Is leftism intrinsically reactionary ?

[VonClausewitz]

I picked this one up in one of my lectures. My head lecturer for my history modules is a bit of a red, but can debate from either viewpoint rather effectively, and this is one of the questions he posed us today. Got a lot of intelligent thoughts flowing.

One example was that a lot of what is thought to be radicalism is really reactionary;

Chartism in the 1830's/1840's; wanted to change society for the 'better', but also wanted to stall a lot of the progess being made by the industrial revolution, wanted to keep things back to more of their post-feudal state. In essence, was a reaction against social and economic progress being made at the time.

Devolutionaries (More of a liberal thing I know, but it's a good example) in modern British government - Want Wales and Scotland to be 'freed' and given independance, thus destroying several hundred years of centralised governmental development that hasn't been particularly bad for anyone, once the in-built discriminations were moslty sorted out. They want the British Isles to return to pre-13th century status - everyone divided and [struggling to] maintain their own economies.

Any serious thoughts on this idea ? It was fun to discuss with politically minded students, and I think it could be rather more intelligent here. (If we can keep moronic sloganeers out of it of course).

[Tungsten]

The word "reactionary" as leftists often use it isn't so much a valid description of someone's elses views, but a politically correct ad hominem that doesn't quite add up. It's an attempt to assert some kind of groundless moral/ideological superiority by implying that anything "new" is intrinsically "good" and ought to be embraced without question (whether communism does genuinely bring something "new" to the table is something else entirely) and that anything perceieved to be "old" is automatically "bad". The absurdity of that position should not need explaining. But what if the status quo was communism? Aren't those who want to maintain it against opposition be "reactionaries"?

It's using words without any valid reference to what they actually mean. In other words, it's a dialect of newspeak.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Tungsten+--> (Tungsten)The word "reactionary" as leftists often use it isn't so much a valid description of someone's elses views, but a politically correct ad hominem that doesn't quite add up.[/b]

You are perhaps right about this one. For the (far) left the word "reactionary" is an insult which is often directed at a particularly odious opponent....

"Margaret Thatcher is a reactionary etc. etc."

I suppose the equivalent of the term "reactionary" on the "right" is to call someone a "red" or a "dirty commie".

Needless to say, as an insult, the word will only affect those who are doing the insulting. If someone called me a "red" or a "dirty commie", I doubt I would be offended. The same way if you were called a "reactionary", you'd probably ignore it.

However, as a real "political term" it is probably very complicated to work out....


Originally posted by VonClausewitz+--> (VonClausewitz)Chartism in the 1830's/1840's; wanted to change society for the 'better', but also wanted to stall a lot of the progess being made by the industrial revolution, wanted to keep things back to more of their post-feudal state.[/b]

This is, at "face value", a reasonable argument. However the Chartists weren't (in essence) a "radical" group the way the members of this forum are (quite a few Chartists went on to serve in the Liberal Governments of that era).

However, of course what we also have top look at is the whole of the "Chartist argument" before we could judge whether they were "reactionaries" and in general, their demands were pretty progressive.


[email protected]
thus destroying several hundred years of centralised governmental development that hasn't been particularly bad for anyone

Hasn't been "particularly bad for anyone". Scotland could have been incredibly wealthy as a country and Wales has been turned into complete shit-hole since the coal and industry went.

If you've ever been to the "Valleys" you'd have a rather different idea of how "good" that centralisation was.


VonClausewitz
They want the British Isles to return to pre-13th century status - everyone divided and [struggling to] maintain their own economies.

Well not "everyone", just Scotland and Wales. I have a feeling that the only reason the "establishment" has embraced "devolution" is that it's making a loss in both Wales and Scotland.

They've taken the coal, now they're fucking off. How charming.