Something I’ve been thinking about is like we assume that old radical discourse is like made for its own sake with no, lets say,...
Something I’ve been thinking about is like we assume that old radical discourse is like made for its own sake with no, lets say, ulterior motives. But how much discourse from back in the day comes from the same infighting and how much of it exists, lets say, more as a rhetorical weapon than as a way for analyzing the world (for a contemporary example see monosexism)
For an older case see labor aristocracy
This strikes me as a false dichotomy. When Discourses are working, incentives are aligned so that infighting, points-scoring, and so on produce attempts to analyze the world. My intuiiton feeling is that late 19c/early 20c radical discourse had more concern for good epistemology and for Winning In The Real World than late 20c/early 21st, and so was in a better position to produce good analyses, but of course that could be rose-tinted glasses speaking.
the various secret police set up after 1848 were pretty good at filtering for competence?