Reaction

From Leftypedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Reaction is a label used by Marxists and some liberals to refer either to a movement which aims to reverse the effects of a social revolution, or to a period in which such a movement gains control of society. Supporters of reaction are called reactionaries, and their position, reactionism or reactionaryism. Reaction is an inevitable consequence of social revolution as it collides with the political power of the ruling classes and disturbs elements of the superstructure — including social mores, traditions, and institutions — which support them. Hence, reactionaries tend to support conservative positions on issues like family planning, religion, gender relations, and social hierarchy. The term "reactionary" itself stems from the French réaction, first used during the French Revolution to refer to monarchist forces and, later, the "Thermidorian Reaction" (Réaction thermidorienne), a tempering of revolutionary activity following the defeat of the Jacobins. One of its earliest uses in English was in a 1799 translation of Lazare Carnot's letter on the Coup of 18 Fructidor.[1] Its sense was soon generalized and used throughout Europe to apply to such a force in any social revolution. Karl Marx, whose great interest was the nature of social revolutions, uses the term in the short Communist Manifesto no less than thirteen times.

Governments or groups which oppose progressive forces are also considered to be reactionary, as they hold back the revolutionary development of the forces and relations of production. For example, although Great Britain had opposed the French Revolution and fought against it, Marx saw the British role in post-Napoleonic Europe as progressive due to its rivalry with the Russian Empire, the "last great reserve of all European reaction".[2] Indeed, Russia, along with Prussia and Austria, held an interest in maintaining monarchist and feudal institutions across Europe, driving the three powers, collectively known as the Holy Alliance, to continuously intervene in foreign revolutions throughout the 19th century, most notably in 1848. In addition to the reactionaries of the old ruling classes, Karl Marx described the reactionary role of the French peasantry in his 1852 work The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, and was often wary of the ambiguous role of the peasantry in general. Marx also maintained, in the Communist Manifesto and elsewhere, that the Lumpenproletariat, or non-proletarian poor, were highly prone to becoming a "bribed tool of reactionary intrigue",[3] such as during the February Revolution in France.[4]

Fascism and political anti-communism were the two major forms of reaction in the 20th century. Fascism in particular resembled the 19th century reactionary movements in that it followed in the wake of serious threats from the left, such as the Italian Biennio rosso and the German Revolution of 1918. Other important reactionary groups include the Russian and Finnish White movements, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), and the Spanish Nationalists during the Spanish Civil War. Use of the term continues into the 21st century, but the concept is less clear than it was in the 19th and 20th, as monarchists and the aristocracy are no longer the political forces they once were. Reactionists therefore play a different role in the class struggle of today.

Etymology[edit | edit source]

The word is transparent in meaning, stemming directly from the "reaction" of the status-quo parties — what Marx called the "party of order" — to the upheaval of the revolution. The historical importance of the French Revolution meant that its concepts and terminology were quickly loaned or calqued into the major languages of Europe and, later, the world. In this sense, the very idea of "reaction" is inseparable from concepts like "conservative" (Fr. conservatif), "liberal" (libérale),[5] and even "revolution" itself (révolution). The word "reaction" has fallen out of use in countries like the United States compared to these other terms, but in other places it remains in use.

Features[edit | edit source]

History[edit | edit source]

Before 1789[edit | edit source]

The science of revolution could not be understood until the conditions of 18th-century France, especially the replacement of religious ideology with Enlightenment secularism, laid bare its nature. This allows us to apply modern concepts of revolution to historical revolutions, including bourgeois ones.

French Revolution[edit | edit source]

Revolutions of 1848[edit | edit source]

Anti-communism[edit | edit source]

World War I[edit | edit source]

Fascism[edit | edit source]

The term reaction was in common use in post-WW1 Europe, usually to refer to monarchists. Fascists, on the other hand, held that they were a syncretic "third position" which was not reactionary and, in fact, opposed to reactionism. This was arguably true in the sense that the fascist social base was different from that of European monarchism, and it represented a different intellectual milieu. However, since one of the goals of fascism is to co-opt and smash independent working-class activity, the result is still a reactionary development.

Cold War[edit | edit source]

CIA[edit | edit source]

Suharto[edit | edit source]

Kuomintang[edit | edit source]

Post-Cold War[edit | edit source]

Eurasianism[edit | edit source]

Alt-right[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. Reply of L. N. M. Carnot: Citizen of France to the Report Made on the Conspiracy of the 18th Fructidor, 5th Year, p.149, Google Books.
  2. Friedrich Engels, Preface to the 1882 Russian Edition of The Manifesto of the Communist Party, at Marxists.org.
  3. K. Marx and F. Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Chapter I. Bourgeois and Proletarians, at Marxists.org.
  4. The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850; Part I: The Defeat of June 1848, at Marxists.org. Marx describes the role of the Lumpen Mobile Guard in suppressing the workers' revolution.
  5. Kirchner, Emil Joseph (1988). Liberal parties in Western Europe. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press. pp. 2–3. ISBN 0-521-32394-0. OCLC 17325567.