Childhood is idolizing communism

Childhood is idolizing communism.
Adulthood is realizing reactionarism makes more sense.

Childhood is clinging to whatever extremist ideology suits your own sense of youthful disaffection and angst.
Adulthood is growing out of that shit and developing a nuanced political stance based in an actual understanding of reality.

>communism isn't reactionary

>implying anyone can have an actual understanding of reality

>qt nun
Source?

>implying epistemological nihilism isn't a refuge of the lazy and cowardly

>not maintaining a sense of the fallibility of human thought while affirming your own belief and meaning

Then if you're doing that, you can still maintain an actual (to you anyway) understanding of reality.

>Childhood is being an edgy faggot
>Adulthood is being a pretentious faggot

If Whites won, they would probably install a conservative republic with authoritarian strain. So it would pretty much be the same as modern Russia, instead without a century of cuckmunism to fuck them up.

Interesting. I've been wondering a long while some hypothetical scenarios if the reds lost the Russian civil war actually.

that isn't what actual means

>reactionarism
>Being butthurt about the world and romanticizing past
>Coherent ideology or even something that makes sense

Marxists will never admit capitalism is worse than feudalism

>becoming a reactionary
>not becoming a jaded syndicalist instead

Childhood is being a slave to ideology
Adulthood is realizing egoism makes more sense.

It really depends on what you consider worse.

Accurate.

>childhood is thing I don't like
>adulthood is thing I like

>reactionarism
>ism
Just call it reaction then.

What is syndicalism?

Well, yes. If Russia would last as a united country after the victory of whites, it would be pretty much like Yuan Shikai's China aka a shithole about to be destroyed by local warlords.

Something you can combine with hippieanarchism or hardcore Nationalism.

There's no way whites could win, user. And that's because white leaders were commanders of tzarist army, not politicians. They fought in the civil war the same way they would fight a foreign power - without worrying too much about locals, whether russian peasants support them or not. They would liberate a red village and return to the same oppressive tzarist rules. Whereas reds pandered to peasants and workers as much as they could to ensure their support.
But if you want a similar scenario, check out the book "Island Crimea" (Ocтpoв Кpым) by Vasily Aksenov - about what would happen if evacuating whites managed to hold Crimea, in a sort of taiwanese scenario, where two states left - capitalist Crimea and communist Moscow

There were too many monarchists and nobles in the White forces. My money would be on an eventual transition to a constitutional monarchy under Grand Duke Kirill or someone similar.

I disagree, the Whites came very close in 1918-1919 to winning the war and linking the southern and Siberian fronts. If Kolchak hadn't been such a miserable idiot and tried harder to build communication between commanders I can see the White army winning the war.

As far as I'm aware Denikin and Wrangel came within spitting distance of Moscow in 1919.

True maturity is realizing that both are autistic.