How do y'all feel about the terms reactionary, fascism, and liberals

Question

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

Comments

" I do find irony in their description in anit-civ and reactionary when anti-civ is reactionary, while anti civ s not. Maybe y'all could cold this conundrum?"

i find the conflict between "anti-civ/primmies" and "pro-civ" folks to be interesting, because usually pro-civ ends up having such an emotional backlash towards the former since they tend to tease out logically that anti-civers want to commit acts of genocide and "knock everyone back to the stone age". The way I look at this is that doing away with all of the resources we have access to is really difficult, and the thought even bothers me when i consider myself to be anti-civ in the political sense...yeesh. The "reactionary" bit is just mindless namecalling related to the fact that all the technological advances have been likened to some sort of mind-revolution of "advancement", hence anti-civers are like people who are against gays getting married ect. to a "liberal"

to more definitively answer your question, every term you mentioned is extremely loaded....

---

typo. anti-civ not reactoionary. i'll fix. I was on 1p-lsd when I wrote that and still am, so that explains typos and things that don't make sense.

What pro-civ people forget is millions/billions are gonna die during their revolution and no one in these third world countries will freely go back to the mines to mine their precious rare earth metals for their gadgets and smelt the metals from the rock or do these insannely labourous jobs if they don't really have to.

Note to self: Don't take psychedelics research chemicals and post on @101. lol

---

what irritates me is that even if the authoritarian order(s) broke down (the closest that could come to this would be the collapse of the US dollar), then surviving and staying cool in the given situation would still be very challenging, and how groups handle this would determine the resurgence or non-resurgence of some other equally disturbing authoritarian figure/counsel, what im trying to say is it's no picnic either way. Neo-liberal economists are partially correct when they talk about how those slavish jobs "provide them with a living", but don't get me wrong i wish i knew more details about the third world because there's obviously a ton of bullshit in the neo-liberal rhetoric

did i mention there's a little part of me that's a prepper?! im not all that worried considering the fact that if i had to flee some slave labor camp i could still eat bugs! Crickets are edible i've read.....

---

Regarding anticiv, I recently read a novel that deals with that dilemma (civ collapse) in a somewhat interesting way. I think it is called "lies retold". It is the author's first novel, keep that in mind, but a solid first effort.

---

thanks for the comment, ill buy that book later. I get a little sick of being reminded about how difficult things would be if it collapsed, "unfortunately" it's not going to happen for a long time since the system's control centers are so widespread and ingrained in the public pyche...I feel that there's a 50% 50% chance that it would either be really inspirational or really horrible for me depending on what other people did and how scared they were. Sometimes I get really excited when I hear about "stuff happening", im not too excited about mass shootings though since it's so stereotypical at this point...and for fuck sake, die for islam?! When will people realize that monolithic religions are so bland in character! **takes sip of wine and analyzes painting**

i wish i could change my username to "the_commenter", i like reading seriously written books but i have a hard time taking any actual political conversation seriously, i would get banned from more anarchist/radical left collectives than businesses owned by control freaks (which has happened 3 times exactly over the past year...)

---

There was a excerpt of this novel in the latest issue of AJODA, I hav been meaning to check it out. Thanks for the reminder!

---

which company published the book?

---

rs666: not sure if you meant this book (the one i mentioned), but just in case - here's one place i saw:

http://www.lulu.com/shop/elle-dee/lies-retold/paperback/product-22582666.html

i actually read a copy my friend has.

---

I think I may need to ask a new question about reactionary and radical. :)

---

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.