He wasn’t an inhuman monster, he was a product of the capitalist system. When he dies, someone else replaces him, as the the system demands.

And, in Marxists terms anyway, he was not an aristocrat. The bourgeoisie overthrew the aristocracy hundreds of years ago. Capitalism is a different mode of production from feudalism. He was a member of the capitalist class, he was bourgeois.

he's probably the closest thing that americans can have to an aristocrat; but, traditionally, aristocrats had more relative wealth and influence than this ceo did.

marxists & leninists have definitions for lots of words that have been adopted by everyone of the last century+ but pop culture likes to redefine those words every few years and seeing the pop culture definitions clash with the accepted definitions is a really common sight here, given pronounced m/l userbase and i love seeing it because it keeps reminding me that i'm so americanized that i can understand that aristocrats like this ceo are more bougie that the bourgeois. lol

and in a sense, he is an aristocrat because he has significant enough influence in government policy to permanently enrich himself and his allies just like the aristocrats of the past did and his children will likewise hold similar wealth and influence, effectively creating a modern day feudal dynasty.

Surprised cowbee didn’t post this but I think you need this: Leftist Reading List