Engels (and Marx) recognised how the Industrial Revolution in the UK led to millions of peasants migrating to towns and cities to work in factories (thus forming the proletariat – or those workers who possess nothing to sell but their labour), and to immense squalor and suffering in overcrowded slums. Twenty or thirty men, women and children crammed into poorly lit and ventilated rooms (including cellars), led to all sorts of violence, crime and sexual perversion. The strong exploited the weak in every possible way, just as the middle class exploited the working class. Former peasants were ripped-out of their community-based, pastoral lifestyles and forced into the uncaring and highly exploitative existence of a worker forced into a sham ‘individualism’ where everything has a price and everything is sellable. Workers were encouraged to brutally compete with one another for scraps from the rich man’s table. Weak men were victims of strong men, whilst women were victims of men, and children victims of both men and women. Having made the point about patriarchy, it must also be admitted that women were also the victims of other women. Sexual exploitation during the industrialisation process became just another commodity and a means to ‘bargain’ for work, food, money and other resources needed to survive. Men, women and children were raped and/or sexually exploited in many other ways. Therefore, child sexual abuse in the modern era undoubtedly has its roots in the Industrialisation process, and is a direct consequence of the destructive and highly exploitative forces operating with predatory capitalism and its free market forces. This explains why the Soviet Union became the first country in the world to a) acknowledge the existence of child sexual exploitation within the capitalist system, and b) pass national legislation to ‘ban’ the sexual abuse of children in 1926 with Article 154a, and then again 1934 with Article 121. This developed Soviet (Rvolutionary) legal thinking that had protected children from sexual abuse as early as 1922, (with a new age of consent of 16 years of age). The wording of Article 121 of Criminal Code of the USSR (which replaced Article 154a in 1934), specifically ‘outlawed’ sexual activity between an adult male and a boy (child) – a dysfunction termed ‘Pederasty’.
Although bourgeois countries today have passed similar legal codes (copying the USSR but never admitting this fact), outlawing child sexual exploitation (with substantial differences in ‘age of consent’, etc), it is also true that many middle-class establishment figures partake in the sexual exploitation of working class children. This suggests that the bourgeois legal codes only exist to protect the children of the bourgeoisie, and are only reluctantly enforced when middle class perverts abuse the children of the proletariat. In many ways, although working-class offenders may be legally punished for abusing working-class children, it is obvious from just a superficial observation of recent cases in the UK, (particularly involving Jimmy Saville), that it is something of a national sport for members of the bourgeois establishment to routinely abuse working-class children with impunity. The British royal family and the British Parliament have both been implicated in paedophile sex rings that have operated over decades, and involved the abuse of thousands of working class children. A similar pattern of ‘establishmentarian’ sexual abuse of children can be observed operating all over Europe, the USA, African and Asian countries subject to capitalist exploitation. The capitalist ‘division of labour’ ensures that every part of a worker is open to exploitation, including their genitalia and the bodies of their children.
As this sexual exploitation is perpetuated by judges, police officers, doctors, lawyers and other establishment figures, the bourgeois institutions that normally regulate the punishment of crime are ‘paralysed’ and slow to act, if they act at all. In the meantime, working class (traitors) such as Gary Glitter and Rolf Harris are pursued in the courts (and imprisoned for their crimes), whilst Jimmy Saville – a personal friend of Margaret Thatcher and Prince Charles – was allowed to continue a super-star lifestyle whilst abusing children right up until his death in 2011 because of the insider knowledge he possessed about middle class abusers. On the other hand, the middle-class Cliff Richard, following a stint in exile abroad, has not been prosecuted for his alleged crimes despite the police finding evidence in his home (although a private prosecution is being pursued through the courts by a number of his alleged victims). So perverse and disturbing is the middle-class abuse of working-class children, that there are credible stories of local Social Services Departments facilitating the abuse of children in their care, whilst politicians, Christian priests and movie stars visit designated ‘safe houses’ to carry-out the sexual abuse in private. Middle-class sex offenders usually experience either no prosecution, or are treated very leniently by the courts. One example of this maybe taken from the offending of Peter Righton – an Oxford academic who abused hundreds of boys in his care whilst a teacher – and who eventually became a leading light in the UK when he became a recognised expert within Social Services planning for the government’s national policy, particularly in the area of child welfare and development. Indeed, in one of his papers he even suggested that the experience of a child whilst being sexually exploited was ‘good’ for that child’s development. His life of offending only came to an end when British Customs & Excise intercepted a packaged addressed to Righton from Holland – containing naked pictures of young boys. It is the bourgeois illusion of rampant individualism and the ‘division of labour’ that generates the conditions for child sexual abuse, and it is only through the evolutionary transition of predatory capitalism into a state of Socialism that this menace will come to an end.