactionary thought into revolutionary thought.

[NovelGentry]

Sorry for the late response my internet connection has been down for days


but the point I was trying to make is that we have to be aware of the risk of reactionary forces joining the movement and thus be able to adopt a strategy to keep these forces under control.

Indeed, and the strategy I propose is DO NOT APPEAL TO THEM & DO NOT ACCEPT THEM.


I don't consider reactionary forces any less reactionary as well when they're in the movement in comparison as when they're out of the movement. So there's no disagreement here either.

Good, but they can be more dangerous -- if for no other reason that they can subvert the movement from within.


But on the other hand it may not, since class consciousness is, as you have said, also lacking by the majority of - what revolutionary socialists look upon as - the working class. This class consciousness can develop itself rapidly when capitalism makes a quick dive into the stage of "Verelendung".

As I think you have pointed out here, material consciousness seems very much a pretense for class consciousness. That is, we must all be "down in the shitter" to realize it's all of us down there, and not just a few of us. What I question, however, is whether people are realizing they're down there, or whether they're realizing the are down there. I think it's a lot easier for workers to be in a position to say "We're getting fucked" than it is for the petty bourgeoisie, who will see it as nothing to blame but themselves. If they lose their property (business, stocks, whatever) they might account that to personal failure. "I didn't play the stocks right" or "I should have tried to run the business more efficiently" etc.

When you've lost your job from what is clearly no one's fault but the capitalists who hired you. Or you've taken a massive paycut cause they can find cheaper labor, and you've done so just to keep your job so you can put food on the table... you can always credit this to the true eneemy (when the right time has come). Of course now much of this is credited to the other worker -- that is, it is the workers fault for wanting to work less, not the capitalists fault for wanting to hire people for less. Once we're all stuck in that rotation, realizing it's no longer workers in India but our old friend Bill deciding to work for less simply becuase he NEEDS the money, then the true opposition will be apparent.

Material consciousness is one part realization of your own material condition, and one part realization of what's causing it. Workers will be able to obtain both it would seem long before any other possibly pseudo-revolutionary class. And if they do, revolution cannot be so far off as to necessarily give those other classes time to "realize." It really depends a lot on which point these people fall into the working class, some it would seem will fall into the working class by their own decision as a personal decision.

Is it possible these people can develop class consciousness so rapidly? Yes. However, I don't think it would be likely to be widespread across the majority of people coming down in ranks. Their alienation from it has been too grand for too long.


his is not exactly what I've said. I've said that there's a possibility that reactionaries will join the revolutionary movement and that some of them, which have seen the true nature of capitalism, will change from reactionary thought into revolutionary thought.

I think it was a misunderstanding then. What threw me was this simple statement.


And I would say that there's one big disagreement between us and that is that you think that Marx would have meant to use these terms towards all reactionaries:

The answer is... yes, I do think he would have used those terms towards all reactionaries. What you are clarifying now is when these reactionaries truly become revolutionary, something I'm not denying is possible. But at that point they are no longer reactionary, and thus I'm not sure Marx's statement applies. As it stands I think Marx would have EXTREMELY virulant words for all reactionaries, including those in the working class. This may seem strange, but as I'm sure you well know it is frustrating to see so many people lack the simple consciousness to make them revolutionary. We try to educate and inform... but we do so in the hope that people become revolutionary. It would seem from the context of Marx's quote that he is referring to the point where revolution is at the brink, or fruther. At that point, if you're not revolutionary (worker or non-worker) you're not my comrade.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Sorry for the late response my internet connection has been down for days


but the point I was trying to make is that we have to be aware of the risk of reactionary forces joining the movement and thus be able to adopt a strategy to keep these forces under control.

Indeed, and the strategy I propose is DO NOT APPEAL TO THEM & DO NOT ACCEPT THEM.

I won't actively appeal to them but if they decide to join the worker's movement on the fact that they have realised the failure of capitalism I won't deny them.



I don't consider reactionary forces any less reactionary as well when they're in the movement in comparison as when they're out of the movement. So there's no disagreement here either.

Good, but they can be more dangerous -- if for no other reason that they can subvert the movement from within.

Maybe, but that's something we have to control at that point. Stubborn reactionary forces will eventually try to disturb the revolutionary process and that's when they will be dealt with, if not before when noticing that they are still as reactionary as before and that they want to betray the socialist workers' movement.



But on the other hand it may not, since class consciousness is, as you have said, also lacking by the majority of - what revolutionary socialists look upon as - the working class. This class consciousness can develop itself rapidly when capitalism makes a quick dive into the stage of "Verelendung".

As I think you have pointed out here, material consciousness seems very much a pretense for class consciousness. That is, we must all be "down in the shitter" to realize it's all of us down there, and not just a few of us. What I question, however, is whether people are realizing they're down there, or whether they're realizing the are down there. I think it's a lot easier for workers to be in a position to say "We're getting fucked" than it is for the petty bourgeoisie, who will see it as nothing to blame but themselves. If they lose their property (business, stocks, whatever) they might account that to personal failure. "I didn't play the stocks right" or "I should have tried to run the business more efficiently" etc.

When you've lost your job from what is clearly no one's fault but the capitalists who hired you. Or you've taken a massive paycut cause they can find cheaper labor, and you've done so just to keep your job so you can put food on the table... you can always credit this to the true eneemy (when the right time has come). Of course now much of this is credited to the other worker -- that is, it is the workers fault for wanting to work less, not the capitalists fault for wanting to hire people for less. Once we're all stuck in that rotation, realizing it's no longer workers in India but our old friend Bill deciding to work for less simply becuase he NEEDS the money, then the true opposition will be apparent.

Material consciousness is one part realization of your own material condition, and one part realization of what's causing it. Workers will be able to obtain both it would seem long before any other possibly pseudo-revolutionary class. And if they do, revolution cannot be so far off as to necessarily give those other classes time to "realize." It really depends a lot on which point these people fall into the working class, some it would seem will fall into the working class by their own decision as a personal decision.

Is it possible these people can develop class consciousness so rapidly? Yes. However, I don't think it would be likely to be widespread across the majority of people coming down in ranks. Their alienation from it has been too grand for too long.


Off course the working class is the most revolutionary class, but apart from the fact that in the future some middle class people may drop to the working class (as Marx envisioned), some members of the middle class can also be drawn to the revolutionary movement on the basis of dissapointment in capitalism.

The movement however has to make sure that the latter group of people can be trusted and deal with them accordingly if they turn out to be dishonest.



This is not exactly what I've said. I've said that there's a possibility that reactionaries will join the revolutionary movement and that some of them, which have seen the true nature of capitalism, will change from reactionary thought into revolutionary thought.

I think it was a misunderstanding then. What threw me was this simple statement.


And I would say that there's one big disagreement between us and that is that you think that Marx would have meant to use these terms towards all reactionaries:

The answer is... yes, I do think he would have used those terms towards all reactionaries. What you are clarifying now is when these reactionaries truly become revolutionary, something I'm not denying is possible. But at that point they are no longer reactionary, and thus I'm not sure Marx's statement applies. As it stands I think Marx would have EXTREMELY virulant words for all reactionaries, including those in the working class. This may seem strange, but as I'm sure you well know it is frustrating to see so many people lack the simple consciousness to make them revolutionary. We try to educate and inform... but we do so in the hope that people become revolutionary. It would seem from the context of Marx's quote that he is referring to the point where revolution is at the brink, or fruther. At that point, if you're not revolutionary (worker or non-worker) you're not my comrade.

I would not say Marx was speaking about all reactionaries at that time, but only the reactionaries who are indefinitely reactionary. Since Marx realised, and we both agree on this, than reactionary people can become revolutionary, he would be cautious enough not to generalise all reactionaries.

In the case of a period where the revolution is at the brink, you're absolutely right in your statement. The same goes for me: we can't wait indefinitely for all people to turn into revolutionaries, but I don't think that this was the context in which Marx was making this statement.

[NovelGentry]

I won't actively appeal to them but if they decide to join the worker's movement on the fact that they have realised the failure of capitalism I won't deny them.

This will only create problems later.


Maybe, but that's something we have to control at that point. Stubborn reactionary forces will eventually try to disturb the revolutionary process and that's when they will be dealt with, if not before when noticing that they are still as reactionary as before and that they want to betray the socialist workers' movement.

Just like Stalin had control. He dealth with those reactionaries damn hard. And even after all the killing the most threatening reactionaries ended up being those in the government who came to power after him. Surely a decentralized state, helps to prevent this. They would have to have a lot of reactionaries in order to influence any change (as they would need a majority), however, there's no reason to let it get this far. Whether you like to think so or not, their influence will be felt early, and no matter how strong your socialist state may be, they will get to it where it's most vulnerable.


Off course the working class is the most revolutionary class, but apart from the fact that in the future some middle class people may drop to the working class (as Marx envisioned), some members of the middle class can also be drawn to the revolutionary movement on the basis of dissapointment in capitalism.

Yes, but as I said, the middle class now is a pseudo-class. Marx's middle class was specifically those in the middle; between the workers and the bourgeoisie which still were part of another more defined class such as the petty bourgeoisie. Middle class now refers only to a wealth status.

So if indeed you are talking about the petty bourgeoisie, yes, many of these people will drop down, simply because at some point the capitalists "won't have it." Being drawn to the revolutionary movement on dissapointment is all well and good, but that does not modify any of their reactionary ideals. Specifically those that appeal to the possibilities of individual power or those that represent any control over action. This is why I'm opposed to the idea that it's beneficial to create parties/unions. Even if they are completely democratic, there is still a "party-line" or a command to strike. Those who decide that party-line wield power. Get enough reactionaries in a party and you're done.


The movement however has to make sure that the latter group of people can be trusted and deal with them accordingly if they turn out to be dishonest.

Go see our communist psychologist, he'll tell you if you're really reactionary or not. There's no such means to do this with any valid reasoning. Some people are very good at hiding reactionary thoughts, being conscious of them. They may even actively fight to extinguish this part of them, but it doesn't change that they have them. Nor does it change the possible outcome if they act on them. There is a simpler and still justified way, exclude them from the movement. It seems to me those who wish to appeal to reactionaries are always those with the least amount of faith in the working class... that we'll "never be able to get enough revolutionary mindsets." These people seem to be the same pushers of leninist vanguards mass party building schemes etc. To them, numbers are power, and that's all that matters you can always "deal with the problems later."

I don't think we're going to have any problem with numbers when the time comes. A huge majority of the working class will be pushed into this and will maintain extremely revolutionary thinking (if we're doing our "job" right anyway).


I would not say Marx was speaking about all reactionaries at that time, but only the reactionaries who are indefinitely reactionary. Since Marx realised, and we both agree on this, than reactionary people can become revolutionary, he would be cautious enough not to generalise all reactionaries.

I don't see why it can't relate to all reactionaries. All reactionaries are those who are reactionary... if you become revolutionary, maybe his view of you simply changed? Like I said, given the form of it I took it as those who maintain reactionary ideals amongst a physical manifestation of the revolutionary movement. Those who have lagged behind in the mental revolutionary process. And this is what Marx means, I would agree with this outlook, probably why I would exclude them from the movement at such a point if it were up to me.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be talking to reactionaries now and realizing that reactionaries can become revolutionary. We have to be, the majority of first world nations working classes is reactionary. But much of this will come in time when capitalism makes it's true nature more clear. At this point our "education tactics" might seem easy. Those remaining reactionary after this, once there is a physical manifestation... they have had their chance. They've seen what capitalism does, they've heard what we had to say, and yet they're still holding on to so much from the old system. Can we stop them from picking up a gun and fighting on our side? No. But we can make clear the difference between those who have been "with us all the time" and those who have not. Putting those who have not into organizational roles is a poor choice, and to prevent that but maintaining rights to the revolutionary workers, we have to deny them votes.

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 06:56 PM
I'm not saying we shouldn't be talking to reactionaries now and realizing that reactionaries can become revolutionary. We have to be, the majority of first world nations working classes is reactionary. But much of this will come in time when capitalism makes it's true nature more clear. At this point our "education tactics" might seem easy. Those remaining reactionary after this, once there is a physical manifestation... they have had their chance. They've seen what capitalism does, they've heard what we had to say, and yet they're still holding on to so much from the old system. Can we stop them from picking up a gun and fighting on our side? No. But we can make clear the difference between those who have been "with us all the time" and those who have not. Putting those who have not into organizational roles is a poor choice, and to prevent that but maintaining rights to the revolutionary workers, we have to deny them votes.
And this is the most important conclusion you have made so far (one is was hoping for and I knew from your way of thinking I would come soon :) ) and one you and I agree completely.

This is also the way in which I expect that Marx was thinking when he said the words that you quoted earlier about his view on reactionaries (he was looking forwards into the future and expecting that a certain, probably large, part of the reactionaries who stay this way and those are the ones which will be excluded).

[NovelGentry]

This is also the way in which I expect that Marx was thinking when he said the words that you quoted earlier about his view on reactionaries (he was looking forwards into the future and expecting that a certain, probably large, part of the reactionaries who stay this way and those are the ones which will be excluded).

Indeed, but that's not to say he doesn't feel that way about all reactionaries, current and future. I fully believe he does, but as we do, he expects that many of the current reactionaries will "give this up" as they are shed from the capitalist system and from labor aristocracy.