See also, the concept of “cold violence.”
Money is no more intrinsically moral than muscle. Let’s say for argument’s sake that powerful capitalists have “earned” their money (I would disagree in most cases, but let’s make the assumption for this thought experiment). Let’s say they’ve earned it by diligent effort, the way a muscle-man can build up his body by diligent effort, the way a gunman can improve his reflexes and his aim by constant practise.
Now, most of us would not say that the possession of big muscles or a fast gun is a legitimate claim over other people. We call it crime when someone with big muscles intimidates other people into handing over their possessions, or threatens them with a beating if they don’t obey his commands. We call it crime when someone holds us up at gunpoint, exploiting the advantage that his gun and skills give him. Our sympathies are with the victim, who was unfairly overpowered by force majeure.
How different is it when the person with more money is able to command, control, and/or harm the person with less money? Just because the gunman spent hours learning how to shoot, doesn’t make it moral for him to use that advantage against an unarmed person. Because the body builder spent hours in the gym doesn’t make it OK for him to intimidate and bully the weaker person who didn’t. But we still believe that the person who has accumulated money has some kind of right to command and bully other people, and that those with less money have no right to any equalizer or protection against that bullying. The “safety net” of social democracies is nothing but a national policy against school bullying on a huge scale, against holdups, against intimidation and extortion.