Ask a Reactionary

[Flying Pig]

I think you miss the point of analogies.

When the analogies are used to make real-world decisions, they should at least have one foot in reality.

 

[Mouthwash]

When the analogies are used to make real-world decisions, they should at least have one foot in reality.

I would expect Palestinian refugees caught in a war zone to behave very differently from English citizens of the UK.

 

[Flying Pig]

I'm quite confused as to what the point is - as I understand it, KG just pointed out that it's entirely possible to have a housing crisis in which people find it difficult to find homes and an awful lot of empty land. In other words, housing crises can be perfectly soluble.

 

[Mouthwash]

I'm quite confused as to what the point is - as I understand it, KG just pointed out that it's entirely possible to have a housing crisis in which people find it difficult to find homes and an awful lot of empty land. In other words, housing crises can be perfectly soluble.

And I pointed out that it isn't in Israel's case, at least not to the extent of being able to house four million people.

 

[Borachio]

Hmm.

Israel 8.2 million 20,770 km^2 = 3.87/km^2

Hong Kong 7.2 million 1,104 km^2 = 6544/km^2

It's surprising what people can do.

 

[Tahuti]

Please, refer to Israel only when it suits the discussion the thread is about. Thank you.

 

[caketastydelish]

How would a reactionary feel about the recreational use of drugs?

 

[Tahuti]

That is highly varied from very libertarian (like me) to very restrictive.

Now, the most well-known drug prohibtions did not occur until the 20th century, and stuff like hemp was used for non-drug related purposes too such as making ropes. Society should have power to control addicts whenever necessary.

However, I think responsible usage of drugs under the right circumstances can be very beneficial. Besides, drug prohibtion is historically the exception rather than the rule. Most (traditional) societies are silent about drug usage, or actually encourage it, like in Nepal.

 

[Angst]

Is a fundamental rejection of modernist epistemological and cultural philosophy (like perhaps pomo or whatever the hell I'm infected by) enough to identify as a "reactionary" or do you think one should also reject the modern political ideologies as a fundamental idealism? I'm curious because I find myself in a strange apolitical world at the moment, or at least I like to think I do, but you have still identified our shared rejection of modernity, and I kinda have to belong somewhere, you know

 

[Tahuti]

The interaction with Postmodernism is an interesting - and perhaps also troubling - aspect of reactionary thought. In fact, Traitorfish asked a similar question exploring the common ground between the postmodern and the traditionalist.

Rejecting Modernist epistemology as well as cultural and sociological theorising (such as put forward by Le Corbusier with his disasterous ideas about city planning) is an essential part of being a reactionary, at least in my view. As a Postmodernist, you more or less fulfill this criteria.

However, reactionaries think current society is nihilistic and causes people to have less fulfilling lives and made lesser achievements than their ancestors did. At the root of that problem lies - according to reactionaries - democratic thought. So a rejection of democracy is pretty much a must, alongside rejection of modernism. Ultimately, modernism and democracy work in tandem, and if you reject only of these, you will not have a coherent ideology. Fortunately, postmodernism doesn't unquestiongly believe in democratic ideals, but frankly, this alone is not enough.

 

[Traitorfish]

How do you define "modernism"?

 

[Ninjatrey]

Why do you disagree with the philosophy of individualism?

 

[Tahuti]

How do you define "modernism"?

Modernism is an approach to society in which relations between individuals are systematised, both analytically (i.e. in Marxism, The Enlightenment) and/or prescriptively (i.e. Libertarianism, Communism, Nationalism, Fascism, Liberal & Social Democracy). Furthermore, economically oriented modernist ideologies like capitalism and communism can be characterised as hyperrationalism.

I tend to link Modernism closely with democracy, totalitarianism and socio-economic planning - think of modern urban planning projects that feature high-rise or brutalist architecture. In general, modernism implicitly views humans as just another animal, or even as machines.

Why do you disagree with the philosophy of individualism?

Few people are able to create meaning by their own, while individualism implicitly suggests that everyone has that capability. Some people also have values that might undermine society (such as criminals).

 

[Angst]

Actually that's not at all the modernist definition to me. The most fundamental part of modernism is the paradigm that society and its sciences is fundamentally developing, it is a linear understanding of the world; postmodernism, on the other hand, is not fundamentally about development, it does not see development as a thing per se, it is simply different states of being that have causal relations; it is a relativization and investigation of things without a paradigm of progress.

EDIT: I know it's not my thread but I think the distinction is interesting at least. Modernism isn't necessarily poisonous because it has lead to democracy (a "more developed" state of society, ie borrowing from the modernist premise of progress) it is just wrong about how things are.

 

[Tahuti]

it is a linear understanding of the world

That's how I more or less see it as well.

 

[Plotinus]

Modernism is an approach to society in which relations between individuals are systematised...

Why doesn't this definition equally apply to the aristocratic and monarchist systems you support?

For what it's worth, I would have defined "modernism" as the belief that the world is basically rational and comprehensible, that a meaningful distinction can be made between rational modes of thought and irrational ones, and that the former are to be preferred. This is the worldview that gave us modern science and which has been under assault from various movements such as Romanticism, post-structuralism, and so on.

 

[Tahuti]

Why doesn't this definition equally apply to the aristocratic and monarchist systems you support?

Because it is personalistic. When one monarch makes a faulty or immoral decision, it is not necessarily characteristic of all monarchies. In fact, it is easier to localise the responsibility to one person and rectify it. Ideologies by contrast are extremely hard if not impossible to change. If there is one fault in Marx' ideology for instance, all the states based on Marxism at large may have to revise their ideology to be politically able to do the right thing.

This is a much lesser problem for monarchies, since these defer a significant amount of things of what is right to the monarchs, who are by definition expected to vary in beliefs. Plenty of core beliefs of reactionary in turn defer plenty of things to the judgment of certain individuals.

While I like this aspect of reactionary thought personally, it is a rather superficial argumentation, to be frank.

For what it's worth, I would have defined "modernism" as the belief that the world is basically rational and comprehensible, that a meaningful distinction can be made between rational modes of thought and irrational ones, and that the former are to be preferred. This is the worldview that gave us modern science and which has been under assault from various movements such as Romanticism, post-structuralism, and so on.

The problem is not modern science but the overuse of it for areas where it is was never intended. The base line of modernism is that humans can be predicted, primarily on race (true for fascism and some fringe new left movements) or class (Marxism). However, I maintain that humans can and do transcend scientific boundaries. Which is why so many economic theories often fail, and why modern urban planning projects often become slums, because they are built with a specific teleological bent that is innappropriate to apply on humans.

 

[Traitorfish]

This still sounds very much like a manifesto for post-modernism.

 

[jackelgull]

I have gathered that a big argument that reactionaries have is that monarchism helps culture, then what is culture and why is it so desirable?

 

[Takhisis]

I tend to link Modernism closely with democracy, totalitarianism and socio-economic planning - think of modern urban planning projects that feature high-rise or brutalist architecture. In general, modernism implicitly views humans as just another animal, or even as machines.

(bolding mine)
So there haven't been any reactionary totalitarian monarchs?

Few people are able to create meaning by their own, while individualism implicitly suggests that everyone has that capability. Some people also have values that might undermine society (such as criminals).

I think that you are simplifying things to such an extreme degree that you can't comprehend them.