At what point do you call a conservative a reactionary?

At what point do you call a conservative a reactionary?

I feel like a lot of people on the left use "reactionary" the same way right wingers use "communist", and at this point I'm not even sure if it's an actual ideology.

Attached: Akagi.jpg (586x452, 84.1K)

In the current day and age liberals and social democrats are not only reactionary but will prove themselves the fiercest bastion of reaction.

"Reactionary" to me is anything that is overly hostile to what most would call "progressive." Given this, and how even conservatives will sometimes have progressive views about certain things, "reactionary" now to me is rad-trad and literal monarchists.

Anybody who supports capitalism is a reactionary.

"Reactionary" never really corresponds to an ideology as such, and to an extent it has always been used as a slur rather than as a set term with a definite meaning. That said, "Reaction" generally refers to anything that yearns, intentionally or unintentionally, for a return to some previous societal state. Usually vaguely utopian in nature and never hitting the true cause of any percieved social ills ("if only those gays would stop getting married we'd have America back again" etc.).

literally all conservatives are reactionaries

A conservative accepts and protects the status quo in the name of "traditional values". A reactionary seek to undo post-Enlightenment political developments and to return to "traditional" social arrangements. A fascist supports the creation of a new totalitarian society with the aim of achieving national rebirth. There is considerable overlap between the three and they usually share many commitments: nationalism, authoritarianism, anti-communism and social conservatism being the most significant.

Otto Von Bismarck was a conservative. Charles Maurras was a reactionary. Benito Mussolini was a fascist.

Attached: two_horses.jpg (454x395, 32.34K)

Lol, conservatives hold wildly reactionary veiws, though.

Conservatives are already reactionary.

Conservatism is almost never just a lifestyle choice anymore.
It's almost exclusively reactionary.

(checked)
only correct answer in thread

When the conservative starts attempting to roll back progress, starts waxing poetic about some real or imagined former social order and wants to bring said social order back, and fear mongers about some malignant outside force that supposedly destroyed said utopian former social order.

Or, in short, all conservatives can be called reactionaries.

conservatism is inherently reactionary

Actual conservatives generally view societal progress as a good thing; they just are stubborn about moving their feet, and tend to believe the status quo is, at the very least, better than radical action. Liberals basically fall in this point most often, but it's not a stance which is inherently bad. For instance, I would say that I am a conservative in nature, but socialism or barbarism amiright. Reactionaries explicitly believe that the current/past society was the most idea, while Fascists propose to restore society to that point in time. The reactionaries are mostly delusional, and will fail just as their past ideals did (if they even actually existed).

Basically:

A reactionary is like a progressive but they try to regress instead of progress. This means they will use government policy to try to halt and reverse changes to society and government.

For ignorant commies, most "conservatives" are liberals like Burke. But instead of rapid progressive change they want to bring it about much more slowly. A lot of "conservatives" are actually progressive.

Conservatism is reactionary. Some ☭TANKIE☭s and nazghouls try to use gymnastics and quote mining for it to extend to other things.

ALL BABOONS IN ZOOS

I think a sensible threshold for 'reactionary' is when one starts advocating for organized religion for purely secular reasons.
t. reactionary

Attached: maialmly-memri-tv-he-is-even-worse-than-a-jew-22634712.png (500x375, 73.16K)

(checked)

Attached: 1516466594845.png (477x556, 709.13K)

This is pretty much how I've understood it. Anybody who romanticizes the past and expresses a desire to return to older ways, especially without any sort of historical and/or materialist analysis to explain exactly why the years gone by tinted by rosy nostalgia glasses has, as far as I can see, reactionary tendencies, at the very least. People upholding the status quo are not reactionaries, just people who are (or think they are) comfortable the way things are now and are afraid of disturbing the balance, typical of anyone between dems and soc dems (and arguably dem socs).

If, say, a socialist revolution were to occur and bring about a new status quo, those who hold the opinion that a return to liberal bourgeois democracy with state run social apparatuses would now be a reactionary. It's all dependent upon the stage of development. Hell, wanting a return to first stage communism once second stage is achieved would be reactionary.