I fundamentally disagree with that definition. It is telling that there isn't a citation to any single work of Marxist related literature to where that definition comes from. I have seen it used in a myriad of ways in Marxist works, but also within Lenin, particularly about the SDS, about those who would jump early into the fires of revolution and commit adventurism and terrorism without so much as a single plan.
Being a reactionary is much more that simply a politically movement, is it a state of being that idolizes action over thought, movement before consideration. It happens to align with conservative political movements because they don't actually care about moving the buck forward, only about crushing emerging differences and maintaining the status quo. Their thought is already complete, they have no need for more consideration.
The revolutionary moment may be spontaneous, but without revolutionary, not reactionary, action, we will continuously be on the back foot and the moment will stall out and fail.
For our purposes, the reactionary thinking lies in the fact that they have already decided what the outcome of a political problem is, and will look to justify their ideas through any kind of statement or action, without actually waiting to see how something will play out. Wishing for entire states to commit to adventurism on their behalf.
This is extremely reactionary thinking. China does a thing, therefore it is in crisis!
How is this anything like Bonapartism? Bonaparte was a military general who used the chaos of revolution to consolidate power under a completely reformed army (that he wasn't responsible for) to solidify his own authority, which came out of the absence and deferment of leadership from the unpopular central government, who had, in typical liberal fashion, purged themselves (violently this time around) of the ability to actually do anything.
This is literally the exact opposite thing. The central civilian government is using its currently extremely popular position to purge the military of its elderly members and allow new blood up through the ranks. It is not healthy for 70 year olds who have never actually fought a real war since Vietnam (where they lost btw) to be in charge of a military that is increasingly becoming the second most technologically advanced military in the world, even surpassing the U.S. in some technical capabilities. This is not a sign of crisis. This is a sign of the strength of the civilian government to be able to audit the military and bring it under control.
The idea that Xi hasn't cemented himself in the legacy of Chinese government with his massive anti-corruption pushes and green energy initiatives is completely out of touch with the reality within China and Chinese culture.
Unless some new young general comes in and begins to centralize power around himself through military conquest, these comparisons are silly and historically illiterate.
Well that would require people to not be reactionary, of course which just means conservative and are completely interchangable, and not an entire method of planning and thinking. But that would be cope, which definitely doesn't just come from a culture where reacting is more important than watching and processing.
What, you mean the obviously unpopular position was obviously unpopular? More wonderful insights from MattY, what an incisive critique into the larger political landscape.
It's honestly incredibly satisfying to know that we still have it after years of not being on r/chapotraphouse. Chapo-posting remains the only real, viable, way to engage with these insufferable morons.
Honestly it was my history teacher's insistence that I use it, after I went out of my way to find secondary history sources on Zimbabwe and came away with the impression that while Mugabe wasn't like a stellar guy, he was infinitely preferable to rule under the British, that made me suspicious of the whole thing. Why would you trust something by the U.S. government more than actual historians who have a comprehensive understanding of the country and it's history, just because you don't like it?
The CDC primarily measured average COVID cases through waste contamination tests, not hospitals testing and reporting numbers. If you cut the funding for those tests to the CDC then yeah, they aren't going to do the sewage tests to measure the rates. No such thing has happened for the NYPD.
Crime rates usually come from the incident reports filed directly by police officers. In a healthy policing scenario, most of these incident reports are created from someone calling or notifying the police about something going on, not from them just stumbling onto something.
If anything may this indicate that police were purposely instigating and escalating incidents, depending on what the percentages of "community instigated incidents" are. It could also just mean that it is fucking cold outside and people just aren't doing shit at all. These numbers don't really mean anything without a hell of a lot of extra context.
However, the statistical relationship between an increase in policing and a decrease in crime has always been tenuous, at best.
Ah yes, the 'risks' of property ownership, which is why housing is a hoarded asset in capitalist countries. You'd think if it was so 'risky' you wouldn't see capitalists buy up entire swaths of housing stock, but what do I know?
He used to, and it was literally some of the most high quality content I have ever seen. This has been a huge downgrade for him and I stopped listening a long time ago because they would just riff forever before getting to the actual meat of the episode.
The problem is that poor chefs looking to make money get really good at cooking cheap cuts of meat, which then increases the price because more people are buying it, so it is no longer cheap. Same thing happened with lobster.
I am also constantly fascinated at the genuine lack of curiosity these bourgeois fucks have about their customer base. You know you can, like, talk to them? Find out where they live and how they get there and how they heard about your store. Stuff that every other successful business in the world does constantly. But you are a small business owner, people will give you that kind of shit for free because that shit is often the original para-social relationship.
I fundamentally disagree with that definition. It is telling that there isn't a citation to any single work of Marxist related literature to where that definition comes from. I have seen it used in a myriad of ways in Marxist works, but also within Lenin, particularly about the SDS, about those who would jump early into the fires of revolution and commit adventurism and terrorism without so much as a single plan.
Being a reactionary is much more that simply a politically movement, is it a state of being that idolizes action over thought, movement before consideration. It happens to align with conservative political movements because they don't actually care about moving the buck forward, only about crushing emerging differences and maintaining the status quo. Their thought is already complete, they have no need for more consideration.
The revolutionary moment may be spontaneous, but without revolutionary, not reactionary, action, we will continuously be on the back foot and the moment will stall out and fail.
For our purposes, the reactionary thinking lies in the fact that they have already decided what the outcome of a political problem is, and will look to justify their ideas through any kind of statement or action, without actually waiting to see how something will play out. Wishing for entire states to commit to adventurism on their behalf.