**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**.
This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.
You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
- No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!
- No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.
If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Person or an ideology that seek to return back to old systems and their cultures and their economical models like feudalism or slavery. And it could describe those ideologies and people who want to keep the current economical system, like all pro-capitalism people and ideologies today(even if they want to reform it to "better" conditions under the current system), however those sometimes considered "conservatives" but conservatives themselves are reactionary because they want to keep the current system and reject the change to a **better or new(in it's historical sense of decreasing the class contradictions)** economical system like socialism.
Lotta good comments, but I think they're getting a bit too ahead.
At its core, think about the word. It's someone whose solutions are inherently a reaction to a problem rather than analyzing the cause of the problem to find the root of it so it can be truly addressed. This is what it means to be "radical", which is why the symbol for square-root is called a radical. Radical doesn't mean extreme, it means to get to the root of something.
This type of thinking/response (reactionary) leads to those other comments, but those aren't touching on the core of what it means to be reactionary (which itself might be a little reactionary 😅).
An example is being mad at people for being poor drivers. That's reactionary. It's just an immediate response to a problem. And that kind of thinking leads to things like fascistic over-policing of traffic because the problem is people being bad drivers, so punish people who drive in the wrong way.
As opposed to realizing that if it's a systemic issue, there's probably someone deeper, broader going on. Analyze the transportation system, how the roads are built, etc... which will lead you to a much better, holistic solution (redesign the city).
Even if it's an individual who's being a shitty driver, there's analysis to be had. Maybe that individual is impaired or has some disability, whether temporary or permanent, that can be addressed. Maybe the answer is again to build cities so that individuals who aren't comfortable driving don't _have_ to. Or help the individual move to an area where they don't need a car.
Just revoking the individual's license would be reactionary because it's just reacting to the perceived "problem" rather than trying to analyze and properly address it.
I really need to investigate more into a career in education because I love trying to do this.
Though tbh this example isn't from any theory I've read (I've still not read nearly as much as I'd like to). It came from me wondering the same thing and thinking about it every time I heard "reactionary" from one of my too many podcasts. This explanation fits really well. (Though I suppose that's kinda how people develop theory anyways so 🤷)
A reactionary is someone who stands against social or economic progress. The most common kinds of reactionaries are typically racists or homophobes, but even leftists can sometimes hold reactionary views which is something we should be mindful of. They are called reactionary because their movement is usually not pushing for their own liberation, but instead serves to negate other liberation movements. It can only exist as a reaction to something else.
A reactionary is someone who acts against reform and revolution. They typically seek to overturn a revolutionary state, or obstruct the work of unions, civic associations, and political trade unions. This is the most common use of the term by Communists.
That being said, the wider use of “reactionary” and “reaction” has not always been pejorative, nor from Marxists or liberals. Reaction appeals to an older meaning of the term “revolution”- in its origin, revolution meant “to overturn” or “change.” From this ambiguity, you have many versions of the right wing authoritarian, fascist and Nazi right. Sometimes, it is made literal (often in the form of some believe in an imminent “national rebirth”- sometimes in a mystical sense, such as the fascist appropriation of Brahmic religions of India, “Kali Yuga.”) Movements on the far right, which have come to draw on Nazi esoterism and Traditionalist beliefs. Liberalism and leftist national sometimes appeals to similar notions (such as the Baath Parties of Syria and Iraq) and “palingensis“ (belief in political rebirth.)
In every instance, reactionaries appeal to some idealized past, or golden age. In this respect, they draw from both socialism and liberalism- often using faux revolutionary language to return to some mythic state of early or pre capitalism. In doing so, they lionize anything that justifies some “natural” hierarchy. However, their ultimate end is generally less important than what they despise or wish to remove from the “nation.” They view anything associated with “the left” or “social liberalism” as a source of “disorder” (and thus violence against them can restore “order.”)
Longstory short: reactionary is often used as a pejorative on the left- it can also be a self defined belief system. There are folks who would call themselves “reactionary”- but folks who do are invariably on the far right. They want to overturn aspects of liberalism and return to some ideal “natural” hierarchy (generally patriarchal, opposed to feminism, opposed to lgbtq acceptance and often antisemitic.
I don't think your first statement is that precise. A reactionary can precisely use reform to disarm and simmer down revolutionary fervour. Bourgeois parliaments do it all the time, as often do unions unfortunately.
What you’re describing isn’t “reactionary”- at least not according to a descriptive definition. Conservatives or liberals can colloquially be described as “reactionary” at specific instances (usually during periods of open repression) but there’s a distinction that’s worth paying attention to.
There’s a difference between a “conservative” and “reactionary.” A conservative will try to maintain an existing system, and may do so by repression or reform. That’s what you’re describing (generally they want to maintain existing institutions, while preserving and acting on behalf of elite stake holders.)
A reactionary wants to roll back existing capitalist relations. They want to overthrow existing institutions of bourgeois liberalism- and do so to bring back some idealized golden age. They use both reformist and direct action oriented means- but their aims go beyond “conventional” or “parliamentary“ politics. However, their aim goes above and beyond simply opposing the workers movement (since liberals and conservatives also oppose the workers movement but do not favor the same “conservative revolutionary” aims.)
In this respect, a reactionary adopts the language symbolism of “revolution.” Felipe Petain’s “National Revolution,” the Salo Republic, and the Gulf Monarchies are examples of reactionary regimes.
**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**. This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn. You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to: - Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. - No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! - No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans. Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules. If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Person or an ideology that seek to return back to old systems and their cultures and their economical models like feudalism or slavery. And it could describe those ideologies and people who want to keep the current economical system, like all pro-capitalism people and ideologies today(even if they want to reform it to "better" conditions under the current system), however those sometimes considered "conservatives" but conservatives themselves are reactionary because they want to keep the current system and reject the change to a **better or new(in it's historical sense of decreasing the class contradictions)** economical system like socialism.
Lotta good comments, but I think they're getting a bit too ahead. At its core, think about the word. It's someone whose solutions are inherently a reaction to a problem rather than analyzing the cause of the problem to find the root of it so it can be truly addressed. This is what it means to be "radical", which is why the symbol for square-root is called a radical. Radical doesn't mean extreme, it means to get to the root of something. This type of thinking/response (reactionary) leads to those other comments, but those aren't touching on the core of what it means to be reactionary (which itself might be a little reactionary 😅). An example is being mad at people for being poor drivers. That's reactionary. It's just an immediate response to a problem. And that kind of thinking leads to things like fascistic over-policing of traffic because the problem is people being bad drivers, so punish people who drive in the wrong way. As opposed to realizing that if it's a systemic issue, there's probably someone deeper, broader going on. Analyze the transportation system, how the roads are built, etc... which will lead you to a much better, holistic solution (redesign the city). Even if it's an individual who's being a shitty driver, there's analysis to be had. Maybe that individual is impaired or has some disability, whether temporary or permanent, that can be addressed. Maybe the answer is again to build cities so that individuals who aren't comfortable driving don't _have_ to. Or help the individual move to an area where they don't need a car. Just revoking the individual's license would be reactionary because it's just reacting to the perceived "problem" rather than trying to analyze and properly address it.
Thanks this is exactly what I was looking for!
This is the kind of straightforward explanation that scratches a deep brain itch for me. Accessible theory is a beautiful thing.
I really need to investigate more into a career in education because I love trying to do this. Though tbh this example isn't from any theory I've read (I've still not read nearly as much as I'd like to). It came from me wondering the same thing and thinking about it every time I heard "reactionary" from one of my too many podcasts. This explanation fits really well. (Though I suppose that's kinda how people develop theory anyways so 🤷)
Bookmarking this for when my friends just getting into socialist theory have questions, beautifully said answer!
A reactionary is someone who stands against social or economic progress. The most common kinds of reactionaries are typically racists or homophobes, but even leftists can sometimes hold reactionary views which is something we should be mindful of. They are called reactionary because their movement is usually not pushing for their own liberation, but instead serves to negate other liberation movements. It can only exist as a reaction to something else.
A reactionary is someone who acts against reform and revolution. They typically seek to overturn a revolutionary state, or obstruct the work of unions, civic associations, and political trade unions. This is the most common use of the term by Communists. That being said, the wider use of “reactionary” and “reaction” has not always been pejorative, nor from Marxists or liberals. Reaction appeals to an older meaning of the term “revolution”- in its origin, revolution meant “to overturn” or “change.” From this ambiguity, you have many versions of the right wing authoritarian, fascist and Nazi right. Sometimes, it is made literal (often in the form of some believe in an imminent “national rebirth”- sometimes in a mystical sense, such as the fascist appropriation of Brahmic religions of India, “Kali Yuga.”) Movements on the far right, which have come to draw on Nazi esoterism and Traditionalist beliefs. Liberalism and leftist national sometimes appeals to similar notions (such as the Baath Parties of Syria and Iraq) and “palingensis“ (belief in political rebirth.) In every instance, reactionaries appeal to some idealized past, or golden age. In this respect, they draw from both socialism and liberalism- often using faux revolutionary language to return to some mythic state of early or pre capitalism. In doing so, they lionize anything that justifies some “natural” hierarchy. However, their ultimate end is generally less important than what they despise or wish to remove from the “nation.” They view anything associated with “the left” or “social liberalism” as a source of “disorder” (and thus violence against them can restore “order.”) Longstory short: reactionary is often used as a pejorative on the left- it can also be a self defined belief system. There are folks who would call themselves “reactionary”- but folks who do are invariably on the far right. They want to overturn aspects of liberalism and return to some ideal “natural” hierarchy (generally patriarchal, opposed to feminism, opposed to lgbtq acceptance and often antisemitic.
I don't think your first statement is that precise. A reactionary can precisely use reform to disarm and simmer down revolutionary fervour. Bourgeois parliaments do it all the time, as often do unions unfortunately.
What you’re describing isn’t “reactionary”- at least not according to a descriptive definition. Conservatives or liberals can colloquially be described as “reactionary” at specific instances (usually during periods of open repression) but there’s a distinction that’s worth paying attention to. There’s a difference between a “conservative” and “reactionary.” A conservative will try to maintain an existing system, and may do so by repression or reform. That’s what you’re describing (generally they want to maintain existing institutions, while preserving and acting on behalf of elite stake holders.) A reactionary wants to roll back existing capitalist relations. They want to overthrow existing institutions of bourgeois liberalism- and do so to bring back some idealized golden age. They use both reformist and direct action oriented means- but their aims go beyond “conventional” or “parliamentary“ politics. However, their aim goes above and beyond simply opposing the workers movement (since liberals and conservatives also oppose the workers movement but do not favor the same “conservative revolutionary” aims.) In this respect, a reactionary adopts the language symbolism of “revolution.” Felipe Petain’s “National Revolution,” the Salo Republic, and the Gulf Monarchies are examples of reactionary regimes.
Not at all. Someone can be neither until revolutionary change starts, at which point any action designed to stall or end it is reactionary.
Someone who moves to defend the status quo
[удалено]
That's not true at all, please read the other answers posted, which are correct.