Talk:Reactionary/Archive 1

I think it's a good idea to give real examples of reactionary parties. David.Monniaux 18:40, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Turning back the clock
How can holding on to the monarchy be turning back the clock???? Resistance to socialism and progressivesim is just "keeping". WHEELER 18:44, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Wanting to instaure a traditional monarchy, say, in France, *is* reactionary, for it aims at cancelling two centuries of democratization. Basically, some groups seek to turn back the clock to the pre-revolutionary situation. For instance, some groups seek to reinstate Catholicism as a state religion.


 * Please sign in every time. You think the changes were beneficial. Levellers never obey the law.  We want to obey Natural law and divine revelation.


 * I never claimed that the changes were beneficial. I just contend that some groups which to cancel 2 centuries of changes, as shown in the WWW page I gave a reference to. Whether or not these changes were beneficial is besides the point. David.Monniaux 19:55, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Some of your edits are good but others such as "turn back the clock" show POV of the intensest kind.WHEELER 19:10, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Not at all. "Turn back the clock" merely means "going back to a previous situation". Feel free to replace "turn back the clock" by some other equivalent if you feel like it. David.Monniaux 19:55, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I also think that, as many right-wing Americans it seems, you're mixing up socialism and communism where they don't belong. In 19th century France, any democrat, including "liberals" (in the economic sense) that would nowadays be free-market supporters (thus the antithese of socialists or communists) would have been called a "progressive", and any royalist under the Third Republic a reactionary.

Do you actually know much about European history? David.Monniaux 19:55, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually David "turn back the clock" is a sixth grade style of term. The proper and professional term is "Restoration".  Restoration is used in professsional journals and books.  The phrase, "turn back the clock" is childish, infantile, uneducated and unsophisticated.WHEELER 13:38, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reactionary feelings in the antiquity
WHEELER, I'm afraid I don't agree with some of your exapnsions to this article. Some of the additions are good, but virtually no one would call the founding fathers "reactionary" -- on the contrary, they were "revolutionaries" to whom the Tories were reactionary. I think calling Socrates and Plato "reactionaries" is a bit imprecise, though I'll agree that Plato (and what Plato tells us of Socrates) defended a more conservative style of government than Athenian democracy. Certainly I don't know any reactionaries who like the label, and it's usually used for extremists -- I don't think Socrates and Plato were political extremists in defending a mixed government. Extreme in other ways perhaps, but not in their response to democracy. Jwrosenzweig 19:31, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the term "reactionary" should be applied to ancient Greece, in any event. The political structures are so different from those of the modern state as to make such comparisons worthless. At any rate, we should all be extremely careful with edits done by WHEELER. I'd suggest that the best thing might just be to go back to the pre-WHEELER version and try to write a more extensive article, but I dunno. WHEELER is just using this page to advance the highly idiosyncratic views of politics that he's been pressing at other pages for weeks/months. john 20:41, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * If you wish, but would you be so kind as to carry over my own edits? David.Monniaux 20:57, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's somewhat anachronistic to say that the term reactionary was first used in Europe after the French Revolution and then say Plato was a reactionary. AndyL 20:47, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I HAVE THE QUOTES TO BACK ME UP. MANY SCHOLARS WILL SAY THE SAME THING. I do not go for Revisionism. WHEELER 00:06, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

None of you are classicists. You hate the classics. I have read the classics. Socrates, Plato, Xenophon and Isocrates and Cicero were reactionaries. WHEELER 00:11, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Gratuitous allegations. (For the record, I've reads several of Plato's works, as well as some Cicero, the latter in Latin. Still, I'm not a "Classicist", but saying that I hate the Classics would be an unbelievable stretch.)David.Monniaux 06:31, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am a classicist, and a rightist. I ought to know what I am talking about. Socrates was killed by the democracy. WHEELER 00:29, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good lord, do we actually have to deal with this guy? john 00:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * John, we do -- that's the Wiki way. :-) But it's difficult.  WHEELER, you're falling into your old habit of asserting things about me that are not true.  I have read the classics.  I love the classics.  I disagree with your interpretation of the classics.  You are expressing one point of view, and one that is severely in the minority here (and in modern scholarship, I rather suspect).  Being a "rightist" does not mean you know what you're talking about, any more that someone's being a "leftist" means they know what they're talking about.  The fact that you seem to think this makes all of us more and more convinced that you are unwilling to accept that you have biases (though I hope and believe that you can accept this, and learn from it).  Socrates was killed by a democracy gone wrong, but that has absolutely no bearing on our discussions here.  Please stay calm, if you can.  This is not a life-and-death matter. Jwrosenzweig 16:10, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Correct use of quotations
I have the quotes to back me up. IF you want to revert then YOU USE QUOTES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WHEELER 14:24, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Then please cite your quotes. David.Monniaux 14:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

When writing an encyclopedia article, quotes should be used when appropriate; only quotes from authoritative sources are meaningful for facts, unless discussing meta-facts (i.e. you may quote a respected historian for an indication of a historical point, but if you quote some person who does not enjoy such respect, it becomes more of a factual point on that person's discourse).

The sectioning and overall structure of the article should not be destroyed. David.Monniaux 15:17, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have been if you looked in the Reference section. PLease look. '''AND AFTER I PUT IN REFERENCES AND QUOTES YOU ALL DELETED THEM AGAIN. THIS ARTICLE IS EXTREME POV. AND YOU PEOPLE NEVER LOOKED AT THE REFERENCES. WHOSE AT FAULT HERE.WHEELER 15:35, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Were the Founding Fathers reactionaries?
Those references where put in the first time. YOU DON"T FOLLOW YOUR OWN RULES. YOU QUOTE A SCHOLARY BOOK THAT SAYS THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE NOT REACTIONARY. WHEELER 15:37, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)~      YOU DO THATWHEELER 15:37, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If I was at a UNIVERSITY library I could probably pull up twenty similar quotes.WHEELER 15:38, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Please restrict the use of all-capitals and bold to where they are appropriate. Abusing them on online forums is akin to shouting, and only makes you sound like some overexcited person. Also, consider checking your edits for syntaxical correctness.
 * In the case of affirmations and quotes, the burden of proof is on the person who makes the affirmations that are judged outlandish, not the reverse. David.Monniaux 15:58, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * WHEELER, furthermore, it is difficult to produce a quote that says "the Founding Fathers were not reactionaries" because few people have ever made such an assumption. Most historians have not seen the need to define the founding fathers as "not-reactionary" because they fly in the face of the definition of "reactionary" -- far from being conservative, they were incredibly liberal for their time, expounding the principles of Rousseau and opposing the very idea of monarchy.  I would further point out to you that most of your references from historians (those that I have seen) come from the period 1900-1939 -- I would suggest to you that using modern scholarship will be helpful, as the meanings of words change over time, as do perspectives and available evidence.  Ultimately, WHEELER, what do you want us to produce?  A quote that says "the Founding Fathers were revolutionaries"?  That would be more than enough, I should think, but would you find that enough.  Or must we produce a quote that says "the Founding Fathers were not reactionaries"?  What are you requesting? Jwrosenzweig 16:06, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * using modern scholarship will be helpful You keep repeating this phrase over and over and over and over. Jwrosenweig.  I told you before, I am not into revisionism or reformism.  You want me to conform to reformist, evolutionary socialism.  I will not.  The Law is "Strict Continuity".  You reasonings are similar to reformism.  I am not into reformism.  My reasonings stem from classical times to now, "The law of strict continuity", that all the ancients used.


 * By the way, I searched google and this original definition is an exact copy of the article on http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Reactionary Who here is plagarizing?????  What's going on here??????


 * This site mirror Wikipedia (read the fine print at the bottom). David.Monniaux 17:09, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I point to the site where the founders at the constitutional convention hated democracy and promoted the Senate as similar to the House of Lords. This makes them reactionary.  I ran into this in my readings throughout life.  Reactionism is a "hatred for democracy".  Socrates had this, Cicero had this, Xenophon had this etc etc etc.

Hoover

 * Answer this, "True American Liberalism denies the whole creed of socialism". Is this a leftist or rightist statement?  Is this a progressive or a reactionary statement?WHEELER 16:31, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Define "true American liberalism". In the context of 19th century European politics, "liberal" was generally synonymous with a person seeking a democratic regime with free markets, thus opposed to both "socialism" (which was a fairly rare political position until the second half of the century) and the Reaction. David.Monniaux 17:09, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I misspelled continuity for conformityWHEELER 16:46, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * WHEELER, I'm sorry you have that opinion about modern scholarship. I share some skepticisms about some modern trends.  But I don't think this encyclopedia can legitimately ignore it, especially given NPOV policy.  There is no plagiarism -- had you looked at the page you link to more carefully, on the very bottom of the page is text noting that encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com took that article legally under the GFDL from us.  Not the other way around.


 * You are wrong, in my opinion, regarding the Senate's similarity to the House of Lords. The founding fathers were explicit in their rejection of American "nobility".  The selection process for the Senate has never looked anything like the selection process for the House of Lords.  There is no reason to believe that democratically elected state legislatures are "aristocrats" of necessity, and therefore their selections for the Senate would not necessarily be "aristocrats" (though in practice they often came from the upper classes, I believe you are using the ancient definition of "aristocrat", which certainly can't be applied wholesale to the U.S. Senate).


 * Your comment "Answer this, "True American Liberalism denies the whole creed of socialism". Is this a leftist or rightist statement?  Is this a progressive or a reactionary statement?" seeks to avoid the central issue.  The quotation you provide is not something that would have been uttered in 1776.  Yes, the statement makes American liberalism look rightist and reactionary, but only in comparison with blatant socialism.  If I provided one of the many quotations by founding fathers denouncing monarchy and extolling the rights of the people to freely elect a government, the statement would look leftist and progressive.  So we are left with two perspectives on the founding fathers which offer conflicting images of their politics.  Why do I and the rest believe we should focus on the perspective that they pursued a non-reactionary revolutionary end?  Because the founding fathers were fighting against monarchy, not socialism.  Had they fought against socialism (and ignored monarchy) we might remember them differently.  But we don't.  We have to discuss them in the context of their time, and in the context of that time, they were anything but reactionary. Jwrosenzweig 17:00, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can also provide a quote where there was a movement to get a king. There were feelers toward that regard.

The Senate was "modelled* after the House of Lords. Of course the particulars are the the different.  The general idea is the same!.

The Founding Fathers were deathly afraid of the French revolution and Jacobism.


 * Jacobinism. So? How does that make them reactionary? I'd say it makes them conservative in their attempt at change. Don't confuse "reactionary" with "conservative". David.Monniaux 17:50, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And ask me this, how come bolsheviks keep on getting deleted from this site? Who did the Whites fight against? We want to hide the Bolsheviks. Do we? This is POV. This is censorship!


 * Citing "bolsheviks" as what reactionaries particularly fought against only makes sense in the case of Russia. It makes sense to say "In the context of the Russian Revolution, the reactionaries where the Whites fighting against the Bolsheviks, Mencheviks and other movements". It does not make sense to single out bolsheviks in a general context. David.Monniaux 17:50, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How come "authoritarian" must always precede monarchy? This is POV. This is slanting the article towards POV.


 * Not at all. In 19th century Europe, reactionaries sought a return to absolute and authoritarian monarchies when parliamentary, or at least less authoritarian monarchies were a possibility. Do you know what the Action Française stands for? To be clear: a reactionary did not want a monarchy such as the British or Dutch monarchy. He wanted a monarchy like that of Charles X or even Louis XVI. David.Monniaux 17:50, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Someone keeps deleting *progressive*, *socialist* from things reactionaries stand against. This article is controlled by people that don't want the other side.WHEELER 17:37, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * If you use the word "reactionary" in the context of 19th century European politics, as you did, then obviously singling out "socialists" as what reactionaries were opposed to goes against historical reality. In the 19th century, reactionaries in most of Europe were monarchists struggling for the abolition of republican or democratic regimes, such as the Third Republic. There was very little talk of socialism in those days, you know.
 * I think that you have been contaminated with American conservative historical revisionism which sees politics as a battle between God and the Law on one side, Communists, Socialists and Atheists on the other side. Unfortunately, such a point of view is historically inadequate for the 19th century and very distorted for the 20th century. David.Monniaux 17:50, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The rule should be, The first definition comes first with the first chronology of events in creating that term. kTHIS is NPOV. Some want only modern definitions appear and that is evolutionary socialism.WHEELER 17:39, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I suggest you look up the definition of "socialism" in a dictionary. Socialism is the proposal of the public ownership of the means of production, and assorted opinions. We're not discussing economic theories here. (But I suspect that you have this confusion of ideas with "socialism" standing for "anything that I don't like"). Etymologically, the Reaction is about going to a preceding state. That's the definition of the word. Then, we may discuss in which context the word was originally coined. You must also understand that the French Revolution was not "socialist", for instance: it did not try to make industries public, for instance. Therefore, dragging socialism, communism etc... into the "original sense" of the word is silly. David.Monniaux 17:59, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The monarchical movement was so small as to be inconsequential, compared to the massive movement for state's rights, etc. And the fact that it was completely rejected should be a good sign that they did, in fact, oppose monarchy.  I think it is rather absurd to contend that the Senate is based on the same general idea as the House of Lords.  Senators served limited elected terms, and were given office by elected representatives of the people.  The Lords served life terms and were handed down offices from the monarch.  This is an entirely different approach to authority.  The superficial similarity that both bodies were seen as smaller chambers which might be more conservative about legislation is less significant than the basis for the chamber's authority, which is entirely different for each one.


 * The founding fathers were not all opposed to the French Revolution -- Thomas Paine certainly wasn't. And there were political reasons for backing the French monarchy which had nothing to do with American liberalism, and everything to do with surviving as a nation.  Mentioning Bolsheviks or not mentioning them is really a minor point.  Given the link to the Russian Revolution, probably Andy feels there's no need to emphasize the word "Bolshevik".


 * You said: "The rule should be, The first definition comes first with the first chronology of events in creating that term. kTHIS is NPOV.  Some want only modern definitions appear and that is evolutionary socialism."  But the most important definition of a word is the one in common usage now.  If there are multiple definitions of a word historically, yes, we need to address them.  But this encyclopedia is designed to serve a modern audience.  Furthermore, WHEELER, you have frequently been unable to demonstrate conclusive evidence for the alternative definitions you assert to be the "true" or "real" meaning of a word.  Our objections to such definitions aren't evolutionary socialism, but rather are simply our attempt to prevent bias from entering articles here.


 * Finally, I refer you again to my question. What kind of source would it take to demonstrate to you that the founding fathers were not reactionary? Jwrosenzweig 17:54, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why jwrosenweig will you not accept my sources. What makes it so hard not to accept my sources???"???????????  Because you want to shove your POV down our throats.  WHEELER 14:47, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, you're conducting your research with blinkers on. You hunt and peck for crumbs that support your view and ignore entire bakeries full of evidence that is contrary to your view. AndyL 17:36, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mr Jwrosenzweig, you talk as if you are Wikipedia Policy. I don't see those rules you mention anywhere under Wikipedia Policy. Does the Oxford Englich Dictionary, The Encyclopedia Britannica, or World Book operate under YOUR rules? Are you an authority of encylopedia content and the order of information? Or just the commisar of Wikipedia to make sure your leftist POV is the norm?WHEELER 19:31, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Again, please drop your obsessions about "leftists". (Besides, I note that when discussing political concepts in history and different places, one should generally stop talking of "left" and "right" unless qualifying these terms. A "leftist" in the 19th century could be a free-market republican, which we'd now call a conservative right-winger.) David.Monniaux 19:48, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)