Talk:Counter-revolutionary

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I went ahead and deleted the whole unsatisfactory session. 162.251.172.112 (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Usage of the term" 

message: "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)
thread_title:  What does this paragraph mean? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Taking the term at face value