Talk:Reactionary

Archives

• Talk:Reactionary/ archive 1
• Talk:Reactionary/ archive 2
• Talk:Reactionary/List of Discrepancies

Stray Comment

"Reactionary" is very commonly used incorrectly in the U.S. to mean "reactive." For example, I often hear sentences like, "So what if he hasn't called you in three days? Don't be so reactionary." It seems to me the article should address this, but I am no expert in editing, so please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.66.119 (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Nazism/Revolutionary not Reactionary This is the reasons why the word 'reactionary' needs to be removed from the Nazism article.WHEELER 16:18, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Textbook

The Magruder's highschool American Government textbook uses the label as the "far right" position, described as "favor[ing] extreme change to restore society to an earlier, more conservative state". Not sure what else to say about that...

Recent edits

I'm wondering about a few (semi-)recent edits.

• [1] removed "as well as being based in a desire to not only halt progressive change but to reverse it." This may have been ill-placed (too associated with "opprobrium"), but I think it is basically on the mark and should be stated somewhere.
• [2] changed "In the 19th century this term was used…" to "In the 17-19th century this term was used…" I doubt that the term was used at all in the 17th century; I'd be very surprised if it originates before the late 18th in any language. Having been wondering about this, I looked it up in the OED Online, which my local library nicely makes available. Their earliest citation is "1840 J. S. MILL in London & Westm. Rev. Mar. 276 The philosophers of the reactionary school—of the school to which Coleridge belongs." For etymology, they say "[f. REACTION (chiefly in sense 4) + -ARY1. Cf. F. réactionnaire (19th c.).] " I am reverting this edit, and will cite the OED for early use date. - Jmabel | Talk 01:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

US Republican Party of the Late 20th & Century Early 21st Century

I believe this is a relatively unexplored topic, and possibly borders on original research. I find it is pertinent in any case. It strikes me that many of the issues of the modern day GOP have drifted away from truly conservative values into the scope of this article. Is there any consensus here? I'm talking about the Republican Party of the United States of America. --VictorC (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is is OR and also not quite NPOV. I am also wondering how you can drift from being conservative to being reactionary. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. This may soon become a pertinent topic whether we like it or not, due to the clamor over more and more prominent Republicans showing disdain for the direction of the GOP leadership's positions. I'm not just talking about Colin Powell and Christopher Buckley, but pockets of people all over the nation in recent times diverging from the "party line" who are calling themselves "Goldwater Republicans," "Eisenhower Republicans," etc.. Both Pat Buchanan and John Dean have been saying these things in the media for around a decade or more, that the GOP leadership isn't truly representative of a conservative position on the major issues that concern the United States. This isn't POV, it's really just what's been happening, and with Colin Powell's recent revelation on last weekend's 'Meet the Press' this has become an issue that is blatantly and embarrassingly visible. --VictorC (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

But that doesn't form any basis for the label "reactionary" unless it is used as a four letter word. It is relevant in an article on the party mentioned but not here. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In our reality and context, Conservatism means for the status quo. Reactionary (of which the Neocons are Statist Reactionaries) are for not the status quo, but instead for a great inequal distribution of wealth. I.E. taxes on the upper class being lowered.

This becomes all the more complicated with the variances of terms throughout history. Libertarianism started as Anarchism, they were synonyms. Liberalism started as Libertarian. Liberalism was against the government as a power structure stopping human development before the rise of Corporate power. There was only one power, and they were against that power. Liberalism then changed with the rise of Corporate power.

Liberalism was against Power, which in this case there was one. Once there was two, it split. The original group was against Corporate and Government power. The second group (which is what we'd now consider Liberalism) said, Okay, Government power is bad, and Corporate power is good. We are liberals.

Later on, Liberals changed their name to Libertarians. So to repeat. Libertarian -> Liberalism -> Libertarian. Except the First one has nothing to do with the third. Libertarianism = Liberalism. Then Liberalism's meaning changed because of a new introduction of power. Thus Liberalism 1.0 = Libertarianism 1.0 and Liberalism 2.0 = Libertarianism 2.0 But 1.0 does not equal 2.0.

Then there is the statist non-statist split. There's State Capitalism, and State socialism in the Statist camp, and Libertarianism 1.0 and Libertarianism 2.0 in the non-statist camp.

You could also call Libertarianism 1.0 Non-state socialism, and Libertarianism 2.0 as non-state capitalism.

So as you can see, the naming conventions lead to confusion based on the propaganda of it all, but what is a really complicated discussion is actually a fairly simple one.

Libertarianism 2.0 = Ron Paul. Statist Reactionary = George Bush. Obama = Statist Conservative (I know that sounds odd, but it's true, and you can read foreign affairs or the Council on Foreign Relations for references.) Progressive (someone who believes you can reform to change) = Ralph Nader. The most Libertarian 1.0 was probably Mike Gravel. Libertarian 1.0 could also be replaced with Radical in this case. Radical, and Progressive being 2 segments of the left, which are not reactionaries (wanting greater inequality), but instead want greater equality, which does not, and has not existed (and thus, is not reactionary).

If you remove the propaganda from the issue and stick to the textbook history it clears up a lot. Bush isn't a conservative. He did not want the status quo, he instead wanted a greater inequality of wealth.

There are some other splits which are meaningful, but I think I've said enough. The other splits involve Collective property, but are not relevant to this current discussion, so I'll leave that alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.191.242 (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

As long as wikipedia stays neutral conservativism and reaction should not be accused of being an opposition to progress. Both conserv. and reaction(historical as well as contemporary) have a different opinion on what is and what isn't progress. From the reactionary point of view royalists during the french revolution were not blocking progress but were preventing degeneration.

Isidoros47 (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"Backwards"

Well, in a lot of countries, it is used by the ruling powers to describe any old dissent, even when teh opposition is considered to be more liberal, ie communist countries. Although I know a lot of people who just use it against left-wing agitators YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Reactionany" Euroscepticism

I've seem Euroscepticism described as "reactionary" by various people (mainly Europhiles) in various media sources. If it's possible to find a citable source, would this be a good example of the use of the term? However, there should be a caveat to show that this is a claim made by people's political opponents.--86.157.189.229 (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Definition

According to the article, reactionary..."refers to any political or social movement or ideology that seeks a return to a previous state". So by that definition, does a Marxist-Leninist desiring the re-establishment of the former Soviet Union and its hegemony in Eastern Europe meet the criterion to now be called a reactionary? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed the term reactionary has been used by Karl Marx and many others for well over 100 years now incorrectly it is about time we uses this term correctly. Reaction is simply reaction too something. A reaction too something has no political agenda.

--OxAO (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

2009-01 OR Tagging

Please note the specific fault(s) so can be addressed. Lycurgus (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Also what's up with "'reactionist"? Never heard that in this subject's context (i.e. in an adult lifetime where I would have), almost certainly a goof, and will remove with tag. Lycurgus (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The lede in its entirety before my edit:

Reactionary (also reactionist) refers to any political or social movement or ideology that seeks a return to a previous state (the status quo ante). The term originated in the French Revolution, to denote the counter-revolutionaries who wanted to restore the real or imagined conditions of the monarchical Ancien Régime. In the nineteenth century, the term reactionism denoted those who wished to preserve feudalism and aristocratic privilege against industrialism, republicanism, liberalism, and socialism.

Presume removed material was the OR. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This definition makes a heck of a lot more sense then an extremely bias one political sided definition. What has held this up?

the present definition is condescending and should be removed ASP. It is absolutely disgusting.

--OxAO (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Tea partiers?

Surely they warrant a mention? Everything I've seen from them suggests this is a very accurate label - is there no source suggesting this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.169.133 (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.223.74 (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The Tea Party movement really is the textbook definition of a reactionary movement. I think it would very much be a worthwhile addition to the article if we could find solid sources making the connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagisterMundi (talk • contribs) 08:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree the tea party is a reaction to political issues same with the Occupy movement

--OxAO (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

More important for policy purposes, what sources agree? Anyone beside yourselves this sentiment could be attributed to? (as in reliable sources) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Occupy movement isn't a political movement Got it. learn something new ever day. So what is it? I will take your word as a reliable source.
--OxAO (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are three links saying they are a political movement:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/memo-to-washington-the-oc_b_3938198.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/us/politics/occupy-movement-prepares-for-democratic-convention.html?_r=0
http://www.occupytogether.org/aboutoccupy/
--OxAO (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Neoreactionaries

This section needs a lot more cites. They were a slight media curiosity in late 2013-early 2014, but we need something better quality than their blogs or the blogs of their opponents for Wikipedia. Is there any third-party academic work on the subject? - David Gerard (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This is terrible. RationalWiki is in no way a WP-quality RS. (I wrote large chunks of the article that was cited, but would never claim it was an RS-quality source.) Sorry to blanket fact-tag, but each of the claims as to neoreactionary beliefs needs a cite to reliable sources (not to neoreactionary blogs). They're really not a very noteworthy bunch in the wider world, for all they were a media curiosity late last year, and it's not clear they really warrant mention - David Gerard (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I note also that all four of the sources cited the four sources cited at the end of the paragraph are actually personal opinion pieces hosted by RSes - two are on domains with "blogs" in the title. Unless there are actual RSes for this section, the section needs removal - David Gerard (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced and blog-sourced material removed. If nobody can cite it in the past four months, it deserves gone - David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove the fact that Moldbug used the term "neoreactionary" before Kling? The reference was Moldbug's blog, but this use of a primary source is acceptable to directly verify a fact as per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. You left in the fact that Orwell used the word in 1943, with a reference to the newspaper article where Orwell did so. The two cases seem analogous to me. cagliost (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Orwell is notable, Moldbug's blog isn't. But if you want to be consistent, feel free to remove Orwell. I'm entirely unconvinced the neoreactionaries pass Wikipedia notability at all, even as I am personally amused by them. This entire section is really thin on good sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about this further, whether or not Moldbug is notable is a red herring. The point is that the article as it stands is wrong, regardless of what TechCrunch says. Kling did not coin the word neoreactionary to describe Moldbug -- Moldbug did. Linking to Moldbug to verify a direct fact about a primary source is the right thing to do. Whether or not we link to Moldbug to verify that he coined it, we should remove the claim that Kling did, because it is not true. cagliost (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)