Australian Egalitarian Movement :: Offering Egalitarianism or Anti-Elitism

Australian Egalitarian Movement


Home > Major Policies > The Invalid and Corrupt Origins of All Economically Stratified Societies


Home Page

Our Mission

About the AEM

Our Major Policies
and Explanations

Questions & Answers

Current Affairs

Join the AEM
FREE Membership

Contact Us





Rationalising Egalitarianism -
Why We Know that All Elitist Societies are Invalid

There is a theory. It's pretty easy to understand and you have no doubt heard it before, but it is ignored by people in power and by the media. And because we feel helpless, we ignore it too (if we know about it), even though it is obviously true. Here it is.

Whatever form of elitist rule we are talking about, and however that form of rule came into existence, elitist societies are created and maintained by those individuals or social groups who gain control over the law and policy-making processes within the society (or social group), creating or maintaining laws and policies that serve to economically, socially, and/or politically empower and advantage themselves (and perhaps their families and/or other social groups that they are a member of) in relation to other members of the society (or social group).

This is corruption, and all elitist societies are created by institutionalising various types of corruption via the law and policy-making processes. This is how and why elitism began in the first place, and why elitism continues today, but before we demonstrate this, there are a number of things to discuss about this Theory of Elitism.

First, this phenomenon is not only created by self-interested people. People who do not have any intention to economically, socially, or physically dominate others also tend to become motivated to do so when they find themselves in a position of power and control over others. Here's an example that helps demonstrate this idea. Back in the 70's, a group of social psychologists (Haney, C., Banks, C., and Zimmerman, P. Naval Research Reviews, Sept. 1973, Dept. of the Navy) conducted a social experiment, which involved randomly allocating (psychologically screened) male university students to one of two social groups: prisoners or guards. This type of experiment wouldn't be allowed these days due to ethical reasons. The experiment was supposed to run for two weeks but had to be cut short because the guards, who also had control of the rule-making process, were becoming too oppressive and controlling. The guards even made prisoners ask for permission to go to the toilet, and prisoners were only granted permission if they had been good or passed some test of subservience. The prisoners on the other hand, became subdued and compliant, due to the total lack of control over their lives and their fear of punishment and humiliation. This now famous "Prisoners and Guards" experiment clearly demonstrated two important phenomena. First, when those people who are in charge of others are also in charge of creating rules and policies regarding the charge of others, they typically create rules and policies that serve to increase their control and to decrease the autonomy of those whom they are in charge of. And this feeling of being in control, and perhaps the occasional need to demonstrate who is in control, serves to motivate dominating and controlling behaviour. As important (and as obvious) as this conclusion is, it is not as important (or as obvious) as the second conclusion. That is, this experiment demonstrated that the social status of the individual, or the degree of control over others, tends to strongly influences and change almost any individual's attitudes, values, beliefs, and personality, in relation to their own control and social status. This is in complete contrast to the commonly held idea that people with certain types of personalities and attitudes seek certain types of jobs that provide the opportunity to fulfill these controlling or dominating (or submissive) tendencies. In the case of the 'Prisoners and Guards' experiment, bullies don't seek occupations such as prison wardens. Instead, prison wardens become bullies (to varying degrees) because they are prison wardens, or rather because of their higher social and political status within a particular hierarchical social environment. To say this another way: holding a dominant position within a social environment tends to motivate dominating behaviours, attitudes, and personalities (as well as justifications for one's behaviour and attitudes). Likewise, being of low social and political status within a social environment tends to motivate submissive, compliant, fearful, and helpless behaviours and attitudes. This thinking can be applied to any social situation where one possess more control over others, although in most social situation, people do not usually possess as much control over others, or control over the law-making processes, and therefore the degree of domination and submission is often less extreme (e.g. doctor or patient, parent or child, boss or employee, rich or poor, weak or strong, big or small, winners or losers).  

Obviously, the guards needed to maintain control over the prisoners as was the requirement of the job, but the guards' control, abuse, and domination of the prisoners went well beyond what was required of the job. Without going into it, or without even being able to understand the psychology or sociology of this phenomenon, we can say that because the subjects in this experiment were randomly allocated to one of these two groups of people, it appears to be a phenomenon that occurs naturally and quickly in most people in similar social circumstances. It is possible that this phenomenon is caused by emotions. That is, all emotions are reflexively activated by specific criteria, which in turn motivate specific types of behaviour, and the emotions that are reflexively activated by the criteria of having power over others tend to motivate one to be more dominant towards those that one has power over, particularly when the one in control has no emotional attachments to those who are controlled. We are also emotionally motivated to regard ourselves as good, and typically we become motivated to find good reasons to justify our dominating and controlling desires, behaviours, and attitudes. And it is much easier to achieve this self-delusion when one is a member of a group of people who also experience similar motivations and construct similar justifications.

Regardless of whether or not emotions are to blame, if we apply this Theory of Elitism to any type of elitism or ruling class, and particularly to those born into a ruling class, we can see why the social circumstance of being a member of the ruling class, and knowing that one will always be a member of the ruling class serves to reproduce and reinforce values, beliefs, ambitions, fantasies, and personality types that seduce these people to perceive that their control of the society, and their supreme elite status within the society, are wonderful, obvious, fair, natural, necessary things (similar to how the guards thought), even though they aren't. In fact, elitism is commonly viewed by elites as a right. Likewise, we can also see how the values, desires, and the passive or helpless personality types etc, which are developed within the public through the social circumstance of always being controlled and economically and socially disadvantaged, also serve to invite any ruling class to believe that their continued domination of the public is vital to the survival of the society. It is also easy to see that if the guards were also in charge of the budget of the prison, that they would soon convince themselves that they deserved more pay, even if this meant less of everything for the prisoners. We conclude that this is exactly what those in charge of the law and policy-making processes within societies also tend to do, and particularly so when the goal of gaining control over the law and policy-making processes is motivated by the relatively normal desire to be elite.

Second, this process occurs within all social groups where control over the rules are held by certain individuals (or social groups), no matter what size that social group is. For example, at a very micro level of social groups, a parent upholds rules that advantage and empower parents and adults in relation to children. At a higher micro level in society, prison and hospital staff make rules that advantage and empower prison and hospital staff in relation to inmates and patients. At the macro level of our capitalist culture, political parties win government to advantage and empower the goals of the social groups they represent in relation to the goals of other individuals and social groups. At the macro level of the planet; because the economically and militarily powerful nations have taken control of the international law and policy-making processes, they have created and maintained international laws and policies that advantage themselves in relation to weaker nations. At the macro level of societies, whole constitutions are changed to advantage and empower certain social groups in relation to other social groups, and this is the subject we are concerned with here.

Third, elitism is particularly motivated within societies (or social groups) that are already economically and socially stratified (i.e. where elitism is already accepted, which is everywhere) because such societies serve to propagate elitist fantasies in all of us just by it's visibility, and particularly so when it is possible to raise one's status to an elite. That is, we are corrupted to support elitism by the slim possibility of becoming elite. And to be corrupted by such a slim possibility reflects just how easily corruptible we are. However, the fact that we have elitist fantasies does not make elitism valid.

Fourth, because elitism has been around forever (and is evident within other social animals), we have come to accept it without question as an obviously necessary part of life and as part of any civilised society. And because of this long history of accepting elitism, we have generally, from birth, accepted many of the rationalisations and moralisations that have been proffered to support the concept of elitism in general. However, if our Theory of Elitism is correct, it means that these rationalisations and moralisations are nothing more than con jobs, excuses that allow such people to fulfill their elitist fantasies (including their belief that they are superior or more deserving). That is, all types of elitist societies are nothing more than the institutionalised control/domination fantasy of those types of people who have gained control over the law and policy-making processes, regardless of any rationalisations or moralisations that have been proffered and accepted to support it. Therefore, no form of elitism is what's supposed to be, necessary, or intrinsically good. They are all created by the minds of specific people within the society, and there are often quite a few different types of domination fantasies institutionalised within the one culture due to the fact that various individuals and social groups have managed to gain some control of the law and policy-making processes. We are not suggesting that societies do not need some form of hierarchical organisation and control. Instead, this theory is implying that there is no valid reason why one should use one's control over the law and policy-making processes to economically and/or socially advantaged one's self for being of higher status within the hierarchical organisation of society. It's just something that tends to occur when most people gain control of the law and policy-making processes (particularly in the absence of any preventative measures, or any commitment to Egalitarianism). As we have mentioned in the discussion about the prisoners and guards experiment, not institutionalising one's fantasy is a difficult thing to resist when one is in control, but when people set out to gain control of the society to deliberately institutionalise their own type of domination fantasy, don't expect a fair deal or mercy. You should know then, that the creators of the democratic-capitalist constitution deliberately set out to gain power in order to institutionalise their own economic domination fantasies, but we will discuss this later in 'The Capitalist Scam' web pages. And because all forms of elitism are invalid (and because elitism causes a wide range of social problems), elitism and our acceptance of elitism, are actually things that prevent us from being civilised.             

Fifth, this abuse of power becomes particularly severe when those in charge of the society (or social group), and their families are not likely to ever be on the receiving end of the laws and policies that they create, because they are not likely to ever be in the controlled group of citizens/people (e.g. a king and his royal family, the owners of the means of production), and this is commonly achieved through another invalid concept called 'inheritance', which we will discuss later, in our 'The Capitalist Scam' web page. However, the fact that domination does become more severe when the members of a controlling group are never likely to be a member of the controlled group, suggests strongly that this Theory of Elitism is correct. 

Sixth, regardless of the rationalisations and moralisations that support any form of elitism, and regardless of whether or not a form of elitism is accepted by the citizens of that society, elitism is always upheld through the use of (or the threat of) some type of force (including the forced denial of desired or needed things). That is, laws and policies that socially and economically advantage certain people over others are created simply because the others are not able to prevent such laws and policies from being created and enforced (i.e. elitism is always created and maintained through blatant domination). As such, any rationalisations or moralisations that are proffered to support any form of elitism do not need to be correct for any form of elitism to exist. However, even though it appears easy to understand why and how elitism occurs, there are several reasons why the non-elite people in all elitist societies believe that their society's particular form of elitism is reasonably fair or good, as though it is theirs by choice rather than something that is forced upon them. 

First, the rationalisations and moralisations that are proffered to justify why those in charge of the society are allowed greater social and economic advantages than the others, filter down throughout the society to explain why anybody within the society is economically and/or socially advantaged or disadvantaged in relation to anyone else. As such, each form of elitism produces a particular form of social organisation, which serves to shape the culture. More importantly however, it serves to create support for that form of elitism. That is, there is usually a minority of other people within the society who are economically and socially advantaged by these rationalisations and moralisations (to varying degrees). As you will see later, in the case of capitalism, it also explains why certain people can acquire even more wealth than our political leaders can. Common rationalisations that have long been accepted revolve around the claims that the supreme responsibility associated with running the society, the skills required to do the job, and the working conditions associated with the job, are of higher social and economic importance than are other jobs, skills, and working conditions. Therefore, those people whose jobs involve having responsibility over others, and/or require similar skills and attributes, and/or entail similar working conditions also benefit from this form of corruption, and therefore they become economically and socially seduced to support it. And people may not necessarily be advantaged very much, but within an economically insecure social environment, most of us are only too happy to get whatever little bit extra we can (which is normal under these circumstances). Also, because being more elite is usually associated with having more political clout, those people who are in the best position to challenge the validity of their elite status are also the people who are the least motivated to do so. As such, the corruption becomes consolidated and institutionalised. However, in all elitists societies, leaders and the elite do not admit or even regard elitism as a form of corruption, and instead glorify it as being good and socially beneficial. Acknowledging that elitism is a form of corruption is the first step required to undo it. Incidentally, many other parts of a culture also filter down from the top. In our democratic-capitalist society for example, gaining and maintaining control of large companies or a democratically elected government relies heavily upon selling one's self in a number of ways including by one's personal presentation. As such, one is often expected to partake in the same types of self-promotion when applying for a job, and the more authority or power one is applying for, the more one is expected to be well presented. We will tentatively refer to this process whereby the social structure and much of the culture are shaped by the rationalisations and moralisations that are used to support a form of elitism, as the Top-Down Theory of Status and Culture. It is not the only way a culture is influenced, but it is the main way.

Second, as you will see in 'How the Existing Culture Shapes the Values, Beliefs, Desires, Fears, Fantasies, and Ambitions of the People, and How this Serves to Reproduce the Culture and Its Social Problems', elitists usually go to quite substantial lengths to condition the lower classes into accepting their particular form of elitism. For example, elites nurture and manipulate spiritual beliefs and knowledge that serve to advantage themselves, and these beliefs and knowledge are used to support and moralise their control of the society and their elite status. That is, throughout most elitist societies, the elite institutionalise religions and teach so-called facts (and suppressed knowledge) that serve to support their elite status and control of the society. Western societies are no different in this regard. This conditioning process is evident in the archaeology of all early sedentary societies, and it has been used ever since because it is so successful. As such, most peasants within most elitist societies believe in their society and its elitist form of rule, and will even defend their culture with their lives against change (including a change to Egalitarianism). However, it is because the leaderships of elitist societies, including capitalist societies, deliberately encourage these conditioning processes that we know these forms of elitism are not created through ignorance or misguided good intentions.

Third, our nurtured belief in such rationalisations and moralisations now serves to create a fear that our society will crumble if we don't have elitism.  

Seventh, it should be mentioned that this natural tendency towards elitism can easily be prevented, but preventative measures are unlikely to be put in place by any elite class or by those extremely ambitious and ruthless people who finally manage to claw their way through the ranks to get themselves into a position of control.

Now that you have an understanding of how and why elitism occurs, we are going to examine some of the more common forms of elitism to further demonstrate that our Theory of Elitism and our Top-Down Theory of Status and Culture are true.


Dictatorships in General
There are several types of dictatorships, but just by using the term 'dictatorship', we are implying that the dictator has definitely created and/or upheld laws and policies that have served to socially and economically advantage the dictator and to maintain and increase the dictator's control of the society (i.e. political advantages), in relation to all others. How a dictatorship has emerged may also filter down throughout society, to explain why certain people have more control than others within the society. For example, if a dictator gained and maintained control of the society by force, and this dictator declares that this is a good enough reason for holding such power and such an elite status, this may filter down throughout the society to make most positions of power and wealth within the hierarchically ordered society filled with very dominating personalities. And people in general will learn from birth that one's ability to dominate, and one's willingness to dominate, are obviously sensible attributes required for holding position of wealth and control over others. As you might imagine, this type of dictatorship doesn't usually last too long, especially because the dictator has claimed that force is a legitimate reason for gaining control of the society, thereby having no moral argument against others who militarily overthrow him/her.

However, even though economic, social, and political elitism is usually the real reason why dictators seek positions of power, dictators have learnt that if they want to last, they need to morally protect themselves against such attacks. As such, by using their control of the law and policy-making processes within the society, dictators began to develop other justifications for why they should rule, or have the sole right to rule, and for why they should be supremely elite. Typically, those commonly accepted rationalisations mentioned earlier are used by most dictators. And all of these rationalisation are lies when the motivation to gain or retain control is underwritten by the desire to gain or retain one's supreme elite status, and its hard to find an example amongst dictators when this hasn't been the case. Even though all leaders tend to believe that they deserve more than anyone else in society, in the case of dictators especially, it occurs because they use blatant power to make it happen, and nobody is powerful enough to stop them from doing so, and nobody is powerful enough to stop them from using these rationalisations to justify their right to be supremely elite. Therefore, these rationalisations that support the elite status of leaders, and that we have taken for granted to be reasonable, are actually the product of people long ago abusing or misusing their control of the law and policy-making processes within their societies to claim a legal right to force their elitist fantasies onto the society. That is, these reasons for having more than others are nothing more than corruption motivated by self-interests or self-delusions (i.e. their own biased perspective). They become leaders to fulfill their elitist fantasies. And this totally supports our Theory of Elitism, and so does the fact that dictators are usually extremely elite compared to low status folk, which demonstrates that the more control a leader has, the more extreme the elitism tends to become.

Another common justification that is still strongly accepted today as being a reasonable justification to be socially and economically advantaged, is 'to the winner go the spoils'. But this is a justification, or a right that was claimed by conquerors. As such, claiming the spoils of war is an act of blatant domination, which implies total control over the law and policy making-processes. That is, the only reason that the spoils of war go to the victor is because the loser is unable, or has failed to prevent this from occurring. However, because the winners in any type of constitutional quest for power continue to be easily convinced into believing that they are champions who also do deserve more than the losers, and because the losers are unable to prevent this from occurring (even though most losers/players in the quest for power or wealth usually accept this rationalisation for elitism, and would have upheld it if they had won), this type of corruption prevails. And because we peasants also dream of being rich, we also tend to support a system/culture that serves to keep us disadvantaged. And because we are also easily corrupted, we also perceive that the right of the winner to claim more rewards as a reasonable thing, which ironically serves to ensure that most of us will remain within the lowly rewarded category of citizens. Not surprisingly then, the winners of many competitions continue to be rewarded, and the bigger the competition, the bigger the prize. Elites have also justified this reason to be elite as a necessary form of motivation so that the gifted (and others) try their best, which will in turn benefit the society in some way. It really doesn't matter if this is true or not. Having slaves do all the work is economically efficient, but this benefit doesn't mean that slavery is somehow morally good. Even if economically and socially rewarding winners more than losers did serve to improve our society (which the AEM emphatically disputes), it doesn't mean that winners actually deserve more than losers, and it doesn't mean that the vast array of social and economic problems created by rewarding winners more are reasonable consequences for doing so. But it certainly does motivate the most greedy and ruthless people to compete for positions of power and/or wealth, and to manipulate the rules of the competition so that they favour the skills and attributes they possess, thereby increasing their ability to gain and maintain control, and to prevent the best from actually winning. We discuss this issue in relation to the competition between political candidates within our contemporary democratic system, in our 'The Democratic and Undemocratic Nature of the AEM's Egalitarian Society' web page.

Different types of dictatorships are created because different dictators employ different rationalisations and moralisations to defend their ongoing elite status and control of the society. Let's have a look at some common dictatorships to further demonstrate this and our Theory of Elitism and our Top-Down Theory of Status.


Military Dictators
Typically, military dictators tend to promote the economic and social value of the skills and attributes associated with military leadership (i.e. those skills and attributes they possess and which served to gain them their control of the militaty). As such, the higher one's rank within the military, the more elite one will be within the society, and the more control one will be granted over other people, public institutions and services, and/or land etc (not to mention control over more military personnel, military facilities, and weaponry). Also, because the way in which a military leader climbs to the top of the military hierarchy has little to do with being the best soldier, and more to do with being a good military tactician/general, manager, wheeler and dealer, and politician; solders usually continue to remain lowly paid in comparison to personnel involved in these tactical, managerial, political duties. Typically however, due to our Top-Down Theory of Status and Culture, the intellectual labour involved in non-military and non-political positions (i.e. scientists, mathematicians, composers, doctors) may not be valued anywhere near as highly as the intellectual labourers involved in military and political leadership.

With this control over the law and policy-making processes, military dictators also tend to abuse their power to promote the military ranking of their own children to the next highest military ranking after the military dictator, thereby keeping the control of the society and one's supreme elite status within the family for generation after generation.

Once again, it doesn't matter whether or not military leaders make the best leaders of the society, or whether or not the rationalisations that support military dictatorships are correct, this corruption becomes accepted because there is nobody who is militarily strong enough to stop them. Further, the only people who maybe powerful enough to oust a military leader are usually high ranking military personnel, and therefore when these people do oust a military dictator, they are also motivated to keep this form of corruption in place for their own self-interested and self-deluded reasons.  

Divine Rulers
Even though it appears obvious that divine rulers are created and maintained by military power, divine rulers have justified their totalitarian control of the society by claiming, and making laws and enforcing religious beliefs (and knowledge) that insist that they and their families are gods or god's chosen rulers. This eliminated the possibility of any other family legally gaining control of the society's law and policy-making processes, or attempting to do so, and it created the legal ability to pass on one's control and elite status to family members forever more. And being gods or god's chosen, it was only appropriate that one be treated as such, thus dramatically increasing the social, economic, and/or material value to the society of these rulers and their families in relation to all others. And being a god or god's chosen meant that everyone must worship and work towards appeasing one and only one, or else face one's wrath. And all this totally supports our Theory of Elitism. Further, because a divine ruler's family will never be in the controlled group of citizens, divine rulers often create extremely brutal forms of rule, which filters down throughout the society.

And because spiritual reasons are proffered as the legitimate reason for holding power, religious personnel tend to hold positions of power and control within the society. And because the divine leader's family are closer to god than all others, the heirs to power usually hold the most important positions within the society. And because divine rulers are actually military dictators, those positions that were regarded as the most important were those of the military generals, thereby ensuring that the family maintained control of the military, and therefore the society.

Monarchies are also military dictators who have also used their control over the law and policy-making processes, and religious beliefs to increase their social and economic value above all others by declaring and enforcing laws and beliefs that also insist that it is god's wish that they and their families rule the society. As with divine rulers, members of the royal family will end up holding the most important areas of control (eg. the military, land, tax collecting). Royal families also tend to believe that they and their families are genetically superior to all others (which was said to be demonstrated by being able to defeat their enemies), and create policies and laws that treat this belief as fact. For, example, because they are superior, it is only sensible and right that they should rule the society, be treated as superior, and treat others as inferior. This assumption tends to deny that common folk were actually the one's who provided the bulk of the military power that won the monarchy his/her crown, Further, there is no reason to accept that one deserves more because one is genetically superior. This is just what people who believe they are genetically superior tend to believe (to justify the fulfillment of their elitist desires without having to feel guilty about it), and as you can see from these examples of dictatorships, the extended families of most dictators tend to become easily convinced that they are genetically superior, and unfortunately nobody is strong enough to prevent this belief from being assumed by these ruling classes.

Here are some other forms of rule to think about. I am sure you will be able to see the bigger picture now that you know how to view them. Many societies are a combination of these different forms of rule.

Elder Societies
When elders have control of the law and policy-making processes, they create laws and policies that advantage elders in relation to younger people.

When men have control of the law and policy-making processes, they create laws and policies that advantage men in relation to women.

When women have control of the law and policy-making processes, they create laws and policies that advantage women in relation to men.

Warrior Societies
When warriors have control of the law and policy-making processes, they create laws and policies that advantage warriors in relation to non-warriors.

Communist Societies
As far as we can see, while communism was the banner under which successful revolutions took place, communism was not delivered to the people. Instead, the controlling body of the revolution and the new government, the Communist Party, immediately granted themselves higher wages than all others. While this blatantly contradicted the foundations upon which communism is based, nobody was now strong enough to prevent this from occurring. However, because the Communist Party is a political party, composed of many different people from many different families, they have managed to prevent each other from starting family based political dynasties. As such, the leaders of so-called communist states are very similar to leaders of democratic-capitalist states in what skills are required to do their job and to gain their job (i.e. achievement and a broad range of political and business skills). The big difference is that they need to impress two different groups of people in order to move up economically. Communist Party members need to impress their superiors, whereas capitalist politicians and governments also need to impress the public (which is why salesmanship is more valued within capitalist societies). However, because communist states came into being via a revolution, and because military power can create more communist territory, and because communist societies are really totalitarian military states, and because all totalitarian leaders know that they need to keep the leaders of the military well rewarded so that they don't spoil the party, the skills required for military leadership are deemed of higher value than they are in democratic-capitalist states. Not surprisingly then, many communist party leaders were once elite military personnel. Also, because the State owns all businesses, and because businesses create revenue for the society, success in business is also highly valued, although one is not likely to have the opportunity to succeed in business or the military unless one is also a member of the Communist Party. And because this filters down throughout the society, anybody's economic and social status tends to increase the more one's job requires similar skills, by moving higher in rank within the military or the Communist Party, success in business, and by the increasing number of people one is in charge of. As with many other military states, other intellectual skills, that are not required for military or political leadership or business are not so highly valued (e.g. doctors, scientists).  

Democratic-Capitalist Societies
Democratic-capitalism was created by politicians, who were also wealthy businessmen. As such, managerial, political, and business skills, which were also skills said to be required of the monarchy, and which were therefore already raised in economic raised, became raised in value even more, while other forms of labour continued to be regarded as of low economic value. Managerial, political, and business skills include communication skills, leadership skills, intellectual skills, sales skills, education and/or experience. Therefore, those who employ similar skills in their workplace also benefit economically from this constitution, which seduces them to support this form of corruption. And because managers, politicians, and the owners of businesses both gain success by beating the competition in gaining more consumers or votes, being a winner is also highly valued, and the bigger the competition, the bigger the prize. But running a successful business was by far the most valued thing in society according to these businessmen and as such, successful businesspeople can become thousands of times wealthier than average wage earners. It should also be mentioned that since the democratic-capitalist constitution was introduced through political and military force, it remains in place because nobody is politically, militarily, or economically strong enough (at this stage) to remove it or to mount a campaign to argue away the onslaught of virtues continually proclaimed and assumed of democratic-capitalism. Therefore, if the people are unable to escape democratic-capitalism, we cannot claim that it exists because it is good or right or in the best interests of the majority or the society (or anything else, except the elite). 

See more about the invalidity of capitalism in our "The Capitalist Scam" web pages. 

Let us know if you think our Theory of Elitism is flawed and why. We will happily post your challenge and our response on this website. However, after over three years of this theory being presented here, nobody has yet dared to. That must mean that it's correct.


Home | Our Mission | About the AEM | Major Policies | Current Issues | Join the AEM | Contact Us | Feedback | Resource

Legal Issue:  Copyright  |  Privacy  |  Disclaimer