Here's Foseti pointing to Mangan trying to redefine reactionary. And again, I say nonsense. If you use reactionary to mean anything very far from the current, very well accepted definition, you run the risk of confusing everyone you talk to. Here's the standard line from wikipedia, which I've heard used to describe reactionaries for the past ~25 years:
The term reactionary refers to viewpoints that seek to return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society. The term is meant to describe one end of a political spectrum whose opposite pole is "radical". While it has not been generally considered a term of praise it has been adopted as a self-description by some such as H. L. Mencken[1] or Gerald Warner[2].Here's Free Dictionary:
Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservativeFact: The Amish, the Orthodox Jews, and many Christian Fundamentalists are reactionary. Anyone who denies this is misusing the term...and will only confuse folks they talk with. Formalist is a lovely label that is unused outside the Formalist community, and I recommend heartily that the Reactionary Formalists choose that label rather than reactionary in the interests of clear communication.
Having said that...I think that a modern left-libertarian/anarchist is on the opposite side. "Radicals for Capitalism" is a good description.
The big difference, I think, between we radicals and the reactionaries, is that while we all believe that the current system is broken...the reactionaries think that prior systems give us a guide for what would work, while we radicals think that prior systems give us a guide for what would NOT work.
Posts
3 comments:
I see what you're saying - but if you're trying to communicate with someone, saying "formalist" means nothing to all but maybe a couple hundred out of all the billions on Earth. Not terribly useful.
Reactionary is a label that is certainly more widely known.
But I am not Amish, Jewish or Christian Fundamentalist - so I'm not reactionary in the same sense that they are, and most people wouldn't describe them as reactionary as it's typically used in a political rather than religious context.
For a formalist who wants to use a word that other people recognize, reactionary is certainly the best.
You seem to have settled recently on left-libertarian as a useful label for yourself, though if you are claiming the mantle of radical, you are going to confuse millions of liberals and Marxists:
"As historical Radicalism became absorbed in the development of political liberalism, in the later 19th century in both the United Kingdom and continental Europe the term Radical came to denote a progressive liberal ideology."
Perfidy,
Absolutely...but start by recognizing that reactionary means, to most people, something between ultra-conservative and preferring a prior state. If you want to define a word...define formalism, because reactionary is already well-defined.
2: Yes...Radical is largely taken, but I think that it's a much more accurate term for us. In the reactionary to radical spectrum (roll back existing changes vs. do crazy new stuff), we left-libertarians, anarchists, seasteaders, most libertarians and such are clearly in the radical camp, and classifying them as conservative or reactionary is just wrong. Left-libertarian is clearly more descriptive (one word, and folks have some clue where I stand).
As you say, formalism doesn't do that for y'all, while reactionary does.
Cue one of my favorite Jerry Pournell Quotes:
When I was a lad I was thought hopelessly radical because I thought the law ought to be color blind; now that I am a bit older I am considered a hopeless reactionary because I believe the law ought to be color blind.
Post a Comment