OK, fuck the Islam discussion. Lets's discuss the term reactionary. Here is what wikipedia has to say:

Reactionary (or reactionist) is a political epithet, generally used as a pejorative, originally applied in the context of the French Revolution to counter-revolutionaries who wished to restore the real or imagined conditions of the monarchical Ancien Régime. Through the 19th century, it was used to refer to those who wished to preserve feudalism or aristocratic privilege against industrialism, republicanism, liberalism and in some cases socialism. The term "reactionary" is frequently used as a term of opprobrium, meant to assert the idea that the opposition is based in merely reflexive politics rather than responsive and informed views, as well as being based in a desire to not only halt progressive change but to reverse it.

Reactionary comes from the French word réactionnaire, coined in the early 19th century. It was the first of the two words coined (the other being conservative, from the French word conservateur) for the opposition to the French Revolution. "In parliamentary usage, the monarchists were commonly referred to as the Right, although they were often called Reactionaries." (1) This is the first time the word was used to mean "A movement towards the reversal of an existing tendency or state" or a "return to a previous condition of affairs." This meaning is referred to as the French sense of the word. (OED).

In the 19th century this term was used against individuals and groups that idealized either feudalism or the pre-modern era that preceded the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution when economies were largely agrarian, the landed aristocracy dominated society, a king was on the throne and the church was the moral centre of society. Thus, those labeled reactionary once favoured the aristocracy over the middle class and the working class, even though they later favoured the conservative bourgeoisie---they were against democracy and parliamentarism.
____________

Mike (and anyone else who might want to chime in), it occurred to me this morning on the bus that perhaps your defense of Wolf has to do with this term in a fashion.

If we are to have open dialogue HERE, that is one thing. But I realized this is not the context of the discussion you are trying to have. I think that your perspective is rather Very Much more external than what goes on here.

Is the labor in figuring out how to accept and integrate the reactionary views that are very common among the populous and to craft a message that does not aliente those folks?

In other words, if we are seeking here to have discussion that would translate out to the broad public, do we not have to have a means of engaging the public without dismissing their comments as reactionary, however accurate that may be within the confines of a closed and far more intellectual discussion like we ostensibly have here?

That idea I had, however poorly related here, went a long way towards making me understand where you are coming from (if I am in fact anywhere near right in my appraisal of your defense of Wolf's comments). Am I anywhere near understanding you?

All that said, I agree that the comments Wolf made about Islam are reactionary, especially against the background of the definition above. Anax's comment that Wolf's position is reactionary seemed quite precise after I read the definition and thought more on the matter; in fact, I went hunting a definition because I could sense that he meant the term in a very precise way.

Truly, is what is reactionary here not also what we face in communicating with the public? And if so, is Mike not indeed quite right that we have to find some way to stick to our ideological guns while not simply dismissing such claims?

I do hope several folks will have some comment, most especially Mike and Wolf.

Bingo.


Under tremendous pressure here at work with a tight deadline on a massive project. Please pardon my brevity.

OK, fuck the Islam discussion. Lets's discuss the term reactionary. Here is what wikipedia has to say:

Reactionary (or reactionist) is a political epithet, generally used as a pejorative, originally applied in the context of the French Revolution to counter-revolutionaries who wished to restore the real or imagined conditions of the monarchical Ancien Régime. Through the 19th century, it was used to refer to those who wished to preserve feudalism or aristocratic privilege against industrialism, republicanism, liberalism and in some cases socialism. The term "reactionary" is frequently used as a term of opprobrium, meant to assert the idea that the opposition is based in merely reflexive politics rather than responsive and informed views, as well as being based in a desire to not only halt progressive change but to reverse it.

Reactionary comes from the French word réactionnaire, coined in the early 19th century. It was the first of the two words coined (the other being conservative, from the French word conservateur) for the opposition to the French Revolution. "In parliamentary usage, the monarchists were commonly referred to as the Right, although they were often called Reactionaries." (1) This is the first time the word was used to mean "A movement towards the reversal of an existing tendency or state" or a "return to a previous condition of affairs." This meaning is referred to as the French sense of the word. (OED).

In the 19th century this term was used against individuals and groups that idealized either feudalism or the pre-modern era that preceded the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution when economies were largely agrarian, the landed aristocracy dominated society, a king was on the throne and the church was the moral centre of society. Thus, those labeled reactionary once favoured the aristocracy over the middle class and the working class, even though they later favoured the conservative bourgeoisie---they were against democracy and parliamentarism.
____________

Mike (and anyone else who might want to chime in), it occurred to me this morning on the bus that perhaps your defense of Wolf has to do with this term in a fashion.

If we are to have open dialogue HERE, that is one thing. But I realized this is not the context of the discussion you are trying to have. I think that your perspective is rather Very Much more external than what goes on here.

Is the labor in figuring out how to accept and integrate the reactionary views that are very common among the populous and to craft a message that does not aliente those folks?

In other words, if we are seeking here to have discussion that would translate out to the broad public, do we not have to have a means of engaging the public without dismissing their comments as reactionary, however accurate that may be within the confines of a closed and far more intellectual discussion like we ostensibly have here?

That idea I had, however poorly related here, went a long way towards making me understand where you are coming from (if I am in fact anywhere near right in my appraisal of your defense of Wolf's comments). Am I anywhere near understanding you?

All that said, I agree that the comments Wolf made about Islam are reactionary, especially against the background of the definition above. Anax's comment that Wolf's position is reactionary seemed quite precise after I read the definition and thought more on the matter; in fact, I went hunting a definition because I could sense that he meant the term in a very precise way.

Truly, is what is reactionary here not also what we face in communicating with the public? And if so, is Mike not indeed quite right that we have to find some way to stick to our ideological guns while not simply dismissing such claims?

I do hope several folks will have some comment, most especially Mike and Wolf.

Ooops... you almost had it.

I guess I have to be the hard-ass.... again.

Wolf ain't the "public".

The "public" in general and working people in particular are not generally wound around the "Islamic Threat" in Wolf's form. In fact, that is a perspective from the extreme right. Working people are all over America and they are in no way overwhelmingly white or conservative or jingoistic or have Confederate flags on their pickup trucks, etc.

It is not acknowledgement of the many confused views of the populace to say we are "against the capitalists" and also "against Islam". That is simple opportunism.... a fatal disease.

Reaction is just reaction... There ain't no such thing as "justifiable reaction".

And by the way, how is this any different from the charge that Tinoire was opportunist by wanting to limit the aggressive, left-wing, "theoretical" assault on her "newbies"?

You guys make-up any way you want to.

I volunteer to be the hard-line rejectionist who just can't see reason or understand "realities".

My question would be: can't someone simply be wrong? Must we anathemise them too?

The "public" in general and working people in particular are not generally wound around the "Islamic Threat" in Wolf's form. In fact, that is a perspective from the extreme right. Working people are all over America and they are in no way overwhelmingly white or conservative or jingoistic or have Confederate flags on their pickup trucks, etc.

redux
http://www.progressiveindependent.com/d ... g_id=43173 (http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=42958&mesg_id=43173)

OK, point taken. Finally.


Reaction is just reaction... There ain't no such thing as "justifiable reaction".

I have not tried to slide towards justifying the reaction, but rather I have tried to understand Mike's thinking.

I think this is where we can really zero in on the disagreement when he has the time to more fully respond on this thread.


I volunteer to be the hard-line rejectionist who just can't see reason or understand "realities".

YAY

Sort of like trangulating over the issue of slavery.

Forget it. Is it all worth it then to sell out on your own ethical code--to win exactly what? It is not simply a matter of political correctness, these are not niche issues, or the trivial concerns of the upper-class dillettante, but matters of hate and prejudice. The activist that dismisses these issues as the trivial concerns of class interests hads abandoned the humanity of the working class. The working class should have a consciousness, an awareness and claim it as their own, not as the petty interests of the liberals. The Right put much effort into their reach-out to cater to ignorance and fear, are you suggesting we position ourselves in the same matter? An approach of economic populism will work, without the airy-fairyness of Kucinich, the Boston elitism of Kerry or the sell-out Yuppie era triagulation of Clinton.

Wolf's presentation was outrageous in it's inflamatory, reactionary bias and obviously skewed claims, and although offensive, it does prompt some precise articulation. The frustration comes from being assigned classist indoctrination for questioning the argument followed by those making the claim bowing out when they run into opposition. The most fundamental reactionaries are those always most closely linked with the Right, yet we are supposed to condemn all religious identificaton (Christian-Muslim)as the threatening beast coddled by the PC Left? I do admires Wolf's style and appreciate his insight and experience, but that is just beyond the pale.

Let me repeat my question in a slightly different way: is it possible that Wolf is simply wrong about that issue? Or do we really believe in our secret hearts that nobody can be wrong about something like that without also being personally defective at their core? Is everyone who holds a reactionary view that they couldn't defend if you gave them a year's start and the LoC research staff to do their bidding--are all such people deficient ethically? Or are they just flat-ass wrong--dumb, thoughtless, screw-headed, prejudiced, monomaniacal, whatever-- about that issue but otherwise okay?

That really doesn't seem like an unimportant or banal question.

is it possible that Wolf is simply wrong about that issue? Or do we really believe in our secret hearts that nobody can be wrong about something like that without also being personally defective at their core?

Sure, just as it is possible for someone who is fundementally reactionary to be spot on concerning certain issues,ie Pat Buchannon and the war. Ain't nothin' black & white, the only consideration is to not identify one correct opinion with the whole. And vice versa.

Deal breakers do exists, racism for one, but I see Wolf's position not as that but rather anti-monotheism with a broad brush, lacking nuance. Monotheism is by it's nature intolerant, authoritarian and ignorant or dismissive of the natural world of which we are a part. That some adherents of monotheism have been able to interpert their beliefs otherwise should be accepted. Francis of Asissi, liberation theology, Sufi Islam(as practiced in Central Asia, Sufi as practiced in Africa has been pretty bloody handed) come to mind. First, do no harm.

Let me repeat my question in a slightly different way: is it possible that Wolf is simply wrong about that issue? Or do we really believe in our secret hearts that nobody can be wrong about something like that without also being personally defective at their core? Is everyone who holds a reactionary view that they couldn't defend if you gave them a year's start and the LoC research staff to do their bidding--are all such people deficient ethically? Or are they just flat-ass wrong--dumb, thoughtless, screw-headed, prejudiced, monomaniacal, whatever-- about that issue but otherwise okay?

That really doesn't seem like an unimportant or banal question.

Thanks.

I have nothing to respond with, but I agree that you have a very important question in mind.

Let me repeat my question in a slightly different way: is it possible that Wolf is simply wrong about that issue? Or do we really believe in our secret hearts that nobody can be wrong about something like that without also being personally defective at their core? Is everyone who holds a reactionary view that they couldn't defend if you gave them a year's start and the LoC research staff to do their bidding--are all such people deficient ethically? Or are they just flat-ass wrong--dumb, thoughtless, screw-headed, prejudiced, monomaniacal, whatever-- about that issue but otherwise okay?

That really doesn't seem like an unimportant or banal question.

No, I think the answer to that question is Who Cares? Mike is claiming that:

A) Wolf is more genuine because he is not hiding anything, putting all his cards on the table, and in turn he is less judgmental than the rest of us.

B) The rest of us are a pack of slobbering dogs just waiting for the smell of blood in the air who will suck people in with all sorts of falsities, waiting for that perfect moment to pounce.

A is clearly wrong, Wolf's standard disclaimer on every post he makes is "I can see there it is pointless to continue talking about this". That is dismissive, heavy-handed, pompous. Everyone else is cast as a misguided fool who frustratingly lacks his clarion vision.

B might be true but I think its a thin line to walk..what if Wolf had all the sudden spouted neo-Nazi propaganda, would everyone 'assailing' him still be the guilty party?

No, I think the answer to that question is Who Cares?

hmmm...do you mean that you don't think it's worth caring about, or that you're wondering who thinks it's worth caring about, or something else? It seems to me to be worth caring about, since I try to treat people differently according to what their general approach to life seems to be. Do you treat everyone the same per their surface behavior, without caring or trying to understand what motivates it?


B might be true but I think its a thin line to walk..what if Wolf had all the sudden spouted neo-Nazi propaganda, would everyone 'assailing' him still be the guilty party?

Who's saying anyone here is a "guilty party" right now? I don't think there's anything going on that merits guilty feelings. Wolf is certainly feeling hard done by, but that's him. He's clinging to a thesis that nobody else is buying, and a few people have been brutally honest about their feelings on the subject. But as far as I can tell, it's only talk. I've not seen anyone call for his being cast into the outer darkness with a big "R" branded into his forehead. Did I miss it?

No, I think the answer to that question is Who Cares?

hmmm...do you mean that you don't think it's worth caring about, or that you're wondering who thinks it's worth caring about, or something else? It seems to me to be worth caring about, since I try to treat people differently according to what their general approach to life seems to be. Do you treat everyone the same per their surface behavior, without caring or trying to understand what motivates it?


B might be true but I think its a thin line to walk..what if Wolf had all the sudden spouted neo-Nazi propaganda, would everyone 'assailing' him still be the guilty party?

Who's saying anyone here is a "guilty party" right now? I don't think there's anything going on that merits guilty feelings. Wolf is certainly feeling hard done by, but that's him. He's clinging to a thesis that nobody else is buying, and a few people have been brutally honest about their feelings on the subject. But as far as I can tell, it's only talk. I've not seen anyone call for his being cast into the outer darkness with a big "R" branded into his forehead. Did I miss it?

Well I took your question as asking "Is he just wrong or wrong AND a bad person?. I don't really think that had anything to do with what this dispute was about.

Well I took your question as asking "Is he just wrong or wrong AND a bad person?. I don't really think that had anything to do with what this dispute was about.
Oh, how weird. That's indeed exactly what I was asking (though more generally, not just about Wolf as an individual). So what were you saying in your response, exactly? Obviously I misunderstood you!

But as far as I can tell, it's only talk.

Perhaps this is out of place for such heavy business but the quoted sentence brought this to mind:

Talk, its only talk
Arguments, agreements, advice, answers,
Articulate announcements
Its only talk

Talk, its only talk
Babble, burble, banter, bicker bicker bicker
Brouhaha, boulderdash, ballyhoo
Its only talk
Back talk

Talk talk talk, its only talk
Comments, cliches, commentary, controversy
Chatter, chit-chat, chit-chat, chit-chat,
Conversation, contradiction, criticism
Its only talk
Cheap talk

Talk, talk, its only talk
Debates, discussions
These are words with a d this time
Dialogue, dualogue, diatribe,
Dissention, declamation
Double talk, double talk

Talk, talk, its all talk
Too much talk
Small talk
Talk that trash
Expressions, editorials, expugnations, exclamations, enfadulations
Its all talk
Elephant talk, elephant talk, elephant talk

Not to take away from the importance of talk, but sometimes we need to lighten up a little.

The "public" in general and working people in particular are not generally wound around the "Islamic Threat" in Wolf's form. In fact, that is a perspective from the extreme right. Working people are all over America and they are in no way overwhelmingly white or conservative or jingoistic or have Confederate flags on their pickup trucks, etc.

redux
http://www.progressiveindependent.com/d ... g_id=43173 (http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=42958&mesg_id=43173)

OK, point taken. Finally.


Reaction is just reaction... There ain't no such thing as "justifiable reaction".

I have not tried to slide towards justifying the reaction, but rather I have tried to understand Mike's thinking.

I think this is where we can really zero in on the disagreement when he has the time to more fully respond on this thread.


I volunteer to be the hard-line rejectionist who just can't see reason or understand "realities".

YAY

Yes... redux.

With a more practical problem attached to it this time... (it always works that way with yesterday's musings suddenly becoming today's dilemas.)

With a more practical problem attached to it this time... (it always works that way with yesterday's musings suddenly becoming today's dilemas.)

War Protest Report courtesy of Keith at PI and distilled down to his best pic vis avis our current discussion:
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b286/kitkatrose/Jan%202007%20antiwar%20protest/DCFN0014.jpg