Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


0 votes

How do y'all feel about lefists and their various varieties of terms terms (fascist, reactionary, liberals...etc). How do y'all feel about it?  I do find irony in their description of anit-civ as reactionary when anti-civ isn't reaction  Maybe y'all could could this conundrum?

I've noticed a lot of leftist love using these words as an insult and possibly don't know what a reactionary, facism,liberalism is, as I've been called by them at variety times in my long life.

How would y'all define fascism, reactionary or liberalism, to those not familiar with anarchism?

Thanks. If this comes off as comes off as incoherent, I blame the 1p-lsd lol. If it came of as inflammatory  or insulting, that wasn't my intent. . ;)Thanks. :) I'll answer questions in comments if anynone leaves one

by (4.7k points)
edited by

human, are you asking why people who you consider to be radical (including yourself, perhaps) get called a variety of things by people who disagree with you? for example JZ used to call everyone he didn't like in the radical space a "leftist." and now he calls us nihilists, without ever defining his own terms (or only defining them in ways that are highly idiosyncratic).

you could argue that any "anti" anything is indeed reactionary. in fact it would be fair to say that anarchy (to the extent that it is about negating the state and capitalism, anyway) is reactionary. things that are anti-something are reacting to the something. the argument (i guess?) would be that there is a knee-jerk response to the something, rather than--for example--addressing the needs that brought the something into being in the first place, or accepting the reality of the something and making it be a positive somehow...

i'm perhaps not the best person to explain reactionary in some deeper, social way, since it's not a term i use or have had used on me (that i know of, anyway).

fascism is more complicated because it has more intense history, and a wide variety of international contexts that it is relevant to, from fairly empty name-calling to life-and-death struggles (like in greece). (if someone in the u.s. is calling someone else in the u.s. a fascist i'm highly suspicious... but maybe that's just me).

and liberalism is also a variety of things, from a fairly empty pejorative that means "reformist" or something, to something/one who is the opposite (on a single axis) of conservative (the definition of liberalism on wikipedia is good enough to help flesh that distinction out, i think).

but none of that has anything in particular to do with anarchy/ism, ie those are used as pejoratives by people (and against people) in a variety of political milieus.

if this is what you're asking, then i will make this post an answer. otherwise perhaps you can explain your question further?

Note that "reactionary" is not a synonym of "reactive" - they have the same root etymologically but *not* the same denotation at all. A reactionary is someone who wants a maintenance of/return to the status quo during possible/immediately following social or political change. So, an anarchist could not be considered a reactionary except in extremely unusual moments (e.g., immediately following the founding of Uruk).
Trying to get back to this question. ego death. shit. ISB the minotaur. I will respond tomorrow. The question was  from a month ago lolwut sorry
"How would y'all define fascism, reactionary or liberalism, to those not familiar with anarchism?"

this is kind of an aside, but: those terms aren't at all specific to anarchist thought, so why does it matter if someone is familiar with anarchism when defining them?
yea f@ i wondered that too.

Please log in or register to answer this question.