Isn't the term "Epstein class" unscientific? Shouldn't we be using the term "bourgeoisie" instead?
This is a criticism that has been levelled against the RCP countless times since we took up the slogan "wipe out the Epstein class!" – mostly from terminally-online sectarians who need to get out more.
The Epstein files constitute the biggest scandal of the 21st century. It is perhaps the most politicising event of our time, behind only the 2008 crisis and the genocide in Palestine.
The fact that barely any of the left-wing organisation have taken up the concept of the Epstein class – one that has taken root in the minds of millions, spontaneously and organically, allowing them to connect the dots between exploitation, corruption, and oppression – is truly mind-boggling.
For Marxists, a concept is scientific to the extent that it enables us to explain the world and raise the consciousness of the working class.
The term 'Epstein class' has a rich content and meaning to ordinary, radicalised people – in many cases a lot more than a term like 'bourgeoisie'.
Let's remember that the term bourgeoisie is a medieval French word for a middle-class town dweller. This is hardly a precise term for modern-day, imperialist financiers.
Similarly, the term 'proletariat' refers to the underclass of poor citizens in ancient Roman society, who fed from the crumbs of slave exploitation, and were far from a progressive, revolutionary class.
And yet neither of these terms are thrown into question – and nor should they be. They serve a key purpose.
Is there a danger of misinterpretation in using this term 'Epstien class'? Yes. Is there a danger of ambiguity? Again, yes. But the same risk of one-sidedness is present in any term, slogan, or demand. The task of connecting the finished programme of Marxism to the living process of radicalisation is never without difficulty.
Consciousness is always distorted and contradictory – by definition.
What else is consciousness but the generalisation of billions of people – with their own unique ideas, aims, pressures, and aspirations – slowly and arduously making sense of a complex, confusing, and turbulent world, with the weight of ruling-class propaganda and the conservatism of daily life stacked against them?
When a new idea can take root in that maelstrom, that is a profound thing. When that idea helps people understand their place in the world, and the real inner workings of society, that is a progressive step forwards.
Marx once remarked that every step of the real movement is more important than a dozen programmes. I think the same can be said of the real development of mass consciousness, which is worth a thousand sectarian polemics.
I think we should all be proud of the fact that the RCI has been the only far-left organisation to understand the deep significance of this scandal and its impacts on consciousness.
This is a powerful weapon in our hands – not just to recruit new people to our ranks, but to raise our own political understanding, and enrich Marxist theory with new facts, examples, and phenomena.