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