Talk:Reactionary/Archive 2

Is "Reactionary" a pejorative word?
To the sense that being a reactionary is a pejorative word I can not find that in the Oxford English Dictionary (20vol). Not there. Please delte or provide scholarly evidence!!!!


 * You seem highly confused with respect to semantics. Being a reactionary is a state of a person, not a word. "Pejorative" is a word. And, indeed, in modern usage, "reactionary" is most often used as a pejorative word. This does not need "scholarly" quote – for historical scholarship discusses history, not current political speech. David.Monniaux 20:28, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As to that Reactionary is a bad thing,

Jer 18.15; "For my people?fail in their ways, leaving the ancient tracks, to enter upon impassable paths." A reactionary statement.

Jer 6.16; "Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths of the Lord; and see what is the good way, and walk in it, and ye shall find purification for your souls." A reactionary statement

Sirach 2.10; "Look at the generations of old, and see; A reactionary statement

Wisdom 8.8; "If a man desireth much experience, she knoweth things of old,?" A reactionary statement

Prov 8.21; "I will remember also to recount the things of old". A reactionary statement

Job 22.15; "Wilt thou not mark the old way, which righteous men have trodden?" A reactionary statement

Deut 32.7; "Remember the days of old,?ask thy father, and he shall relate to thee, thine elders?" A reactionary statement

Psalm 142.5; "I remembered the days of old". A reactionary statement

Sirach 39.2 "He will keep the sayings of renowned men". A reactionary statement.


 * Totally besides the point. The article does not claim that "progress" or "change" is good. It says that "reactionary" is used as a pejorative words by some who assume that some beneficial progress has taken place against people accused of willing to reverse that progress. David.Monniaux 20:28, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In Progressive society, there is no "looking back". On the other hand, you have just proven that God is a reactionary. I am with God. I am a reactionary and damn proud of it. Jesus said, O Palios Xristos estin, the Old is Good.


 * So? How is that relevant? David.Monniaux 20:28, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, really? Then how do you explain this:


 * And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
 * And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need.
 * - Acts 2:44-45


 * Jesus Himself was quite clearly socialist, or perhaps even communist by our standards. Read Matthew 19:16-24.


 * And saying "the Old is Good" is worthless as long as you don't explain what "the Old" actually IS. Do communists in post-soviet Russia count as "reactionaries"? Mihnea Tudoreanu

The Liberal German Christians did at the Statz plaza was held a meeting and the first thing they did was throw out the Old Testament. That is the Swatika culture. No thank you.WHEELER 20:16, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see the link between the "liberal German Christians" and the swastika, either as a Buddhist or Nazi symbol.
 * Please stop stopping pushing your POV through illogical statements. David.Monniaux 20:28, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To be precise: the article does not endorse any "progress" or claim that changes are "good" or reactionaries "bad". It claims that in modern usage, the word "reactionary" is mostly used by groups that endorse some kind of "progress" and accuse others. David.Monniaux 20:30, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

David the Oxford English Dictionary doesn't say that so please put in a reference or delete it. Or I will delete it.


 * The Oxford English Dictionary does probably say that "fragging" means killing somebody in Quake, nor does it say that "Socialist" is used as a pejorative word by right-wing American politicians. Yet, these are facts, and we should discuss them. Remember, we're writing an encyclopedia here.
 * Read the press, hear politicians. You'll notice a pattern of using "reactionary" as a pejorative word. That's the most common usage nowadays. David.Monniaux 20:55, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Reference: "Depuis la Révolution française, et particulièrement depuis le début du vingtième siècle, le terme réactionnaire est presque exclusivement utilisé dans un sens péjoratif, en lieu et place des mots "rétrograde", "passéiste" ou "conservateur"."
 * words of a priest"I understand that for some people "reactionary" is a pejorative term,"

Hitler and reactionaries
"Hitler's attempt, in co-operation with General Ludendorff, to unseat the German government in November, l923, through an open rebellion in Munich, was foiled through the efforsts of the local Reichswehr under the command of Von Lossow, and the refusal of Von Kahr, Bavarian Prime minister, to accommodate the Fuhrer. (Von Kahr and Von Lossow were murdered in the Reichsmordwoche, the "Blood Purge", June 30, l934.).  From that time on Hitler's hatred for the Junkers, the Reichwehr and all clerical politicians was boundless:  his paladins in the army were in the end all non-Junkers such as Jodl, Guderian and "die Keitel".  P. F. Drucker was quite right when he said of Hitler's relation to the German army that the Fuhrer "hated it just as much as any German Liberal did."   The Church, ably led by Cardinal von Faulhaber, also opposed Hitler on principle." Liberty or Equality pg 260. WHEELER 20:36, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * What does it have to do with the topic at hand?


 * I guess WHEELER sees significance in the vons who opposed Hitler early on. I guess no one has told him that Crown Prince Wilhelm joined the Nazi party in the 1930s along with several of Prince Philip's relatives. AndyL 23:08, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure. Nazism was a bourgeois and populist movement that ruffled the feathers of some in the nobility! David.Monniaux 07:24, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Crown Prince Wilhelm never joined the Nazi Party, although he did announce he was voting for Hitler in the presidential election of 1932. john 01:22, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"True American Liberalism denies the whole creed of socialism", Herbert Hoover, The Challenge to Liberty.
 * This quote does not talk about being reactionary. I assume that WHEELER thought that it would explain Hoover's position better and moved it accordingly. David.Monniaux 07:24, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Does the word "Why" mean anything to you David? Why was he reactionary??? What did he oppose?  Have you read any thing of Herbert Hoover?  NO  because this contradicts YOUR opinion which is based on NOTHING.  I read "The Challenge to Liberty".  I understand.  WHY did his enemies call him a reactionary?  Explain that one.


 * I don't know why you are attacking me. I did not delete the Hoover quote, just reformatted the two quotes inside a single paragraph, and added parentheses around some words. From what I gather from your excited and half-incoherent, question, you are arguing that Hoover being called a reactionary is explained byh his quotation on American liberalism. That's just what I said two paragraphs earlier.
 * Ah, and please drop personal accusations. I haven't read anything from Herbert Hoover, but I haven't expressed any particular opinion on him either.
 * I'm sorry, but I think that you should calm down quite a bit. Adding extra interrogation points and all-capital words does not make you convincing - it just makes you come across as some overexcited person with an agenda to push. ~

David.Monniaux 15:22, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am getting pretty sick and tired of being questioned by you people. I have to pass the guantlet to put anything on this website. David, John, Slrubenstein, Jrwronsigweig, can all put things up without being questioned. But I have to be run thru the ringer.

Your hypocrisy grows. Jrwosewieg deletes my whole article on Defintion. I have to prove with 32 footnotes. Yet his site of Republic has not one quote. I put up three quotes on the reactionary side. They get all deleted and their information has NO quotes. They are free yet I am questioned about mine. They deleted Herbert Hoover but now I can repost because I have a quote. Proved them wrong in their opinions. Why was he called a reactionary????????????? I am getting sick and tired of this behavior.WHEELER 14:42, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

They have all deleted the REASONS of reactionary.
 * Oh, please. Learn how to write, learn how to make statements that make sense, learn how to quote in context. I'm getting sick and tired of trying to have a discussion with somebody whose expression would warrant a D in any college. David.Monniaux 20:07, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * What was the White Russians reacting against???
 * What was Hoover reacting against??
 * What was FR. Coughlin reacting against???
 * What was the Catholic Church and the monarchists reacting against????
 * What am I fighting against????
 * The Bolsheviks
 * FDR and his Socialist NEw Deal
 * FDR, New Deal and the socialism and communism among the Jews
 * Jacobism and Democracy
 * Obsurantism censorship.

Obscurantism is clear on that page of "Reactionary". The WHY is never presented. REACT means to REACT against something.WHEELER 15:32, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, so? And it's Jacobinism, not Jacobism. Furthermore, Jacobinism pretty much died early in the 19th century in its true sense, so the Catholic Church and Monarchists were truly mostly fighting Democracy. Isn't that mentioned in the article?
 * The problem is that, when explaining what people were fighting against, we must not endorse their point of view. See the difference between: "the Foobitarians fought for the return to the Law of God" (which endorses the existence of a so-called "Law of God") and 'the Foobitarians explained they were fighting for the return to the "Law of Good"' (it's clear that it's the Foobitarians' opinion that such a law exists, and it's also clear that it's their definition that is sued).David.Monniaux 15:52, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hey David, Read any Herbert Hoover????WHEELER 15:32, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * No, why, should I? I'm not that much interested in American conservative politics. Note that I haven't deleted the Hoover quote. David.Monniaux 15:52, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Reactionary" is a pejoritive word. It seems that Herbert Hoover was quite proud of the title!WHEELER 15:36, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * So? "Reactionary" is generally used, nowadays, as a pejorative word. Similarly, "racist" is now generally used as a pejorative word. Still, Adolf Hitler was quite proud of being a racist!
 * In modern political parlance, "reactionary" is generally an accusation that political groups or politicians throw at other groups of politicians in an attempt to discredite them.
 * That's a fact. Of course, we do not say that "reactionary" is in essence a pejorative word, or that all uses of "reactionary" are pejorative, nor do we say that some people were not proud of being reactionaries (I'm pretty sure Charles Maurras was). The issue is that many people use "reactionary" as some others use "communist" - as a kind of insult, and it's actually the most frequent usage nowadays. David.Monniaux 15:52, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Clerical Philosophers In the aftermath of the French Revolution, the French state was in constant turmoil between the forces of restoration of the right and revolutionaries on the left. This left the Bourgeois Liberals in the middle and they sought to "preserve the revolution and combat the revolution". Their solution was to recreate a psychology of obedience to the rule of the Bourbons among the French people. They sought to keep the liberalization brought by the revolution and on the other hand defend the right of property. Herein arose the clerical philosophers Joseph de Maistre, Vicomte de Bonald, and François-René de Chateaubriand."
 * First, I don't see where Joseph de Maistre or Chateaubriand were seeking to "keep the liberalization" brought by the revolution. De Maistre is notorious for his reactionary opinions of going back to an authoritarian regime.
 * Second, you make, again, the mistake of assuming that the revolutionaries were against private property and thus that the French revolution was a fight between those in favor or against private property. This may be related to the fact that the definition of left vs right was different in those days.
 * Napoleon Bonaparte was a revolutionary, yet he was strongly in favor of private property. In fact, I don't see any major revolutionary against private property, like a Communist or Socialist would be, except perhaps Gracchus Babeuf.
 * Therefore, unless you provide strong evidence to the contrary, I'll edit this paragraph to say that those 3 people were revolutionaries who sought the return to an authoritarian monarchy, and say nothing about private property, since this was not a defining trait of the reactionary attitude at the time. David.Monniaux 20:07, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * My information comes directly from Liberalism and the challenge of Fascism, Social Forces in England and France 1815-1870 by J. Salwyn Schapiro, Professor Emeritus of History City College of New York, 1949. I use the word reactionary where he does and used practically the same words he did.  He classifies them as the Clerical philosophers.  The Dictionary of Ideas uses De Maistre and De Bonald together.WHEELER 23:54, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Did this professor claim that one main motive of those reactionaries was the fight for private property? Note that the Directory and Napoléon's regime were very much in favor of public property (perhaps more than the Monarchy, whose taxation policies were very much a spoliation of some classes of society to subsidize some other classes). David.Monniaux 00:20, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I meant the Bourgeois liberals wanted to keep the liberalization. I will make it clear. De Maistre and Bonald wanted to return. Chatebriand wanted to keep the liberalisation.WHEELER 23:57, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I indeed would not like to lump Chateaubriand with De Maistre and Bonald. De Maistre is considered an arch-supporter of the return to absolute monarchy (see Charles X of France). Chateaubriand is more of a Romantic writer.
 * Where did you get the idea that Chateaubriand did not really believe in Catholic teachings? Ok, he was known for his womanizing, but so was Louis XIV. Is there any evidence that, in spite of his numerous writings about Christian teachings, he did not believe in them and considered them merely instrumental in political goals? David.Monniaux 00:20, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Spelling and other presentation issues
WHEELER: It's called Jacobinism, not "Jacobism". The word is NOT in allusion to somebody named Jacob, Jacques or James, but to the use by this political club of a convent formerly used by Jacobine monks. David.Monniaux 06:31, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Jacobin monks, at any rate, were named for someone named Jacob, Jacques or James, weren't they? (An utterly substanceless post!)john 06:33, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * You're right. They were named afted Saint James. My point was that the Jacobins were NOT called Jacobins because they followed a political leader named Jacob, Jacques or James – which would rightly lead to the English Jacobism. David.Monniaux 06:52, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER: When you describe some political group's position, please make sure to use quotes or other devices around the necessary political feelings. If you don't, this make your text express a POV endorsing the analysis of that political group.

Compare (example taken about 20th century politics):
 * The LVF fought the incoming Bolshevik threat. (POV; endorses the LVF's view that there was an incoming Bolshevik threat, which is not a historical fact.)
 * The LVF fought the "incoming Bolshevik threat". (NPOV; the quotes express the fact that the incoming Bolshevik threat is the LVF's opinion.)
 * The LVF claimed the existence of an "incoming Bolshevik threat" and affirmed they would fight this threat. (NPOV)

I think that's the reason why so many of your edits got re-edited; they made it appear that Wikipedia was endorsing the positions of the reactionaries discussed. David.Monniaux 06:52, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also: when making allegations about some groups fighting against "Socialism" or for "private property", please double-check your claims. You stated several times that the Reactionaries opposing the French revolution did so to preserve private property, but, in fact, very few French revolutionaries were Socialists (Gracchus Babeuf is probably the best known, but you may note that he was quite isolated among the revolutionaries) or opposed private property. David.Monniaux 06:52, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The French Revolution is the beginning foundations of socialism.WHEELER 14:16, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The French Revolution established the foundations of the modern democratic state, which in turn became the foundation of socialism. But other than this vague connection, the only socialist thing about the French Revolution was its motto: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity


 * Perhaps Socialists consider it to be a founding moment in their movement. However, what matters is not the opinions of socialists about the foundations of their movements, but historical facts. The French Revolution was not a Socialist revolution. There was little political will to make means of production collective or to abolish private property.
 * You'll also note that many Socialists/Communists consider that the French Revolution was a bourgeois revolution.
 * I'd even go as far as to say that the Revolution, or at least many revolutionaries, was more in favor of private property than the Monarchist regime. The pre-revolutionary tax system was essentially spoliating the third estate of its property to subsidize the lifestyle of the nobility and the Catholic Church. David.Monniaux 14:37, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, your reference to the JBS is correct. Note, however, the change I made. You said: "It strenously defends the original intention of the U. S. Constitution." This is an endorsement of their political analysis and breaks the NPOV.

Note the enormous difference with: "It claims to strenuously defend". This, now, is NPOV.

Several of your earlier edits were removed or greatly edited exactly for the same reason: you wrote in such a way that the text expressed blatant support for the political analysis of the groups you quoted.

Instead of thinking about the issue, you instead alleged some nonexistant "socialist" bias in the other contributors. You should instead improve your expression in English so as not to make such blatant mistakes. David.Monniaux 16:37, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

American Parochialism
Parochialism is seeing things in one's own context. We are writing articles for the whole world. European reactionaryism is different from American reactionaryism. People from around the world will be reading this, It has got to broad and deep. Every article discusses the HISTORY of the word.WHEELER 14:16, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course, and I fully agree with that statement. The word "reactionary" is heavily connoted, and has designated different political positions in different contexts.
 * The fact that people around the world will be reading this article is all the more a reason not to push right-wing American obsessions about Socialists and Communists on issues that have little to do with Socialism or Communism. Doing this would be historical revisionism, which, I understand, you are against – and rightly so, if by "revisionism" you mean "lying about the past to advance an agenda".
 * It is true that in the context of a Socialist or Communist revolution, people supporting private property are often called reactionaries. However, your statements were about the clerical philosophers, which were in the context of post-revolutionary France, in which private property was not much of an issue. David.Monniaux 14:37, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Action Française
David, I see that you have put Action Francais everywhere in the article. I ask you please to at least delete it before the Clerical Philosophers it doesn't go there.WHEELER 14:39, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The phrase "Action Française" appears only twice inside the article, if I'm not mistaken, so "everywhere" is a gross exaggeration. The reference DOES belong to the Clerical Philosopher section, since the AF essentially followed De Maistre's thinking. Note that the AF is not cited as an organization of the same era, but as a heir. David.Monniaux 15:37, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It belongs at the end of the article not at the beginning. Action Francaise is a minor blip in history.  De Maistre had huge impact.


 * Actually you have it four times because you want to mention Maurras alot to. don't you think this is a little overblown for such a little group.  How many scholary journals quote from this group or man?


 * I'm sorry, but the AF is not some unimportant little group. AF was the quintessential French reactionary group between the Dreyfus Affair to WWII, whereas De Maistre was the quintessential reactionary thinker under the Bourbon restoration, which lasted less. The group was so well known that its magazine was actually prohibited by the Pope (who disagreed with their instrumentalization of religion, as far as I know).
 * As for scholarly journals, a simple search on www.jstor.org in the journals in the category of "history" for "Charles Maurras" yields pages and pages of scholarly citations (at least 11). A search for "Joseph de Maistre" yield 8 pages.
 * (jstor.org is a site where academic journals on various scholarly topics are archived. Unfortunately, access is by subscription.) David.Monniaux 16:11, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Is it Wikipedia policy to only link the word once when shown. I see that one word especially your Maurras character is linked everytime it appears in text.  Is it not supposed to be linked once where it appears the first time?


 * Feel free to remove the links.


 * Also, I quoted from the Oxford English dictionary and you have removed the different spellings.  Are you better than the Oxford English dictionary?  What gives?  WHEELER 15:57, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * You pretended that "reactionary" and "reactionism" were synonymous. They are not. Reactionary is an adjective; reactionism is the characteristic political ideology of a reactionary. It's the difference between "true" and "truth".
 * I checked in my own dictionaries, and "reactionaryism" was not cited in Webster 1913 nor in WordNet. If you affirm it is cited in OED, feel free to reinstate the spelling. David.Monniaux 16:11, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I see that, again, you asserted that "reactionary" and "reactionaryism" were synonymous. Do you read what people explain you in talk pages? Do you understand what I said in the preceding paragraph? If not, I suggest you get a beginner's English grammar and look up the definitions of "noun" and "adjective". I also suggest you get acquainted with the semantic difference between "socialist" and "socialism". David.Monniaux 16:18, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)