> So economic processes and analysis create the illusion of a wealthy elite who run everything, but there's not really a ruling class...
Right. Steve Jobs, Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, they are not rich and powerful because they were anointed by an elite who runs everything.
Nepotism is irrelevant and nothing to do with wealth. It is ubiquitous.
You can apply a label to them post hoc as a ‘ruling class’, but that is like I suggest, like thinking of cloud formations as animals. You are bringing a pre-conceived image and seeing it where you look.
> I disagree, and the fact that "wealth tends to remain with the wealthy" combined with some nepotism doesn't just create the illusion, it creates a system functionally the same.
This is just affirming the consequent. There is no class system established. The fact that wealth pools in a few places is a problem in itself. You can easily see the economic mechanisms which cause it.
There is literally no need to appeal to a labeling of different kinds of people. The groups don’t exist. The processes do.
> Your implication of some nefarious plot
You are imagining that. Why do you think I’m implying something nefarious?
> to convince the ignorant
By definition, if someone is convinced of the existence of something that doesn’t exist, they must be ignorant.
> that there is a ruling class
Weasel words. There are rulers, and there are wealthy people, but they are not there because of a ‘class system’. Thinking about it this way perpetuates ignorance. They are there for reasons. Not necessarily good ones.
Those are what matters, not a conspiracy theory about elites and ruling classes.
Conspiracy theories are what we turn to when we want to stop thinking and just have a bad guy to blame, or when we want to manipulate others into doing so.
To suggest that class analysis is not used as a political tool, is clearly absurd.