“Soviets plus electrification,” proclaimed Lenin, “equals communism”.
Even allowing for the simplifications inherent in sloganeering, Lenin’s quip does capture a version of the optimism, even faith, that his generation of socialists had in science and its essential compatibility with the socialist project.
One of the justifications for socialism, apart from its intrinsic ethical superiority, was its claim that it would be a more rational way than capitalism of organising economic life.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that such a pro-science culture would see leading socialists double up as scientists — Pannekoek was an astronomer, Kropotkin a geographer — while eminent scientists such as Haldane threw their lot in with the radical left.
More importantly, the classical Marxists, in particular, saw themselves as applying a scientific analysis of society: not for them an uninformative litany of the deeds of the great men of history. Rather they looked at the underlining tendencies that governed social life.
However, in recent decades many radicals have adopted a more sceptical stance towards science itself. It is worth looking at why and whether it is a useful approach. The first port of call is the extremely close relationship between research areas and the funding supplied by business and the state, particularly the military.
Continue reading