Talk:Reactionary

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

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)

---

Progress

Please leave "progress" in quotes. The problem with this word is that this is a subjective word that is used by many people to give a positive twist on the changes they propose. If we remove the quotes, this means that Wikipedia endorses the point of view that the proposed actions constituted a progress. David.Monniaux 23:51, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary

reactionary a. and sb. A. adj 1 Of, pertaining to, or characterized by, reaction; 2 Inclined or favourable to reaction. Also, in Marxist use, unfavourable contrasted with revolutionary. B sb One who favours or inclines to reaction. Also, in Marxist use, an opponent of communism.

reactionaryism Also reactionarism. Hence reactionarist.

reactionism Reactionary principles of practice.

reactionist a. A marked or professed reactionary. Also, aperson who reacts against something.WHEELER 17:20, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Umm...why don't you go from there and look up "reaction"? john 20:26, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah, indeed, it's the same word as in French (from where this acception probably came). David.Monniaux 20:35, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

AHHH we should have conformity. Marxists attack all as reactionaries that don't agree with them. OFD is an authority. WHEELER 23:56, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Unless you drop your paranoid and unfounded assertions that anybody that contradicts you is a "Marxist", I'll stop discussing with you, for I am unqualified to deal with cases that should belong to mental institutions. (In case you have not understood, I'm far from being a Marxist.) David.Monniaux 06:02, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is worse than useless. I think this should perhaps go on record as one of the stupidest, most pointless talk page discussions ever. I think we should just edit WHEELER's contributions as we see fit and quit trying to discuss things with him. john 00:01, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do you even know what "reactionary" means in a Marxist context, WHEELER? Or do you simply assume that since you arch-conservatives use the word "socialist" to label anyone who doesn't 100% agree with you, your opponents must do the same thing with the word "reactionary"?

And you're hardly the one to talk about tolerance and diversity, seeing how you try to push your views down everyone's throat. I happen to have strong political views, yet I understand that this is not the place to express them.

Furthermore, I have made several changes to your article, and I will defend those changes:

1. Whether the Founding Fathers were revolutionary or reactionary is debatable. We must present both views. But, as a side note, if they were reactionary, then which revolution were they reacting against, exactly?

2. Saying that Herbert Hoover opposed Roosevelt because he opposed socialism is saying that Roosevelt was a socialist, which is a biased opinion at best and a laughable lie at worst. Therefore I have removed your Hoover comment.

3. I'm a Christian, and I sure as hell don't agree with the utter idiocy of the JBS. Many other Christians feel the same. Therefore we should make it clear that the JBS is defending A CERTAIN INTERPRETATION OF Christian values. (an interpretation which I personally find repugnant, but that's just my opinion)

4. Quoting nazi propaganda songs out of context can only serve propaganda purposes. The nazis themselves were staunchly reactionary, no matter what their songs say. To preserve NPOV, we should write a long explanation of the context of those songs and the dispute over the nature of nazism. It's better to just delete the stupid quotes and be done with it.

And unless you can present a rational argument for why I'm wrong, these changes will stay. Mihnea Tudoreanu

While I largely agree with you, I think that there's a fairly good argument that the Nazis were not reactionary. Not to say they weren't right wing, but there's a world of difference between the Nazis and the restorationist reactionism of Action Française, and so forth. Certainly the Nazis did not do a whole lot of restoring the pre-1918 order. john 08:19, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree with you that the Nazis did little to restore the pre-1918 order, but I had a quick read through Mein Kampf, and its full of (very dull) prose singing the praises of the 2nd Reich. Also, the Nazis certainly preserved more of the pre-1918 order than the Social Democrats or the KDP would have, in that if you were wealthy and willing to support the Nazis, you could generally rely on staying wealthy. Still, maybe the term "reactionary" would apply more to, say, the Freikorps than the Nazis themselves. Cadr

The term reactionary would apply to, say Franz von Papen, I think, or maybe Alfred Hugenberg. Not as much to the Nazis. At any rate, it should be noted that, when in charge, the SPD preserved a great deal of the pre-1918 order - notably the general staff, the civil service, and the judiciary. This was, perhaps, do as much to necessity as to choice, but the Weimar regime allowed these folks to pretty much work in exactly the same way that they had before the war. It was with Hitler's advent that you see a major change. john 19:54, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Tudoreanu Mr. Hoover is quite capable of defining himself and why he is a reactionary. And Please do not delete FACTS. You can not stand the facts so you must delete them. NO.WHEELER 14:01, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And which facts are you talking about? Quotes? Well, of course any quote is a "fact", since it was said by someone at some point. That doesn't mean any quote is true. And according to wikipedian rules, if you want to insert a biased opinion in an article, then you should balance it out with an opinion from the opposing side. Let's see you post a Roosevelt quote. Mihnea Tudoreanu

Mr Tudoreanu, you are right about Jesus, Socialism and communism are unthinkable without Christianity because socialism and communism are psuedo-Christian and psuedo monastic. They take principles from Christianity and apply them in a materialistic sense or without the Church. As St. Paul says, The devil is dressed as an angel of light.WHEELER 14:05, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is a case of parallel evolution. Different people living in different times and places have used different arguments to arrive at similar conclusions. Karl Marx and Jesus Christ have next to nothing in common, yet the social orders they support are strikingly similar.

And as for St. Paul's statement (which is horribly out of place in discussing 19th century philosophers), keep in mind that not everyone dressed as an angel of light is automatically a devil. Sometimes it may be an actual angel of light. Mihnea Tudoreanu

Pravda has spoken. All people shut up now Mr Tudoreau has spoken. He doesn't like reality but wants to hide it. I just put up the facts and he wants to hide it. Mr. West, the author of "American Democracy" is a leftist and pro-democracy. He is not afraid of the truth. Unlike you people who want to hide the truth. His title on page 277 is "DISTRUST OF DEMOCRACY". WHEELER 15:57, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Paranoia, I'd like to inform you that I am a staunch defender of free speech. And I'd also like to inform you that your above paragraph constitutes something called the Straw Man Logical Fallacy. You should look it up in one of your many dictionaries... Mihnea Tudoreanu

Does that depend upon what the meaning of "am" is? For example: are you a defender of the right of cigarette merchants to speak freely by telling people that using their products is hip, fashionable, etc., and showing people a cartoon camel to make this point? Or do you only defend speech you regard as progressive? Just wondering. --Christofurio 13:49, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

I quote,

1. "Certainly this illustrious company felt a deep distrust of democracy."
2. "It seemed an axiom to them that the unhappy conditions of their country were due to "an excess of Democracy"
3. In the early Revolutionary years, the leaders had been forced to throw themselves into the arms of democracy for protection against England and those years had been marked by a burst of novel enthusiasm for popular government. But when the struggle was over, the "leaders of society", began to look coldly upon further partnership with distasteful allies no longer needed: and this inevitable tendency was magnified by the unhappy turbulence of the times. By, 1785, among the professional and commercial classes, a conservative reaction had set in. Pgs276 and following

Unlike you, Mr West is not afraid. He puts it all out there. What you are afraid of is the concepts in these words. This is what you fear. That is why you are into revisionism and obscurantism.WHEELER 15:57, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Unless you claim to be a psychic, I suggest you refrain from ranting about what's going on in other people's heads. Are you really so insecure in your arguments that you feel the need to supplement them with ad hominems?

Getting to the actual point at hand, I think it's no secret that America's "Founding Fathers" weren't particularly fond of democracy. Just look at the pathetic excuse for a democratic system that the USA has today. But to call them "reactionary" is a gross exaggeration - by 18th century standards, even a very limited democracy was a highly revolutionary idea.

Oh, and a general piece of advice to the American far right: Stop treating your "founding fathers" like gods. I can't help but laugh when I see you basing your arguments on the assumption that anything the "founding fathers" said/wanted/believed must automatically be Good. Please try to understand that the whims of a bunch of rich white men who died 200 years ago may *not* constitute a Perfect form of government that should be preserved for All Eternity. Mihnea Tudoreanu

Professor Hicks in his The American Nation writes These men had little faith in democracy; indeed, one might almost say that it was their fear of democracy that had brought them together. Their problem was how to make a government democratic enough to be adopted but not so democratic as to constitute any menace to upper-class control. Pg 198WHEELER 16:08, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, they feared democracy (which was natural, seeing how they were from the rich and privileged layers of society). But they feared feudalism and absolute monarchy even more. Mihnea Tudoreanu

WHEELER, stop inserting lines from Nazi propaganda songs! AndyL 17:50, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, I've noticed that you've unwikified a number of links in the article, in one case, that of Edmund Burke you said the link was "duplicitous". DO NOT unwikify articles, by doing so you're working at cross purposes with the directory itself. AndyL 18:07, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER apparently believes in overzealously applying rules against duplicate links. Those rules are meant for legibility (a succession of link would be hardly readable), but he's going too far, I think. The mere fact that one link was given some pages up is not, IMHO, a good reason for not linking another time.

He's making a style guideline into some kind of absolute rule. David.Monniaux 18:20, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I see I'm a victim of WHEELER's poor vocabulary. When he said the Burke link was "duplicitious" he didn't mean that it was a misleading link but had simply meant to say it was a "duplication". I have some other WHEELERisms on my Talk page. Any help in deciphering them would be appreciated AndyL 19:22, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The changes are of course slanted and covered but I grudingly accept them. I will stop inserting the songs in to. But they are there. I will be adding more in the future to this site. WHEELER 18:48, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can someone translate this for me. All I can decipher is that it's in reference to James Gregor:

Note The article on James Gregor. This is a hit piece from hell. Ayn Rand was extremely hateful of Christians and Christian influences. I enjoy reading her and quote from her often. So what if she hated Christians. She had something to say.

Nothing is so disagreeable Andy than your hit piece on Mr. Gregor. I find it disgusting and stupid.

So what if has segregationist feelings affect your marxist feelings. Can you point out what religious authority condemns him? or is it your opinion based on nothing? You have extremist views. See Golden Mean.WHEELER 18:54, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wow, I have no idea what he's talking about. As I said, discussion with WHEELER is utterly pointless. We should just ignore him and edit the article as we see fit. john 19:54, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If I do say so myself this site is getting better and better every day.WHEELER 16:06, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, while reaction usually means on the right it is a relative term which is why those who opposed Hitler were called "reactionary" by the Nazis who liked to think of themselves as revolutionary. Similarly, I think few people would deny that, objectively thinking, the Ayatollahs who are in charge of Iran are "reactionary" yet they came to power through a revolution and would refer to those Iranian Communists, liberals, socialists and secularists who oppose them as "counterrevolutionary" and perhaps even "reactionary". AndyL 17:41, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, I guess your message means you don't have a response to the point above. AndyL 02:35, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

It is a word of dual meaning. In one sense it is concrete that it means of the right. On the other hand it is relative, that people who are revolutionary apply that to their opponents. But I don't think for one minute that Nazis applied "reactionary" to the communist opponents. Never in a million years.WHEELER 14:46, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

"And the new division was even deeper and sharper than the old one had been, because it was a division between two groups, both of which were inspired by the French Revolution. Nothing is so bitter as a conflict between a moderate and extreme left, as witness the conflict between Girondins and Jacobins in the French Revolution and that between Menshevists and Bolshevists in the Russian Revolution. pg 239 WHEELER 15:10, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Wheeler, I'm not sure the Girondin/Jacobin conflict is a good example of a conflict between moderate and extreme leftists. Both groups were extreme, but in different ways. The former group had the more extremist foreign policy, the more moderate domestic views. For the latter group, that was reversed. Rather like Trotsky and Stalin ("permanent revolution" versus revolution "in one country"), but not much like the Menshevik/Bolshevik distinction.

I see that someone again has changed the Marxist definiton of the pejoritave meaning of the word. I quote from Socialism by Ludwig von Mises, Communists call "all non-communist countries and parties essentially undemocratic and fascist." pg 523. Here is confirmation of the Oxford English Dictionary definition and somebody changes it. I will change it back here soon.WHEELER 00:24, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

And why do you think von Mises is authoritative? You continuously apply the "appeal to authority" rational fallacy. Just because something appears in a book doesn't make it a fact. AndyL 07:03, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Von Mises is a celebrated European economist. What kind of expert are you Andy? Nothing at all. If You have read the Doctrine of Fascism, you would know that Fascism is revolutionary and futurist but you reverted this out so this makes you not an expert on anything. Who are you Andy? greater than Von Mises? NOT I appealed to BOTH the Oxford English Dictionary and Von Mises. Who the heck are you?WHEELER 15:58, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER: I don't know whether you are an expert on anything or what kind of experts you read, but you should definitely learn how to write English essays properly before embarking on lenghty texts on Wikipedia. Many of your sentences are awkward, lack a clear meaning, or fail to assign proper distance (the latter being especially important when discussing the points of view of political groups). David.Monniaux 19:11, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Notice how the Andy's, the David's, the John's all reverted the quotations of the Nazi Songs with the mention of reactionary in it. lo and behold, I find actual political documents that say that they are against reactionaries. Wow, how about that, the political documents match the propaganda. So the references to reaction in the Nazi songs are not an aberration that the Andy's and the David's and the John's opinionated all this time. There is a continuity there after all. WooooooooowWHEELER 15:13, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mussolini and Hitler all said they were not reactionary WooooooowWHEELER 15:13, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

American Academia and American college students,,, the proof is in the pudding. I wish people would read original documents. WHEELER 15:13, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm neither an American academic nor an American college student, and I don't see why you involve me in this quarrel. Please consider getting professional help, as well as classes in writing. David.Monniaux 18:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Okay.WHEELER 00:21, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nazism as not reactionary

I've removed the following:

Nazism a form of fascism is also not reactionary. The forerunner to the Nazi party, the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei was "liberal" and "democratic". "On their meeting in Trautenau (August 15, 1905) they declared solemnly that they were:

...a liberal (freiheitlich), nationalistic party which fights with all powers at its disposal against all reactionary movements, against all feudal, clerical, and capitalistic priviledges,..."

When on the fifth of May l918 the party adopted the name Deutsche Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei (D.N.S.A.P), (the party that Hitler would join later), it echoed the sentiments of l905:

"It is a liberal and strictly racial (völkische) Party fighting against all reactionary efforts, the clerical, feudal, and capitalistic priviledges..." (3)

Not only was this idea prevalent in their political documents but also in their methods of propaganda such as their songs. Otto Bauer, the braintruster of the Austrian Social Democrats, wrote in the Marxist monthly, Der Kampf repeatedly about a common re-brown front against the "reactionary clerico-monarchists". Leftism Revisited, pg 400.

AndyL 22:15, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What's to discuss Andy? I cited my sources What about you? Marxist academia have not read original documents and yet put forward things that accord with their ideology of slander and propaganda. This has been going on for quite a while now in Academic circles. WHEELER 13:53, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Rudolf Jung joined this party in Prague, at the national caucus. In April of l918, delegate Gattermayer demanded the name change, it failed, But a month later, at the party congress in Vienna the name change occured. Rudolf Jung took this volume that was published in l9l9 and gave it the party. Hitler joined a D.A.P. party "Deutsche Arbeiterpartie" He wanted to change the name to "Social Revolutionary Party" Rudolf Jung is the one who proposed the name to "N.S.D.A.P." the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. Rudolf Jung carried the Vienna Program to Hitler. "Aussig was probably the most important center of early Nazism".

Read the book Liberty or Equality pgs 256-259 and all the footnotes. It is well documented.WHEELER 14:17, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, you are stating an opinion as a fact. Most theorists would say fascism is reactionary regardless of what the Nazis said of themselves. There is no justification for your statement "[Nazism]] a form of fascism is also not reactionary." this is *your* opinion and your opnion alone and is not a fact regardless of what the Nazis said about their programme. Just because I find a reference that claims the earth is flat doesn't mean that the wikipedia article on the earth can say "The earth is flat". AndyL 19:47, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...I don't know that most theorists would call fascism "reactionary." Most would say it's a phenomenon of the right, but I think the general agreement would be that the "reactionaries" were folks like the Kamarilla around Hindenburg, and so forth. Fascism and Nazism were not simply about a desire to return to an idealized past (although there was some of that), and it certainly wasn't about a fondness for traditional hierarchy as you would find in classic reactionary movements. At the same time, it would be fair to say that fascism allied itself with reactionary elements both to attain power and to hold onto it, and it's deeply misleading to provide isolated instances of fascists and socialists joining together against the "reactionaries" and attempting to claim that this was a standard practice. john k 21:07, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Also, everything I've read says the German Workers Party was founded in 1919. I don't know where you get your information, WHEELER, that the party existed as early as 1905 or that anything was going on with the party in 1918, perhaps it was a different party with the same name in which case their programme and ideology is irrelevent. AndyL 04:53, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Let's see I quote from actual Nazi literature, I have the songs, I have another quote from a Mr.Otto Bauer, I reading Mr. Rauschning's book, Nazism is "revolutionary". He defines it as a "revolutionary mass movement. So What don't you get? Reactionaries did *combine* to bring the Nazis to power, doesn't make them reactionary. The whole philosophy of Nazism was revolutionary. Mr. Raushning says that their program of the conservative-nationalist-monarchist coincided with the Nazis. But the source of the conservative-nationalist-monarchist ideas was NOT THE SAME as the Nazis. The Nazis aped their program in more ways. They were realists and they tapped into it. As Noel O'Sullivan says, successful revolutionary movements only sxpand what is already current in the society. I have the quotes.WHEELER 14:39, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Gus Hall, the American Communist party leader: "The ultra-reactionary former California governor, Ronald Reagan and others". I suppose you agree with Gus Hall? Well, if the Governor Reagan is an ultr-reactionary, it must mean that Governor Reagan is also a Fascist. Lectures on Fascism by Pamlmiro Togliati, pg xiii.WHEELER 15:19, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe that follows - one might say that all fascists are reactionaries, but that not all reactionaries are fascists. At any rate, who cares what Gus Hall said? As to your first point, I partially agree. The reactionary right was distinct from the Nazi right, and the two were not the same. But Rauschning is not a disinterested source - he was a German conservative who was disillusioned with the Nazis. But, at any rate, I think it's fair to say that the Nazis (and the Italian fascists), were not exactly themselves reactionary - certainly not as movements, although they did exploit much the same rhetoric as other, more traditional, right wing groups. I'm not sure how this should be dealt with in the article. I don't think long quotes from primary sources are appropriate, though. john k 23:48, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I see your points very well John. I have read further into his book. He has attacked his own fellow countrymen and his fellow monarchists and conservatives, and his army buddies pretty well.

First point, I would like to make using AndyL own argument that judge the actions not the literature. Alright, let's do so, if Nazism is reactionary?

Why the arrest of von Papen? Why the murder of his secretary? (His secretary was about to spill the beans, and I believe that his secretary had the brains to led a revolt). If it was reactionary, why the arresting of Priests? Gunter Levy, said the Catholic periodicals in Germany went form 49 down to one through Nazi persecution and harrassment. How could that be if it was reactionary? And the bottom line, was the monarchy restored????? If it was reactionary then the monarchy would have been restored. Hermann Rauschning wanted the monarchy to be restored. This is the definition of what it means to be reactionary. Next, in anything the Nazi's read, did they read reactionary literature and authors such as De Maistre, de Bonald, Chatebriand, Burke, or Coleridge? What part of reactionary literature formed National Socialism?

I am prepared to have a seperate section called "German Reaction and Nazism" with the following with the above notes under it.

saying: "The confusion on the Nazi were reactionary rests with the German reaction who colluded with the Nazis in a "combination" in l933 and their rise to power because both political aims of the two sides on the surface were commesurate. The idea of the reaction was to wait for the Nazi party to collapse by itself to seize power and restore the monarchy while the Nazi's outmaneuvered the reactionaries. National Socialism is not reactionary." and then the quotes follow." WHEELER 14:19, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If it was reactionary, why the arresting of Priests? Gunter Levy, said the Catholic periodicals in Germany went form 49 down to one through Nazi persecution and harrassment. How could that be if it was reactionary?

And the bottom line, was the monarchy restored?

Why the attack and execution of the "radicals" and "revolutionaries" in the Nazi movement in the Night of the Long Knives? AndyL 17:33, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Let me point out some history. Robespierre killed Danon and his supporters. Both were leftists. Then the leftists had Ropespierre and 100 of his supporters killed. Did that make his killers Rightists? Stalin killed many of his own party and the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks killed one another. Look at what Lenin did to Trotsky! Trotsky was finally assinated by a follower of Lenin. The left have been killing their opponents of their own side all the time. Night of the long knives was no different. Hilter killed his enemies of both left and right: "The red front and reaction" from Nazi songs. Hermann Rauschning would have been killed if he did not leave Nazi Germany. Nazi is nihilist philosophy. It kills all and any who stand in its way. There is no clearer picture than the constant killing in the French revolution which Nazism is "the full counterpart of".WHEELER 14:42, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As the Classcist Gregory Vlastos has pointed out Socrates was fighting the "moral nihilism" of the Athenians. Basically all democracies are nihilist.WHEELER 15:48, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To Plant a tree?

Tener un hijo

Plantar un arbol Escribir un libro ("To have a son, to plant a tree, to write a book") is the perfect "reactionary" pattern; a synthesis of patriarchalism, agriculture and artistry. (7)

Are we certain that the reference to "plantar un arbol" here refers to "agriculture"? One might plant a tree to harvest the oranges or whatever, and sell them at market -- that is agriculture. Or one might plant a tree for shade -- that is home improvement. Or one might plant a tree as part of a hobby -- that is gardening. I suspect the meaning of this poem has more to do with the second and third choices than the first there. --Christofurio 22:00, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

This is a quote of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. It is a miscellania and his thought on the matter. I only linked the word agriculture to agrainaism because to promote agriculture as a way of life is agrainism. He has been in Spain.WHEELER 14:20, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me (FWIW) that agriculture can be as capitalistic an activity as industry or finance. Agriculture involves technological advances, commodities exchanges, global distribution channels for mass marketing, etc. None of that has anything to do with reaction in the sense of preserving aspects of feudalism, nor is capitalistic agriculture what the phrase "plant a tree" suggests, nor is it especially agrarian! But, of course, if Kuehnelt-Leddihn said "agriculture" in this context then my caveat would be with him, not with you, or the accurate use of his words here. --Christofurio 14:36, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Reactionary is a term that existed before Marxists got a hold of it. Reactionary is only those that oppose the french revolution and i don't think for one minute that it meant feudalism. Enrst Nolte is being refuted across many people now. Reactionary does not mean feudal. When he wrote agriculture it is plain, one lives the agricultural life.WHEELER 22:38, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Point taken. I've made the distinction in the text of this article, but removed the offending word "feudal" there. --Christofurio 12:34, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

There's actually a rationale (though not an exceedingly good one) for calling the nazis reactionary. The nazis hated democracy and the Weimar Republic and wanted to roll back the political situation to what existed before, i.e. an authoritarian regime. Note how they called their regime the Third Reich, whereas William II and Bismarck's regime was the Second Reich. David.Monniaux 06:57, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A great many people hated democracy. Proudhon hated democracy but was not a reactionary. The Founding Fathers of America hated democracy but were reactionary. The Founding Fathers preserved the "natural aristocracy" and the Christian culture of America. That makes them reactionary. Democracy was hated because the best government is not democracy but mixed government. The Nazis were progressive they hated parlimentarianism but were a mass movement. They pandered to the mass, the mob. They were democratic in that sense.

Reactionary means to be for Church and Monarchy--neither happened under the Nazis.WHEELER 14:56, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Etymologically, a reactionary is someone who tries to revert a change back to a preceding situation; in this case, reverting from a democracy back to an authoritarian regime. In the context of 19th Century European politics, the reactionary faction supported Church and Monarchy.

The problem with words like "conservative", "progressive" and "reactionary" is that they are relative to an era and location; a reactionary faction defines itself by what it reacts against, and what it aspires to revert to. For instance, in the context of the post-Soviet regime in the former USSR, one may validly call those who wish to revert to the Socialist way "reactionaries".

Now, I do agree that the Nazis were revolutionaries in many ways. David.Monniaux 16:13, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So were the Nazis not reactionary for wanting to undo Weimar and the Versailles Treaty and return Germany to its "former glory" which it enjoyed before the liberal democracy brought in after WWI? Wasn't the whole reason behind calling Nazi Germany the Third Reich in order to invoke the example of the First and Second Reichs and herald a return to a better past? And what of the glorification of Federick the Great et al. Certainly these elements of Nazism that yearned for the past were reactionary. AndyL 02:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Look Andy, the Nazi's themselves looked to Napoleon:

Nazi writers in Germany saw in Napoleon a harbinger of national socialism. The Nazi writer Franz Kemper wrote in the introduction of the republication of Konstantin Frantz's book, Masse oder Volk of 1852, that "The rise of power of Louis Napoleon is the only historical parallel to the National Socialist revolution of our day". Another Nazi writer, Michael Freund, wrote that Napoleon was the only real revolutionist in 1848. Still another German National Socialist, K. H. Bremer, realized that Napoleon found the real motivating force of revolution in the social question rather than the constitutional question of the republicans of 1848. "His great aim was to establish a political system based upon the unity of all classes and of all interests in France". (10). This was the answer to marxist socialism. Napoleon was the first to develop a national socialism. From User talk:WHEELER/National Socialism/draft

They considered Napoleon a revolutionist.WHEELER 14:37, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Napoleon I was a revolutionary person, though he also harbored distinctly reactionary ideas (for instance, on slavery, which he reinstated after it had been prohibited in French colonies). However, Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, aka Napoleon III, was not "National Socialist", nor "Socialist" in any way, and that's evident when you look at his policies. Louis Napoleon Bonaparte held decidely conservative and authoritarian policies, without any of the modernism of Napoleon I. In many respects, France suffered immobilism under his reign. David.Monniaux 17:25, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

Can someone fix this sentence? I've left it in the text but I think something is missing "He worked furiously to prevent Russia's Tsar Alexander I from gaining influence in Europe who aided the liberal forces in Germany, Italy and France." Specifically, the last clause (... who aided etc) seems scrambled. LeeHunter 20:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I will correct it. Alexander I helped the liberal forces in Germany etc. I will try to make it clearer.WHEELER 15:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Severe Confusion

réactionnaire and reactionary, the English word, have entirely different meanings and applications. This article is deeply flawed by entangling these concepts. "Reactionary" as a term in english political discourse is derived from but otherwise _has nothing to do with_ the French word--which happens to refer to a MUCH more specific idea than reactionary does in English.

Just because one is more specific than another does not make the two unrelated. Indeed, the two obviously do have something to do with each other if, as you say, one is derived from the other. It would be more helpful if you gave us the French meaning and the English meaning rather than obliterate the first few paragraphs. AndyL 3 July 2005 13:46 (UTC)

"1) Of, pertaining to, or characterized by reaction. 2) inclined or favourable to reaction. Also in Marxist use, unfavorably contrasted with revolutionary. 3) One who favours or inclines to reaction. Also, in Marxist use, an opponent of communism." "1) Repulsion or resistance exerted by a body in opposition ot the impact or pressure of another body. 2) The influence which a thing, acted upon or affected by another, exercises in return upon the agent, or in turn upon something else..... "A movement towards the reversal of an existing tendancy or state of things.... desire to return, to a previous condition of arriairs... In 1816 referred to as a French use of the word." Most of those meanings are merely "dictionary" relevent. The only one suited for an encyclopedia involves the Marxist usage. --Pearlg 3 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)

It is not just a Marxist usage. The usage of "Reactionary" to mean "right wing" (in some sense - the extent to which the term is applied to the whole right wing differs depending on who's using it) is not confined to Marxists, and was not begun by them. Walter Scott, who uses the word "Reaction" in this sense according to the OED, was not a Marxist; neither was John Stuart Mill, the first recorded user of Reactionary. It is a term which is used by historians who are not Marxist, and it is frequently used to refer to a particular brand of far-right politics of the early 19th century that involved support for restoration of the ancien regime. john k 3 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)

Pearlg, you are engaging in the "guilt by association" fallacy by trying to marginalise the term "reactionary" by claiming, incorrectly, that it's "principally Marxist" when it's clear that the term has neither a Marxist origin nor a principally Marxist usage. We are not trying to "popularise" the term. The fact that JS Mill used it years before Marx and that liberals and even some conservatives have used the term widely to describe those on the far right or those who are anti-development etc puts your claim to rest as pure conjecture and wishful thinking on your part. AndyL 3 July 2005 21:45 (UTC)

No you are presuming a guilt by assoication. I make no such claim. --Pearlg 3 July 2005 22:30 (UTC) To elaborate, the term became well-known because of its usage by Marxists. Enough so that the Marxist usage qualifies for special mention in the OED. I don't claim that merely because Marxists used it it is bad. I do observe though that people do not generally self-identify as "reactionary". Thus the word is an epithet (in the proper complete sense of the word, I do not merely mean it is a slur though it tends to be). But I think we're reached an equilibrium on this point now. Thanks for evolving the article. --Pearlg 3 July 2005 22:42 (UTC)

No you are presuming a guilt by assoication. I make no such claim.

You've revealed your POV in your assertion about the term simply being "Communist propaganda". It's not a big leap to conclude from that that you're trying to marginalise the term. In rhetoric, calling something propaganda is almost always done in order to dismiss or marginalise and calling it "Communist propaganda" is an attempt to associate the claim with Communism whether or not the claim was actually made by Communists. AndyL 4 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)

In the sense that I recognize the term as nothing more than manipulative turn of phrase? Absolutely. Anyone who uses this term in a supposed intellectual context is commiting a crime of reason. It is nothing more than a derogatory remark. I don't care that it was used by Marxists. That doesn't change or affect its character--and its character is to obscure rather than enlighten. Obviously there are a few exceptions where a person is actually being reflexive that the word would be appropriate. However, your attempts, and other attempts to make this word decent by dramatizing it in an intellectual context is either 1) ignorance or 2) a veiled attempt at propoganda to elevate the word and its users. --Pearlg 4 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)