Labour’s persistent failure to address its electorate’s salient concerns is behind the protest vote, asserts DIANE ABBOTT
SCIENCE does not intrinsically promote technological advancement. It concerns the study and understanding of the natural world and its constituent parts.
However, when combined with technological enthusiasm, the synthesis is responsible for radically changing society. We live in an age of scientific funding that began at the start of the 20th century.
To understand this age, we can look to the end of the industrial revolution which produced the work of Karl Marx. As discussed in an excellent answer by the Marx Memorial Library in April, Marxism’s inception as a “scientific socialism” was meant to indicate a foundation on the objective material world beyond the utopian imaginings of other socialists.
Science has always been mixed up with money and power, but as a decorative facade for megayachts, it risks leaving reality behind altogether, write ROX MIDDLETON, LIAM SHAW and MIRIAM GAUNTLETT



