Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

[Sheilbh]

Is this the long dreamed of Directorate hijack?

[Oexmelin]

Each time I forget how reactionary Languish is, I find a thread to remind me.

[garbon]

Each time I forget how reactionary Languish is, I find a thread to remind me.

Each time I forget how loony the left can get, I just wait to hear from one of them on Languish.

[Razgovory]

Each time I forget how reactionary Languish is, I find a thread to remind me.

Otto's just drunk again.

[crazy canuck]

Each time I forget how reactionary Languish is, I find a thread to remind me.

So reactionary is anyone who disagrees with that righteousness of the occupiers?

[Ed Anger]

I'm a revanchist. Revenge for 1979!

[Josephus]

Each time I forget how reactionary Languish is, I find a thread to remind me.

How can you possibly forget?

[Razgovory]

Each time I forget how reactionary Languish is, I find a thread to remind me.

So reactionary is anyone who disagrees with that righteousness of the occupiers?

I'm pretty liberal here, and I don't think much of them.  At least I think I'm pretty liberal.

[crazy canuck]

Each time I forget how reactionary Languish is, I find a thread to remind me.

So reactionary is anyone who disagrees with that righteousness of the occupiers?

I'm pretty liberal here, and I don't think much of them.  At least I think I'm pretty liberal.

I see, you must be suffering from some form of false consciousness.  You are obviously reactionary scum and will be first against the wall when the revolution comes.

[Oexmelin]

No.

To me, a reactionary is someone who almost always finds personal contentment in the status quo, for whom any situation could always be worse, and therefore, should never be contested. It would be someone who'd wish dissent to be silent, by pointing to salt mine slavery when faced with plantation slavery, to slavery when faced with apartheid, to apartheid when faced with segregation, and to segregation when faced with discrimination. It is someone for whom any sort of protest - if any -  should always be authorized, hushed, sanitized, intellectualized, rendered bland, and hopefully utterly meaningless; someone for whom the law is always right first, and wrong only after a lengthy, costly process which should hopefully lead to the castration of any sort of actual demand for change; someone for whom injustice, to the extent that it exists, should be fought, if they really must, politely, through careful application of money, and with an agenda which should span the next century or so. I distinguish it from conservatives, because conservatives usually have elaborated reasons to defend the values they feel are threatened.

And, of course, reactionary is - much like fascist - a polemical word which almost always necessitates an explanation

[Admiral Yi]

Can a person subscribe to only two or three of those positions and still be a reactionary? 

[crazy canuck]

Oex, I guess you missed all the posts about the salutory effects of civil disobedience.  What is missing of course is the fact that it is "disobedience".  What people now seem to want is to be able to engage in civil disobeidience without acutally having to face the consquences which has always imo been the most effective part of civil disobediance - that people say they feel so strongly about in issue that they are willing to be arrested and perhaps be put in jail for it.

What has somehow evolved is a "right" to civil disobedience that is somehow protected by the law.  It is not.  That is the whole point of civil disobedience!

The occupy movement could easily protest without breaking laws.  But they didnt.  And to point out that they have engaged in civil disobedience is reactionary?

[Ideologue]

Is this the long dreamed of Directorate hijack?

I prefer the Convention.  If OWS was run by Turreau, the Vendee would already have been dealt with.

Each time I forget how loony the left can get, I just wait to hear from one of them on Languish.

Mihali and I have names, garbon.

[CountDeMoney]

I think strategically it is too divisive, since only a small core of people will commit to sleeping rough in the name of a vague cause (especially in the face of police violence), and it deters fellow-travelers from participating.  And it's only by virtue of a mild Fall in the Northeast that things have lasted as long as they have.

I agree with what some labor guy said, that the leading people in the groups need to leverage the notoriety from the physical Occupying into a more general campaign of rallies, candidates, etc.

They should show up at GOP political rallies with guns, just like the Teabaggers did with Obama's campaign, because nobody seems to have a problem with that.

[Razgovory]

No.

To me, a reactionary is someone who almost always finds personal contentment in the status quo, for whom any situation could always be worse, and therefore, should never be contested. It would be someone who'd wish dissent to be silent, by pointing to salt mine slavery when faced with plantation slavery, to slavery when faced with apartheid, to apartheid when faced with segregation, and to segregation when faced with discrimination. It is someone for whom any sort of protest - if any -  should always be authorized, hushed, sanitized, intellectualized, rendered bland, and hopefully utterly meaningless; someone for whom the law is always right first, and wrong only after a lengthy, costly process which should hopefully lead to the castration of any sort of actual demand for change; someone for whom injustice, to the extent that it exists, should be fought, if they really must, politely, through careful application of money, and with an agenda which should span the next century or so. I distinguish it from conservatives, because conservatives usually have elaborated reasons to defend the values they feel are threatened.

And, of course, reactionary is - much like fascist - a polemical word which almost always necessitates an explanation

Huh.  I always consider reactionaries to be not so passive.  I think of a reactionary who wants to change things back (often to a mythical time period).  We want to take our country back! is the rally cry of the reactionary.  Who that is often different.  Liberals, Jews, Communists, the PTA, etc.  Hence they are "reacting" to something.  A reactionary need not actually be bad.  If some crazy dictatorship has taken over you may very well be in your rights to want things to return to the way they were.

I would consider Fascism a form of reactionary politics, (though not the only one.  I believe Hitler characterized his conservative enemies as reactionary).