We are standing in the midst of an utterly absurd theater. The crimes of Jeffrey Epstein need no further elaboration. The Right is seizing the high ground, but what is the Left doing? Protecting themselves? Minimizing public fallout? Or simply remaining silent because their so-called "mentors" were involved? We must clearly realize one thing: this incident reflects not only the elite's internal decay and their trampling of the people, but also an opportunity for us to see the internal reality of the Left with clarity. The modern Left has detached itself from the masses and become an accomplice to the elite; we need true socialists.

The Epstein case is, at its core, the elite trampling on the dignity of the masses. The people have shown a raw, unrefined anger. Combined with today’s increasingly tense global situation, where life becomes harder and values are under assault, this angry populace should have been the starting point for class awakening. In such a situation, it should be the Left's duty to speak for the people, expose elite corruption, pursue justice, and protect the vulnerable. Instead, the Right has moved swiftly to replace this anger toward "elites" with conspiracy theory attacks against "liberal globalists," "Jewish financial groups," or the "Deep State," shifting the class issue toward nationalism and xenophobia. Yet, what are the so-called "orthodox" and "authoritative" Leftists doing? Because many famous Leftist scholars and mentors are implicated, they have chosen to circle the wagons to protect their status and reputation, or have simply detached from the masses to become elites themselves—just like the others in the Epstein case. They choose to shift the topic, issue self-clearances, or remain utterly silent. In the eyes of the masses, this is nothing but "elites protecting their own."

Usually, the Left sits in their ivory towers discussing "the deconstruction of power" and "systemic sexual exploitation," writing countless papers on "women's rights" and "child protection." Yet, when the largest, filthiest, and most tangible "network of power-based sexual exploitation" is exposed to the sunlight, these "experts" cannot produce a single decent critique based on class analysis because it involves their own circle’s interests. This silence proves that their theories are "decorative," not "combative."

Decorative cultural critique cannot replace the combativeness of structural organization. At a moment when the Left and Right are moving from the limited competition of past decades toward a revival of ideological warfare, the weapon of criticism cannot replace the criticism of weapons. The power of a weapon comes from organization, not from the "scripturalization" of the academy.

We must face a fact today: the academic "Cultural Left" is in power, but reality is calling for an organized "True Left." The existential and structural crises of today's world cannot be solved by cultural critique in ivory towers, but only by genuine organizational force.

While the so-called "authoritative" Left remains silent, what are the grassroots Leftists—those who still harbor anger toward reality—doing? Because their spiritual mentors are involved, they cannot distinguish right from wrong. Essentially, because the Left has been academicized for so many years, it has lost the most basic judgment of truth. So, let me ask you a question: Was your original intention for joining the Left to get a title, because you thought Leftist masters were "cool," or for justice and truth? If it was the former, you are not a Leftist; at best, you are a partner or an opportunist.

Socialists must complete a spiritual disillusionment from these so-called "spiritual mentors," because the current authoritative Left no longer represents socialists. Why has their path gone astray? This was not changed by one or two people; it is the inevitable result of the Left's transformation over the past decades: namely, academic warlordism (academicization), idolization, and de-organization.

The essence of academic warlordism is that the Left has turned theory into a tool for securing professional titles and social status. To cater to the mainstream—the elite upper class—the Left abandoned serious revolutionary theory and weakened structural theory, turning instead to "cultural critique" which poses the least threat to those in power. When Leftist theory was rendered harmless and researchers became mere academics in ivory towers, sectarianism and detachment from the masses emerged, just as in any other discipline. At this point, the academic Leftists are no longer representatives of the proletariat. They have completed their class leap, transforming from spokespeople of the proletariat into "cultural compradors" who trade their critiques of "how bad the elite culture is" for transactions with the elite. They channel the anger of the masses into the cultural sphere, which essentially de-organizes the proletariat from within, turning it into mere cultural venting. This simultaneously atomizes proletarian anger to please the upper class, while maintaining a so-called "radical Leftist threat" to maintain bargaining power. Their survival depends on transactions with the elite rather than rooting themselves in the masses; their class essence has become that of the middle class—the other side of the same coin as the academic Right.

Idolization is the inevitable result of academic warlordism. An organization believes in truth, but a sect is maintained by idols. Once the idol of a sect is toppled, the sect is greatly weakened, and they can no longer rely on sectarian theory to maintain and trade for social status. Therefore, their maintenance of the mentor over the truth today is an inevitability determined by their class attributes. Their social status is traded for through sectarian standing and elite approval. The moment they prepare to abandon the sect and stand with the masses, they abandon the class logic that maintains their "decent" survival—the logic of selling out the proletariat to trade with the elite. This would mean returning to the hardships the Left once endured, which is something they cannot accept. This is the so-called "weakness of the middle class."

The essence of de-organization is that the logic of transaction prevents them from posing a real threat to the upper class, while the hierarchical relations of the sect prevent them from accepting the rigor of organization and the pursuit of truth. Their choice of de-organization is the natural outcome of academic warlordism and sectarianism. A rigorous organization would be unacceptable to the elite; thus, they must abandon the mass organizations that the Left relies on for survival in exchange for a middle-class admission ticket. Sectarianism seeks stability rather than the radical pursuit of truth. They must choose sectarianism to ensure that organization cannot take root within the various Leftist factions, thereby maintaining the stability of their transactions with the elite.

Truth does not need idols; only the entertainment industry needs idols. The phrase "Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas." is the reason why humanity has been able to continuously break old eras and open new ones. However, in the 40 years of neoliberalism, there has been no truly epoch-making new Leftist research, with the exception of Wallerstein. This is because in an era of surplus, everyone could maintain a surface peace and stable transactions. But today, the world situation is re-ideologizing, merely in a form detached from the traditional one. Therefore, we must recognize the relationship between the mentor, the truth, and the organization.

A mentor is a mentor because their theory is correct and can guide our actions. But when their theory serves only as a tool for titles and social status, it loses the soul that guides reality. And when a mentor becomes a communicator with our enemies, we must abandon the limitless worship of the mentor for the sake of truth and seek new guiding theories. The relationship between mentor and truth is not one of representation; the mentor discovered the truth. He is a mentor only when he can guide us, not because he is the truth itself. The latter logic naturally slides into superstition and sectarianism.

At this point, we must break the superstition and arrogance of the academic school and turn our gaze toward the stain they are most unwilling to mention: their spiritual leader—Noam Chomsky. From the case of this "last master" of the modern Left, we can see how powerless the current Left has become.

When The Wall Street Journal inquired about that $270,000 transfer in 2023, Chomsky’s response was a blunt dismissal: "It's none of your business." While he continues to deconstruct power structures in the classroom, his personal financial conduct reveals a troubling irony—choosing to manage family assets through the private accounts of a notorious predator. Is this merely "academic exchange"? No, this is a definitive exposure of a "Leftist mentor’s" objective class positioning.

Epstein’s harrowing scandals were public as early as 2008, yet our "master of dissent" continued to maintain these associations under the guise of intellectual discourse for years. The pioneer who pursued justice in his youth has, in his twilight years, sought the convenience of the very elite financial shadows he once critiqued. When a figure of such historical weight prioritizes the efficiency of a predator’s financial channels over the moral cost of the association, it marks a profound departure from the struggle. His pension accounts, his real estate trusts, and his permanent seat in elite intellectual circles have effectively rendered his theory "harmless" to the status quo. It is no longer a radical mind that is thinking; it is his secure class position speaking through him.

Some say this is a matter of private morality. We certainly cannot deny the brilliance of Chomsky’s theory, but we must realize that the Left is an organization pursuing social justice, not a fan club for an idol—which is exactly what the academic Left has become. The image of an organization is related to its leader. The essence of why the Left can organize the people is that they can bring a visible direction for justice. Once the concept is swapped and the leader’s personal morality is treated as a "private matter," morality of this magnitude ceases to be private. While the masses can accept an imperfect leader, this level of moral decay is a betrayal of the very subject from which the organization draws its power. The organization must draw a clear line to ensure long-term development. But we also know that the current Left is not an organization but a sect; it is a system built on the prestige and personality cult of the leader, not an idealist organization built on the power of theory. To seek truth, the establishment of an organization must abandon the myth of the leader. In history, myths—whether of Stalin, Mao, or North Korea—only drag the organization into a graveyard of stagnation.

What, then, is the relationship between the organization and the people? Historically, the Left originated for the pursuit of social justice; those demanding justice are naturally the majority—the "Mass Line." However, modern "orthodox successors of Marx" are immersed in the self-entertainment of the ivory tower, forgetting their true origins. They are essentially middle-class elites of the petty bourgeoisie speaking through the mouths of the proletariat. They can no longer represent the people. How can we expect them to lead the masses to break the order and discourse power they themselves built—especially when this involves their spiritual mentors and the majority of their high-level peers?

"The educator himself must be educated." If you want to lead the masses, you must accept the scrutiny of the masses yourself. When so-called mentors and authorities are immersed in decades of academic fantasy, detached from reality and practical explanatory power, they can no longer bear the responsibility of a mentor. At this point, we can no longer rely on the statements of so-called Leftist authorities to endorse us, because they have become transactors with the elite and middle-class individuals detached from the masses. We must abandon those who have abandoned the people and carve out a new path ourselves.

Therefore, whether within the academic system or among spontaneous Leftist comrades outside the system, we must seek the emergence of a new organization. Socialists should not engage in empty talk, and even less should they descend into a massive "fan-following" scene, turning the serious Mass Line into a tool for profit and speculation. The ideological battlefield has been reignited. What we need to do is not only to have the courage to speak up and turn the raw anger of the masses into class consciousness, but also to steer the path the Left has walked astray for decades—academic warlordism and idolization—back toward organization and truth.

First, unite. Historically, the Left defeated the Right at the top by uniting the majority. Although the Left is now split into many factions, we must clearly realize that the Right is currently competing with the Left for the masses. The resolution of the primary contradiction must precede the secondary ones. Between the Left and the Right, it is a life-and-death class struggle; within the Left, it is a specific matter of the "Line." If we continue to indulge in internal strife, the Left's greatest weapon—uniting the masses—will be lost.

Second, organize. Due to academic warlordism and decades of de-ideologization, the Left has lost its organization. To have the capability to resist, we must rebuild organization. The form of organization today will inevitably differ from decades ago, but reliance on the awakening of the masses remains the fundamental logic.

Third, break the idols. We must realize that the worship of idols is poison to an organization. We must now abandon the worship of specific figures and go into the masses to practice and seek grounded theories.

Fourth, theoretical reconstruction. In the past decades, we have produced no revolutionary theory, and structural theory has been scarce, while cultural critique has been endless. But cultural critique can never escape the trap of sensibility. We need structural theory to organize, and we must break the fossilized guidance of decades-old dogmas on reality to explore a truly New Leftist theory.