Indeed they do. But my point was that I don’t see people doing that with “reactionary”.
Perhaps there is a “Reactionary Party” in your neck of the woods, but here in the US, I’ve never found anyone calling their political views reactionary as a way to describe them, as opposed to merely indicating that “leftists are offended by my views”. While there may be such people, they are a vanishingly small part of the population. Reactionary is not seen as a coherent set of views that anyone professes, but only a boo word from leftists which has generally been superseded by “racist, sexist, homophobe”.
Reactionary is not seen as a coherent set of views that anyone professes, but only a boo word from leftists which has generally been superseded by “racist, sexist, homophobe”.
The same critique could be made of conservatism. If we accept that term, reactionary seems to be acceptable as well:
A reactionary is an individual that holds political viewpoints which cause them to seek to return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society. Reactionaries are considered to be one end of a political spectrum whose opposite pole is perceived radicalism, though reactionary ideologies may be themselves radical. While it has not been generally considered positive to be regarded as a reactionary it has been adopted as a self-description by some such as H. L. Mencken,[1] Gerald Warner of Craigenmaddie[2] and John Lukacs.[3]
In other words reactionary is the right wing person who looks around the society he inhabits and does not see much worth preserving but seeks to revive older institutions. Julian the Apostate seems a good example.
A member of the Constantinian dynasty, he was made Caesar over the western provinces, by Constantius II in 355, where he campaigned successfully against the Alamanni and Franks. Most notable was his crushing victory over the Alamanni in 357 at the Battle of Argentoratum—despite being outnumbered. In 360 in Lutetia (Paris) he was acclaimed Augustus by his soldiers, sparking a civil war between Julian and Constantius. However, Constantius died before the two could face each other in battle, naming Julian as his rightful successor. In 363, Julian embarked on an ambitious campaign against the Sassanid Empire. Though initially successful, Julian was mortally wounded in battle and died shortly after.
Julian was a man of unusually complex character: he was “the military commander, the theosophist, the social reformer, and the man of letters”.[4] He was the last non-Christian ruler of the Roman Empire and it was his desire to bring the Empire back to its ancient Roman values in order to save it from dissolution.[5] He purged the top-heavy state bureaucracy and attempted to revive traditional Roman religious practices at the cost of Christianity. His rejection of Christianity in favour of Neoplatonic paganism caused him to be called Julian the Apostate (Ἀποστάτης or Παραβάτης “Transgressor”) by the church.[6] He was the last emperor of the Constantinian dynasty, the empire’s first Christian dynasty.
Besides causing us to wonder how much better the world might have been had he lived, he provides a clear contrast to the meek conservative Roman senators petitioning for the Altar of Victory be restores to the curia not as an object of worship but of symbolic value.
In 19th and 20th century Europe the word is tied to a particular set of views similarly to how big C Conservatism in the US is liked to certain views not just a small c conservative outlook of careful and slow change. The European Reactionary may support monarchism, pro-clericalism, anti-bourgeois and what Americans might term Paleoconservative and Paleolibertarian positions.
The very similar but secular reactionary cluster of views that I expect is overrepresented on LessWrong is the 21st century internet made Neoreactionary one (here is a leftwing take). Besides Moldbug, read Nick Land and Foseti’s links to get a further feel for it.
a different set of ideas that are both Jacobite-ancient and internet-au-courant
I think I see what’s going on with the US side, at least.
I remember back almost 20 years ago, discussing politics on the internet, and it was much the same thing with the anarcho capitalists. Smart bunch of fellows making some decent points, who I basically agreed with, who also had fundamentally incoherent political theory, IMO. I put it to David Friedman in a brief exchange, if we just call the US government a defense agency, what do you have to complain about? There have been competing defense agencies, and US government won. Get over it.
Seems that some anarcho capitalists have admitted that governments are competing defense agencies, and now back Neocameralism which will, they say, produce desirable outcomes as the competing governments maximize long term shareholder value. 20 years later, this seems like an advance for their theory. I’m still not convinced they’ve rounded the bend toward coherency, but I’ll leave the politics for another day.
I read Moldbug first, and I was already having anarcho capitalist argument flashbacks, which reading Nick Land turned into a full blown trip down memory lane.
Thanks for the trip down memory lane, and getting me up to date on some of the fringe internet politics. I like to see how stories turn out. For my original objection to your comment, I was thinking about the US as a whole, which wasn’t the appropriate population for categories on a poll here anyway.
I will criticize Moldbug’s analysis of leftism, though. He presumes that the left is motivated by a fearful reaction to the Jesus people, and that through passivism, you remove the target of their fear, and the wind goes out of their sails. I think that’s the same mistake some people make about Islamists—thinking that the problem is their reaction to what you’re doing, and that if you’d only stop doing it, everything would be ok. No. Leftists and Islamists have their own agendas that aren’t just reactions to you. It’s not all about you. Other people have their own values, and pursue them.
People do re-purpose words that are used to refer to them disparagingly.
Indeed they do. But my point was that I don’t see people doing that with “reactionary”.
Perhaps there is a “Reactionary Party” in your neck of the woods, but here in the US, I’ve never found anyone calling their political views reactionary as a way to describe them, as opposed to merely indicating that “leftists are offended by my views”. While there may be such people, they are a vanishingly small part of the population. Reactionary is not seen as a coherent set of views that anyone professes, but only a boo word from leftists which has generally been superseded by “racist, sexist, homophobe”.
The same critique could be made of conservatism. If we accept that term, reactionary seems to be acceptable as well:
In other words reactionary is the right wing person who looks around the society he inhabits and does not see much worth preserving but seeks to revive older institutions. Julian the Apostate seems a good example.
Besides causing us to wonder how much better the world might have been had he lived, he provides a clear contrast to the meek conservative Roman senators petitioning for the Altar of Victory be restores to the curia not as an object of worship but of symbolic value.
In 19th and 20th century Europe the word is tied to a particular set of views similarly to how big C Conservatism in the US is liked to certain views not just a small c conservative outlook of careful and slow change. The European Reactionary may support monarchism, pro-clericalism, anti-bourgeois and what Americans might term Paleoconservative and Paleolibertarian positions.
The very similar but secular reactionary cluster of views that I expect is overrepresented on LessWrong is the 21st century internet made Neoreactionary one (here is a leftwing take). Besides Moldbug, read Nick Land and Foseti’s links to get a further feel for it.
I think I see what’s going on with the US side, at least.
I remember back almost 20 years ago, discussing politics on the internet, and it was much the same thing with the anarcho capitalists. Smart bunch of fellows making some decent points, who I basically agreed with, who also had fundamentally incoherent political theory, IMO. I put it to David Friedman in a brief exchange, if we just call the US government a defense agency, what do you have to complain about? There have been competing defense agencies, and US government won. Get over it.
Seems that some anarcho capitalists have admitted that governments are competing defense agencies, and now back Neocameralism which will, they say, produce desirable outcomes as the competing governments maximize long term shareholder value. 20 years later, this seems like an advance for their theory. I’m still not convinced they’ve rounded the bend toward coherency, but I’ll leave the politics for another day.
I read Moldbug first, and I was already having anarcho capitalist argument flashbacks, which reading Nick Land turned into a full blown trip down memory lane.
Thanks for the trip down memory lane, and getting me up to date on some of the fringe internet politics. I like to see how stories turn out. For my original objection to your comment, I was thinking about the US as a whole, which wasn’t the appropriate population for categories on a poll here anyway.
I will criticize Moldbug’s analysis of leftism, though. He presumes that the left is motivated by a fearful reaction to the Jesus people, and that through passivism, you remove the target of their fear, and the wind goes out of their sails. I think that’s the same mistake some people make about Islamists—thinking that the problem is their reaction to what you’re doing, and that if you’d only stop doing it, everything would be ok. No. Leftists and Islamists have their own agendas that aren’t just reactions to you. It’s not all about you. Other people have their own values, and pursue them.