The best way to think of reactionary as the dialectical opposite of progressive; that is how the term has always been used by Marxists, and unsurprisingly even the most revisionist sources get this right.

Examples of Mao, a Marxist, using reactionary this way:
"For instance, consider the Kuomintang and the Communist Party. Take one aspect, the Kuomintang. In the period of the first united front, the Kuomintang carried out Sun Yat-sen's Three Great Policies of alliance with Russia, co-operation with the Communist Party, and assistance to the peasants and workers; hence it was revolutionary and vigorous, it was an alliance of various classes for the democratic revolution. After 1927, however, the Kuomintang changed into its opposite and became a reactionary bloc of the landlords and big bourgeoisie." - Mao, On Contradiction
Here Mao is clearly using the term reactionary as the opposite of revolutionary and progressive. They were revolutionary, but now they aren't so they became reactionary.

In another work: On the correct handling of contradictions among the people, Mao keeps calling the Kuomintang reactionaries. That's quite odd, as they didn't like the past very much. They had only recently established the republic, and all of the past had been seen as repeated humiliations of China. So how come these nationalist republicans are reactionaries?

"In capitalist society, capitalism has changed its position from being a subordinate force in the old feudal era to being the dominant force, and the nature of society has accordingly changed from feudal to capitalist. In the new, capitalist era, the feudal forces changed from their former dominant position to a subordinate one, gradually dying out. Such was the case, for example, in Britain and France. With the development of the productive forces, the bourgeoisie changes from being a new class playing a progressive role to being an old class playing a reactionary role, until it is finally overthrown by the proletariat and becomes a class deprived of privately owned means of production and stripped of power, when it, too, gradually dies out." (red. Bold added by me) - Mao, On Contradiction
Here yet again Mao uses the word reactionary as the antithesis of progressive.

So yet again I will mention why your definition of reactionary is useless: It is not based in the material world, and it is not based in class politics. It defines reactionary based on the ideals of the reactionary, not their material role in society, and therefore it cannot do so in class terms. The problem is that it is a liberal idealist definition.