I thought I was clear, but I’m talking about underdeveloped bourgeois (I can’t believe I kept misspelling that) democracies lacking a strong proletariat that can advocate for its interests, which, yes, those do tend to self-destruct into authoritarian states. Now this doesn’t have to be fascism, but given the historical context if it wasn’t Bolshevik-style socialism it was going to be the next-strongest idea in Russia: fascism.
I disagree with that being the reduction of the potential possibilities, but I apologize for misunderstanding your position, in that case.
As for the rest of this, I’m done with this argument, but I do appreciate having it with you.
EDIT: On re-reading, “I’m done with this argument” sounds a bit dismissive, so more precisely, I would say that I still disagree with your conclusions, but I find them generally established on solid grounds and appreciate the exposure to your outlook and your willingness to argue it ardently but in good faith.
I disagree with that being the reduction of the potential possibilities, but I apologize for misunderstanding your position, in that case.
As for the rest of this, I’m done with this argument, but I do appreciate having it with you.
EDIT: On re-reading, “I’m done with this argument” sounds a bit dismissive, so more precisely, I would say that I still disagree with your conclusions, but I find them generally established on solid grounds and appreciate the exposure to your outlook and your willingness to argue it ardently but in good faith.