To be incredibly pedantic (and I love being pedantic), this means that billionaires specifically are the problem, right?
What about medium/large business owners who are far from being billionaires, or small business owners who are trying to get their business off the ground, are they not also problematic given how they still exploit workers to the same degree (or even to a larger degree like small businesses, given how they enjoy a lot of discriminatory legal exemptions worldwide and have to cut labour costs in order to compete better) and are more likely than not to support reactionary rhetoric that divides the working classes further due to their class position?
I like calling people by their actions instead of any label. In this situation I would call them Wealth Hoarders. I think that covers the many labels of the rich on varying scales of wealth ownership without singling out any specific group.
I find the over use of labels to be a tool for distraction. It’s easy to argue the definition of a label and ignore the actions that are actually happening. Describing a person’s action leaves less room for debate and returns the focus back on shitty, unacceptable and unwanted behaviour.
As a nice bonus, describing shitty peoples actions and behaviours to them makes them visibly uncomfortable. At least from my experiences.
“Wealth Hoarder” isn’t the best term, given how it could also include decently affluent working class people who have a decent amount of savings. They technically hoard wealth for themselves albeit to a lesser extent, but are these people problematic/part of the problem?
Also, it was a rhetorical question, the answer is bourgeoisie (or capitalists if you don’t want to use 19th century English). It’s definition literally is the employers and people who own and run companies/factories, and rentiers who live off of rent (so landlords). Instead of describing an action, it does something better and describes their material position, what they have.
I personally don’t see any reason to spend time defining labels. The people causing harm don’t even care about the definitions of the labels they use. It’s their actions which are causing harm and and our time is better spent addressing their actions.
If we aren’t spending our time addressing their actions then we are being distracted from the harm they are causing. That benefits and enables their harmful actions while doing nothing positive for us who want a liveable future.
To be incredibly pedantic (and I love being pedantic), this means that billionaires specifically are the problem, right?
What about medium/large business owners who are far from being billionaires, or small business owners who are trying to get their business off the ground, are they not also problematic given how they still exploit workers to the same degree (or even to a larger degree like small businesses, given how they enjoy a lot of discriminatory legal exemptions worldwide and have to cut labour costs in order to compete better) and are more likely than not to support reactionary rhetoric that divides the working classes further due to their class position?
If only there was a word to encompass all of them
Capitalism? Sure billionaires aren’t the only problem, but in a plutocracy they are a good place to start.
I like calling people by their actions instead of any label. In this situation I would call them Wealth Hoarders. I think that covers the many labels of the rich on varying scales of wealth ownership without singling out any specific group.
I find the over use of labels to be a tool for distraction. It’s easy to argue the definition of a label and ignore the actions that are actually happening. Describing a person’s action leaves less room for debate and returns the focus back on shitty, unacceptable and unwanted behaviour.
As a nice bonus, describing shitty peoples actions and behaviours to them makes them visibly uncomfortable. At least from my experiences.
“Wealth Hoarder” isn’t the best term, given how it could also include decently affluent working class people who have a decent amount of savings. They technically hoard wealth for themselves albeit to a lesser extent, but are these people problematic/part of the problem?
Also, it was a rhetorical question, the answer is bourgeoisie (or capitalists if you don’t want to use 19th century English). It’s definition literally is the employers and people who own and run companies/factories, and rentiers who live off of rent (so landlords). Instead of describing an action, it does something better and describes their material position, what they have.
I personally don’t see any reason to spend time defining labels. The people causing harm don’t even care about the definitions of the labels they use. It’s their actions which are causing harm and and our time is better spent addressing their actions.
If we aren’t spending our time addressing their actions then we are being distracted from the harm they are causing. That benefits and enables their harmful actions while doing nothing positive for us who want a liveable future.