>>83071644 (OP)
What you consider reactionary groups are actually latent revolutionary ones. The great majority of progressives and conservatives are reactionary, but young chuds and socialists are both fundamentally revolutionary in different ways.
I know a middling or below average IQ leftist will promptly find it within themselves to either claim one of two imbecilic facts
>The right is inherently reactionary
or
>Chuds (fascists) are reactionary.
You could reach these beliefs one of two ways: An inelastic Marxist reading, or a diploma at the University of Reddit Top Comment. Surely many groups one identifies as right wing, particularly main line conservatives for many decades, these people are naturally reactionary (it's even in the name) but rightism of a particular type is only reactionary insofar as it preserves the hierarchy and status quo of a given system. Chuds, even if in a "political alliance" with reactionary conservatives, seek only radical revolutionary change (billions must die after all) and alteration of the current socioeconomic/political hierarchy, even to the point of destroying the current form of government and obliterating the time honoured culture and traditions of Western liberal democracy of the past couple hundred years. Their alliance with reactionary groups is as pragmatic as the socialist left's alliance with progressives, liberals, and neoliberals: Both are just expressions of realpolitik in the struggle for the dominance of their respective political aims, and primarily because of social views. For example, most chuds would gladly side with antisemitic and racist socialists over Zionist capitalists, but because both groups have a politic embargo along these social views, chuds cannot enjoin themselves to the socialist left to achieve their own political aims (they would he expulsed).
But I will let a socialist/progressive make their own case for chuds being fundamentally reactionary, if nothing else I hope it is an interesting argument.
