In fact both are based on different and opposite principles. What are the meanings of these terms? What are the differences between these two? These are the question that will be answered in this article.
I no longer endorse all the statements in this document. I think many of the conclusions are still correct, but especially section 1 is weaker than it should be, and many reactionaries complain I am pigeonholing all of them as agreeing with Michael Anissimov, which they do not; this complaint seems reasonable.
This document needs extensive revision to stay fair and correct, but such revision is currently lower priority than other major projects.
Until then, I apologize for any inaccuracies or misrepresentations. What is this FAQ? It is meant to rebut some common beliefs held by the political movement called Reaction or Neoreaction.
What are the common beliefs of the political movement called Reaction or Neoreaction? Neoreaction is a political ideology supporting a return to traditional ideas of government and society, especially traditional monarchy and an ethno-nationalist state.
It sees itself opposed to modern ideas like democracy, human rights, multiculturalism, and secularism.
Will this FAQ be a rebuttal the arguments in that summary? Some but not all. I worry I may have done too good a job of steelmanning Reactionary positions in that post, emphasizing what I thought were strong arguments, sometimes even correct arguments, but not really the arguments Reactionaries believed or considered most important.
Some of them seem really dumb to me and I excluded them from the previous piece, but they make it in here. Other points from the previous post are real Reactionary beliefs and make it in here as well.
Do all Reactionaries believe the same things?
Even more confusingly, sometimes the same people seem to switch among the three without giving any indication they are aware that they are doing so. In particular the difference between feudal monarchies and divine-right-of-kings monarchies seems to be sort of lost on many of them.
Mencius is probably the most famous Reactionary, one of the founders of the movement, and an exceptionally far-thinking and knowledgeable writer. Michael is also quite smart, very prolific, and best of all for my purposes unusually willing to state Reactionary theories plainly and explicitly in so many words and detail the evidence that he thinks supports them.
Mencius usually supports a state-as-corporation model and Michael seems to be more to the feudal monarchy side, with both occasionally paying lip service to divine-right-of-kings absolutism as well. Are you going to treat Reaction and Progressivism as real things?
One of the problems in exercises like this is how much to take political labels seriously. Both combine many very diverse ideas, and sometimes exactly who falls on what side will be exactly the point at issue. Although debating the meaning of category words is almost never productive, I feel like in that case I have more than enough excuse.
Is everything getting worse? It is a staple of Reactionary thought that everything is getting gradually worse. As traditional ideas cede to their Progressive replacements, the fabric of society tears apart on measurable ways.
The present system has every incentive to portray itself as superior to all past systems. Reactionaries point out this is not the case, and actually see present society in a state of severe decline, pointing to historically high levels of crime, suicide, government and household debt, increasing time preference, and low levels of civic participation and self-reported happiness as a few examples of a current cultural and historical crisis.Stuart McMillen's webcomic adapts (and updates) Postman's famous book-length essay, Amusing Ourselves to Death, which argues that Aldous Huxley's vision of the future in Brave New World was ultimately more accurate than the one proposed by George Orwell in (Via).
Overview. In a representative democracy, people vote for representatives who then enact policy initiatives. In direct democracy, people decide on policies without any intermediary. Depending on the particular system in use, direct democracy might entail passing executive decisions, the use of sortition, making laws, directly electing or dismissing officials, and conducting trials.
Democracy is an ideal many people have struggled for. Yet, different forms of democracy attract different forms of corrupting influences and challenges. This article attempts to explore these issues.
[Edit 3/ I no longer endorse all the statements in this document. I think many of the conclusions are still correct, but especially section 1 is weaker than it should be, and many reactionaries complain I am pigeonholing all of them as agreeing with Michael Anissimov, which they do . Read the pros and cons of the debate Monarchy and Democracy IV.
Democracy is a system of government for the people to choose their leaders and to hold their leaders responsible for their policies they enforce in office. The people decide who will represent them in congress and or parliament who will head the government at the national and local levels.