Not really. They’d be revolutionary. Both reactionaries and revolutionaries want to replace the current political system with something different but they disagree on what the replacement should be.
Granted, things can get confusing in Russia where a left-wing revolutionary government historically existed. So communist revolutionaries in Russia are, in one sense, attempting to restore the past. But I think a more accurate reflection of the reactionary position in Russia would be some movement to restore the Tsarist government.
At the time that I was learning this, and shortly afterwards, there were a lot of people advocating for the end of the Viet Nam War and civil rights, among other social objectives. Those people were tagged by the press as “Radicals.” It may have been this juxtaposition of history and my paper-thin learning that made me believe that “radicals” were to “liberalism” as “reactionaries” were to conservatism, and the term “revolutionary” faded into my background.
They might not be that either. It appears that what they want is for Russia to be a social democracy rather than a Soviet-style totalitarian state – but, then, starting from this point, even that might well require changes so deep and systemic as to qualify as revolutionary.
Did you read that link? Their platform includes large scale nationalizations, price controls, and ‘large collective farms’, which don’t sound like any social democracy I’m aware of. Anyway, that is their minimum list of immediate goals under present-day conditions. They want a relatively gradual (three stage) transition to full communism, and I suspect if they ever achieved it they would allow a bigger role for market prices than the Soviets allowed (which is not inherently incompatible with communism, see Yugoslavia), but their ultimate goal is the same as it’s always been, communism. The real thing that sets them apart, in principle, from the Soviets is that they’re much more favourable to the Orthodox Church, more culturally conservative, and much more into the defence of Russian nationality and ethnicity.
They’re certainly hard Left-wing, but whether you call them reactionary or revolutionary is up to you.
I chimed in at Post #16 with a description of Janda’s two-axis scheme, and at Post #17 with a diagram.
So take a look at those two posts (or even the whole thread there) for some other views about how political philosophies can be organized.
ETA: See also the Wiki page Political spectrum for discussion of several other ways to categorize political thought along two axes, with several diagrams of the different idea.
ISTM that the original meaning of “conservative” encompassed not only what we think of today as conservative social and economic values but also traditionalism and resistance to change, the kinds of values that always make me think of Jim Anderson in Father Knows Best. “Radical conservatism” today refers not only to radical proposals for sweeping changes to support those values, like shutting down major portions of the federal government, but entirely new radical proposals like aggressive foreign policy. I always find it amusing when a label like “conservative” is applied to some frothing-at-the-mouth extremist proposing schemes straight out of some dystopian science fiction story.
I disagree. A few specific issues that were once championed by the left, like women’s rights and LGBT rights, have migrated to the center in the natural and inevitable process of social evolution, but it would be a mistake to see that as a generalized movement to the left. It’s actually been the opposite. It’s astounding to think that all the opposition to the ACA, for instance, was over a plan essentially the same as proposed years ago by a conservative think tank and indeed proposed by Richard Nixon. Nixon also established the EPA, which today conservatives are trying to shut down. One can only imagine the conservative revolt if anything like Social Security or Medicare didn’t already exist and either one was proposed today as a brand new program – it would be condemned by current conservative thinkers as the worst kind of “socialism” and not only wouldn’t have a hope of passing in Congress, the mere proposal of it would be political suicide.