Reactionary or Progressive?

[Siebenbürgerin]

These terms came up a few times in discussions. I'm curious, what would you count yourself based on the definitions below:

reactionary adj. Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative.

progressive adj. Moving forward; advancing. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.

I'd count myself as reactionary, I'd think.

[Reich des Waldes]

While I voted reactionary, I see a need for balance, or a synthesis, of both sides. If we neglect being progressive we will be completely stuck in the past and hostile nations who have advanced will be able to crush us with their superior technology. On the opposing side, if we are too progressive we will lose all notion of our past/culture and end up in a far more terrible version of the United States.

I think a good model for reactionary vs progressive/conservative vs liberal is the development of Japan. After the Portuguese and Spanish found Japan in the late 1500s and started to exploit it for gold from silk trade, there was a man named Tokugawa Ieyasu who became Shogun (supreme military commander) and put his nation into isolationism. Any outsiders who stepped foot on Japan were to be put to death immediately. Roughly 250 years passed with this policy of isolationism from western powers until commodore Perry from the United States showed up with modern ships of the line. He told the current Shogun that he would destroy Edo castle with the cannons from his ships unless Japan was opened to trade with the west. Due to Japan still only having 16th century western technology, such as matchlock firearms, they could do nothing to repel Perry's demands. Japan's borders were opened and there was a rush to modernize the country. The current Shogun stepped down from power and the Meiji restoration took place. Emperor Meiji finally came to the concussion that they must use western technology to protect their nation and culture from other nations. Japan remained a strong nation, defeating the much larger Russian empire in 1905, until 1945 where along with the European nations had it's culture destroyed by America. While the current Japan may be the leader in technological advances, it is just a hollow shell of what it once was.

[Ward]

While the current Japan may be the leader in technological advances, it is just a hollow shell of what it once was.

Japan leads the way in technological advances? Are you sure about that?


I don't deny that the Japanese are a highly intelligent people, and their quick leap from a relatively primitive society into a highly advanced one was truly an astounding feat. Nevertheless, besides being very competent technicians and occasionally tweaking Western technology to make improvements on it, what is something they invented that was groundbreaking?

Even though they might make our computers, they didn't invent them. Their primary strengths seem to be in areas like business, marketing, quality control, and taking our inventions and selling them back to us.


Edit: To the issue at hand, I find myself increasingly drawn to (paleo)conservatism.


So yeah.. color me reactionary.

[Patrioten]

It is hard not to be reactionary when you find yourself in a society hijacked by marxists and liberals. When the present is a nightmare and the future looks even darker still, the past is where I find my refuge.

[Renwein]

I voted 'neither'. 'Progressive' and 'Reactionary' is propaganda used by certain groups (Marxists, Socialists etc). to make out that their view is 'progressive' towards some future utopia (eg a communist state), and other views are irrational, stupid, backwards, 'reactionary'. I don't want to play by their rules and don't think in those terms at all.

It's based on a wrong (IMO) historicist conception that as time progresses forward, so humans must neccessarily progress 'forward' to a better state. It's like when someone says 'How can you be racist, that's so backwards' (like the other month on a music board where the users were panning the BNP someone said 'how dare he have outdated beliefs!' ). To me I think that all ideas are timeless and if they have any share of truth, then that must be eternal (regardless of what the fashion of the day is).

Apart from not wanting to enter the language of the 'left' I could have also voted 'both', because there are certain ideas from each I could agree with, but I don't see myself as a traditionalist (ie, tradition for traditions sake) and would choose one because I thought it was the right thing for future progress, but, since i'm not a liberal I don't think I could call myself 'progressive' either, apart from not wanting to play that game like I said .

PS: How could Bärin, our communist, vote reactionary ? I thought all communists viewed themselves as progressives. It's one of the key features of communist writing

[Segestan]

Progress to me.. is building a sound stable way of living. No need to progress beyond our needs. Reactionary to me... is reacting to whatever threatens progress.

[Lichtblick]

Just toying with words...I voted for "something else", because I thought it fit my impetus best, it was not that I saw I was the first before I'd done it, but I think, I could have voted for any other option as well and would have been able to explain it nontheless.

There will always be times to lay the old to waste and there will always be times to burn those heretics and apostates, it's absolutely depending on the exact point (in time and place) of view.

So I could have voted if I'm merely "reactionary" or "progressive" these days, but that's absolutely out of interest and btw Renwein's statement's all too true.

I believe in wholism and equilibrism, hence I'm always-adjusting, whatever name others may give it.
Or borrowing from Moeller: Again and again "...creating things that are worth conserving."

[White Africa]

Since the first definition makes a reference to liberalism, don't hope many people will vote for it, even if the are progressive.

I consider myself a progressive reactionary. We have to progress forward, but not the way it happens now, at least not in SA, which is rather going backwards, from 1st world country to 3rd world country.

[Sigurd]

Renwein has said almost all of which I wanted to say about the topic. The reactionary/progressive spectrum is one which the extreme left has designed to essentially label their ideological foes as not being built on ideology, but solely on reaction and opportunism to a threat to the order we seek to preserve. For me that is however not the case, I would seek to defend our folk's heritage even if it were not at threat.

I take much of my ideological guidance from tradition and somewhat conservative values - therefore I cannot be a full-fledged progressive. Full progressive ideologies are more concerned with building a new order, than from building an order from our roots.

On the other hand, I also consider it important that these aforementioned traditions should evolve with the time and the needs of the folk, lest they become an anachronism and no longer applicable to the needs of a folk at that present time.

Therefore, I am probably a bit of both, though it is essentially a spectrum I consider even more useless than the left/right spectrum, as the approach I take to Folkism cannot be pidgeonholed into categories designed by our ideologial adversaries.

[Thusnelda]

I´m aware of the fact that the terms are heavily influenced by leftist agenda, but I subscribe to "reactionary" nonetheless. Sure, concerning some aspects of society I´m progressive, but the ratio is more or less 5:1 in favour of reactionary attitudes. I think it´s nothing to be ashamed of.