Between panacea and poison: “democracy” in British socialist thought, 1881–1891
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of democracy is increasingly understood as not only the recovery of its practices and conceptualisations but also of its signifiers. In order to grasp the transition of the word “democracy” from a reviled to a revered term in Britain, this article focuses on socialist uses of the democratic idiom during the 1880s. Across a study of socialist publications, speeches and newspapers, three different uses of “democracy” emerge. First, the word could mean a political ideal to be materialised, through universal suffrage but more widely by means of popular and direct control of Parliament. Second, the term was seen as a dangerous illusion that cast a veil over capitalist oppression. Third, “democracy” could denote a political reality already present in Britain, which needed to be reflected in the economic sphere. Although sometimes diverging, these uses can be linked to three important socialist organisations: the Social Democratic Federation (S.D.F.), the Socialist League (S.L.) and the Fabian Society (F.S.). Recovering these distinctive uses illuminates the relationship between “democracy” and “socialism” and offers a key with which to understand our current political landscape.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".