Talk:Counter-revolutionary

---

Untitled

Hi. I started the 'political epithets' page a few years ago. Now its gone. Nice.

I pretty much remember putting 'counterrevolutionary' in after reading books written by dissidents in communist China. I see that China is not even mentioned here in this 'new and improved' article.

Please, have some dignity and put the article back like its supposed to be, as if a scholar wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.207.222.132 (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

---

This is a quote from AndyL: WHEELER for God's sake Counterrevolutionary doesn't only apply to the French Revolution and you don't have to be anti-democratic to be counterrevolutionary. This "definition" is completely useless. on the page history of this site.

The man must not read anything. And doesnt' know what he is talking about. He reverts without checking the sources. I referenced and he deletes all because it doesn't suit him.

I quoted from Mr. Schapiro who is a Professor Emeritus of History in l949 of the City College of New York. Andy here thinks he is greater than Mr. Schapiro. Andy can also divine the religion of Mr. Schapiro. I don't. I do not know the religion of this man and I don't care. But to Andy it is a big deal.

Well, Andy you are not greater than a Leon Blum professor nor a Professor Emeritus. You're anti-Christianism is affecting your scholarship.

And you manage to put fascism on every page of this encyclopaedia.

Cite your sources is a policy of Wikipedia. I want sources for your fascist material on this article. And put references with number in the reference section. No more of your sloppy opinions. WHEELER 17:29, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Sorry, I'm not going to adopt your unwiki footnoting style. If you want some references on fascism being reactionary try the following:

• Black, Robert, "Fascism in Germany"
• Forman, James D. "Fascism: The Meaning and Experience of Reactionary Revolution"
• Osborn, R. "The Psychology of Reaction" (which has several chapters on fascism)

Incidentally, I suggest you look up "fascism" in the book you cite Schapiro, J. Salwyn, Liberalism and the Challenge of Fascism, Social Forces in England and France 1815-1870 and see if Schapiro describes fascism as reactionary. I suggest you put aside your blinkers and actually read what the book says rather than hunt and peck for things you can take out of context. AndyL

"However, Proudhon was not a reactionary, despite the claims of the royalists. Nothing in his writings or in his life indicates that he desired to reestablish the Old Regime in France or that he had any sympathy with the reactionary ideas of De Maistre and De Bonald. The royalists, like the syndacalists, mistook their man. Before the First World War, anyone in France who opposed democratic ideas, parliamentary government, trade unions, or socialism was considered a counterrevolutionist." pg 364.

He describes Proudhon's writings as "To them his writings had a revolutionary trend, but in an unfamiliar direction, and a violence of language that yet clothed and anxious conservatism. They baffled reactionaries, liberals, and socialists alike. Proudhon was a revolutionist." pg 365.

England and France banned unions or the workers right to assemble and strike in the 1820's and 30's because of their revolutionary character. Same thing happened in America 1890's and 1910's, Unions were the forefront of socialist movements.WHEELER 22:41, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

"Fascism is something unique in modern history, in that it is a revolutionary (his italics) movement of the middle class directed, on the one hand, against the great banks and big business and, on the other hand, against the revolutionary demands of the working class." pg 365

Of course Proudhon wasn't a reactionary, he was an anarchist. I fail to see the relevence of your quotes. You seem to be reading without understanding. AndyL 22:54, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I am on page 231 and am on my way of reading the whole thing.WHEELER 23:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

On the books you cite. They are curious in their term of "reaction". Maybe the authors are "Marxist"?WHEELER 23:38, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, it's your use of the term "reaction" that's curious. That's why not one editor on Wiki agrees with you. AndyL 23:41, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

That is because you are Americans brought up in Leftist controlled American acadmia of the last thirty years.

"And the new division was even deeper and sharper than the old one had been, because it was a division between two groups, both of which were inspired by the French Revolution. Nothing is so bitter as a conflict between a moderate and extreme left, as witness the conflict between Girondins and Jacobins in the French Revolution and that between Menshevists and Bolshevists in the Russian Revolution. pg 239 WHEELER 15:17, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, first of all I'm not American, and second you again you use quotes without understanding them. The White Army that fought the Red Army in the Russian Civil War was not Menshevik but Tsarist. Some Mensheviks may have joined but the leadership of the Whites were old Tsarist generals and supporters of the old regime AndyL 20:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

---

"Andy here thinks he is greater than Mr. Schapiro. Andy can also divine the religion of Mr. Schapiro. I don't. I do not know the religion of this man and I don't care. But to Andy it is a big deal.

Well, Andy you are not greater than a Leon Blum professor nor a Professor Emeritus. "

First of all I have no where suggested what Schapiro's religion may or may not be. Second, if you're going to quote the Leon Blum professor I suggest you find out who Leon Blum was! :) I don't have a problem with Schapiro, I think you just don't understand him.AndyL 20:19, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

"Usage of the term"

This section has a few problems, IMO. For example, the first paragraph seems a bit weasely to me, especially "some people considered reactionary (like the CCP)".

Likewise, "The clerics who took power following the Islamic Revolution became counterrevolutionaries" seems incorrect and/or POV to me - the clerics didn't suddenly reverse their original ideology and try to reinstate the Shah - they just took the revolution in a direction that some of the other revolutionaries hadn't expected and didn't support.

Indeed, this section seems to me to be a good example of what it is trying to describe - i.e. that the term "counter-revolutionary" often gets used inconsistently, and is often used by dissatisfied revolutionaries to describe other revolutionaries who haven't produced the sort of society that the first group wanted. Wardog (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The statement that "A counterrevolution can be positive or negative in its consequences; depending, in part, on the beneficent or pernicious character of the revolution that gets reversed" is peculiar. It implies that a revolution may be bad rather than good. Surely all revolutions are bad by definition - just like wars. It is also a POV statement, is it not? I suggest deletion of this sentence, rather than trying to amend it to avoid its being POV, which may be impossible.124.197.15.138 (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

surely all revolutions are bad? wtf are you talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.94.94 (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the whole unsatisfactory session. 162.251.172.112 (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

What does this paragraph mean?

"A counter-revolution can be positive or negative in its consequences; depending, in part, on the beneficent or pernicious character of the revolution that gets reversed. For example, the transitory success of Agis and Cleomenes of ancient Sparta in restoring the constitution of Lycurgus was considered by Plutarch to be counter-revolutionary in a positive sense. During the French Revolution the Jacobins saw the Counter-revolution in the Vendée as distinctly negative."

What does this paragraph mean? Of course conservatives are going to see counterrevolution as a good thing and revolutionaries are going to see it as a bad thing, no matter what the context. I don't think it at all objective, or in any way characteristic of an encyclopedia, to define a revolution as "beneficent or pernicious", or for that matter to class any political movement as "positive or negative in its consequences". Of course the paragraph may only be intended to say that some writers have supported and some opposed movements of a counterrevoutionary character, but if so the intention is not at all clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.74.252 (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus  — Amakuru (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Counter-revolutionary → Counter-revolution – Preference for nouns vs. adjectives as article titles. A loose necktie (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• @A loose necktie: A counter-revolutionary (used as a NOUN, here) may be someone who is against a/the revolution, whether or not a counter-revolution is happening or planned. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Anthony Appleyard: Granted. But we also currently have no article at "Counter-revolution" (which redirects to "Counter-revolutionary") because it seems editors believe that these titles cover the same topic (which it seems they do to me as well). Also, although the article is phrased in terms of "counter-revolutionaries" in the beginning, the gist of the article focuses on actual counter-revolutions, not so much the specific people who participated in them. A loose necktie (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. The term is most commonly seen in communist propaganda referring to individuals who didn't toe the party line as opposed to an actual organised counter-revolution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Other contexts to consider: Rebel, once you get past the disambiguation page, leads to Rebellion (i.e., there is no article on the participant, only the activity); insurrectionist redirects to insurrection; we have Industrial Revolution but nothing at industrial revolutionist (nor should we).

If we are only going to have one or the other, as we do right now (i.e., with no article at counter-revolution, only a redirect), doesn't it make more sense to have the the relevant Wikipedia article namespace cover the overall social event rather than the kind of people who participate in that event? And if we split "counter-revolutionary" and "counter-revolution", we get one article with almost no content (counter-revolutionary) and another with all of the other's meat (counter-revolution) in which case why bother splitting when we can just move? Shouldn't Revolution have a corresponding [full] article at Counter-revolution? A loose necktie (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you can compare this term to revolutionary, insurrectionist, rebel, etc, for the reason I stated above. Most "counter-revolutionaries" haven't actually taken part in any sort of counter-revolution. They've simply been accused of trying to sabotage the revolution in propaganda, usually because their philosophy doesn't match that preached by the people in charge after the revolution. That's a completely different issue. Even if the accusations are genuine, "counter-revolution" suggests a genuine, organised event, which is rarely the case with counter-revolutionaries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support - the article already focuses on the wider concept of counter-revolution, and the current name seeks to artificially limit the focus to the people involved. Reversing this gives space for the article to explore the broader concept while still allowing discussion of the people participating. Note that the related article has as split between Revolution and Revolutionary, which itself seems a bit silly also. -- Netoholic @ 20:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is primarily concerned with people referred to as counter-revolutionaries; the proposed title change would require a rewrite of the article. Quite frankly, I'm not sure what a "counter-revolution" is and how such an article would look, while counter-revolutionary is a well-established term. Calidum 03:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Taking the term at face value

I feel like this article simply accepts the use of the term at face value.

"A counter-revolutionary or an anti-revolutionary is anyone who opposes or resists a revolution, particularly one who acts after a revolution in order to try to overturn it or reverse its course, in full or in part. The adjective "counter-revolutionary" pertains to movements that would restore the state of affairs, or the principles, that prevailed during a prerevolutionary era."

This may be the intended meaning of the term in its pure form, but it's obviously not the only (or possibly even the main) way the term is used. The CPC for example deems many people and activities to be "counter-revolutionary" which may have nothing to do with an actual or planned 'counter-revolution'. This has been the case with many historical socialist/communist regimes, with the term being a catch-all way of describing anyone opposed to certain actions of the state (including those who support socialism and have/had no desire to undo the revolution). I think the definition should reflect this reality.

183.177.48.166 (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)