cw: discussion of sa / csa and heavy use of terminology to describe the people who perpetuate that
I take an issue with the “ruling class” being dubbed “pxdo class” not because I don’t think they are indeed rxpists and pxdophiles, but because of the implication.
As if it’s only them and the majority of them who do it. As if the laws don’t already favor rxpists regardless of their class. As if our parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts/uncles, their partners, and your partners arent also complicit and engaging in p*dophilia and rxpe.
There was an article here shared that read like it was written by a dude who has only now started to think about this topic, giving evolutionary reasons as to why “its the ruling class and not the lower class” who engages in pxdophilia (and I disagree with that assertion for multiple reasons.)
1.) The pillaging and ownership of bodies is essential to patriarchy, but is also the reward system in colonialism. This (sa/csa) is patriarchal (rooted in the nuclear family / enforced sex/gender binary) and colonialist violence (violence against those considered less than a person by the oppressor.)
2.) The reward for being a good lower-class worker bee is that you get your very own family to assault, to lie for you, and enable you.
3.) Those of us who have had the misfortune of engaging with the criminal “justice” system to punish our rxpists know that the courts will generally favor the rxpist or abuser, so it is no surprise to me that the rich also get away with their crimes.
Calling it the Epstein class is rhetorically beneficial to class struggle. It’s not just about how they abuse children but also how they take advantage of power dynamics for their own gain. It’s about how interconnected these people are, and how depraved they are for the sake of depravity. They are the deciding factor for how our society is currently structured.
We are witnessing what is possibly the most transparent cover-up in world history and it would be foolish not to take advantage of the opportunity to radicalize people against the ruling class
It’s a jumping-off point, a way to get a wedge in, and i agree we should utilize the case to radicalize people, but you can only do that when you teach people that patriarchal capitalism isn’t bad because of individual bad apples or a conspiracy of bad apples, but because patriarchy and capitalism are inherently unjust, exploitative machinations that will always favor the ruthless, egotistical, abusive elements in a society and elevate them to the top. That this is systemic and Epstein, Trump, Clinton, Gates, Mountbatton-Windsor and all the other scum were in that position because the system we labor under rewards scum, it will always reward scum and even in the rare cases were it doesn’t protect its predatory elite it just replaces them with new predators unless we dismantle the system itself.
A good transition from Epstein to a general class analysis can start with how there is a double standard for justice; one for the Elite, and one for the rest of us. Liberals can easily see that. From there you can get to how laws are created by and for the same class, bailouts for corporations, enrichment schemes, etc, etc.
Yeah “pedo class” doesnt make sense, it’s just not unique to the bourgeoise, but “epstein class” is great. I love it
The Epstein class is the only class that is sufficiently organized. The rest of us are woefully behind until they can never wield power again.
I still disagree with such slogans, the final point should always be about actual class struggle, not just pedophiles or Epstein.
The whole situation can and should be used very widely for raising class consciousness, but turning it into a slogan like that, while catchy, has the danger of misleading people to all sorts of directions except socialism being the answer.
It would be nice if we could immediately jump to conversations about class struggle. But if you jump straight to talking about communist theory, you’re gonna scare some people off.
Nobody’s treating it anything more than a slogan. Slogans should not be expected to be as rigorously thought out as political lines. That’s for manifestos and programmes.