Is there any meaningful distinction between old-money and new-money capitalists?

[GPDP]

By old-money, I am of course referring to people who were born into wealth that spans generations before them, such as the Rockefellers. New-money capitalists are those that have only recently acquired their wealth, an example being Warren Buffet or Bill Gates.

Some aspects of sociological theory would put the old-money rich as being on a higher social stratum to the new-money rich, as they are perceived as possessing more prestige, almost like aristocracy (or indeed, they could be the aristocracy in the case of some countries that retain some remnants of the old feudalist order). They, after all, have access to certain privileges their newer counterparts do not, such as being members of the social registry, access to exclusive elite clubs, etc.

However, is this "social" distinction in any way meaningful in the broader sense of things? Do they actually possess more economic and political power than new-rich capitalists? Should we as leftists even pay attention to whatever it may be that distinguishes one type from the other? Or are they, in the end, merely competing factions of the same bourgeois class?

[Blackscare]

I'd say the distinction is meaningless in practical terms, they're both the enemy. I guess the old money rich are a bit more blatantly parasitic, but only slightly.

[More Fire for the People]

A lot of new money feel sympathy for their old social background and often help them... become capitalist like themselves...but in different sectors. Pick up the Great Gatsby to see the distinction.

[Blackscare]

Yea I guess that is true, they tend to be more charitable.

[jake williams]

There's two questions. There's the analytic distinction between how the two groups function similarly or differently in our society. As to that question, the difference isn't zero, but it's not that significant. I think with a broad enough sample you could find some real differences, but they wouldn't be that important. It might be interesting, but it probably wouldn't be all that useful.

There's sort of another question, and I do think one can conflate the two, in that it's technically possible within capitalism to change one's relationship to the means of production, and due to the mechanisms of a capitalist society one's wealth. There are aspects of the capitalist system that allow this to happen, and they're analytically significant, even if only for their propaganda consequences.

[Rangi]

Old money capitalists have good taste.

[Invincible Summer]

By old-money, I am of course referring to people who were born into wealth that spans generations before them, such as the Rockefellers. New-money capitalists are those that have only recently acquired their wealth, an example being Warren Buffet or Bill Gates.

Some aspects of sociological theory would put the old-money rich as being on a higher social stratum to the new-money rich, as they are perceived as possessing more prestige, almost like aristocracy (or indeed, they could be the aristocracy in the case of some countries that retain some remnants of the old feudalist order). They, after all, have access to certain privileges their newer counterparts do not, such as being members of the social registry, access to exclusive elite clubs, etc.

However, is this "social" distinction in any way meaningful in the broader sense of things? Do they actually possess more economic and political power than new-rich capitalists? Should we as leftists even pay attention to whatever it may be that distinguishes one type from the other? Or are they, in the end, merely competing factions of the same bourgeois class?

I think people who are born into wealth ("old-money capitalists") are somewhat less exploitative, as they may just rest on their laurels of being rich and not directly exploit workers (although their wealth was clearly built through exploitation).

"New-money" capitalists are the ones that most people think of - cunning businessmen who make millions off the backs of the poor workers.


Aside from the scant difference I mentioned, I don't think the left should treat them differently.

[mikelepore]

I think the real difference occurred right after the generation of Thomas Edison, Andrew Carnegie, etc. In those days, capitalists sometimes performed work and had technical knowledge personally. Some of them invented their own processes and machines. But after their generation, capitalism changed so that now a typical capitalist never sees the workplace, often lives on the other side of the world, and doesn't have to be aware of any connection to the company but to receive dividends and voting cards in the mail. But some additional change more recently? Nothing significant that I can see.

[Rjevan]

As BlackScare said, both are the enemy. But in my opinion new-money capitalists are worse. They are even more ruthless, they think they are the kings of the world and that they have a god given right to exploit idiots, who deserve nothing less than being exploited. If you see this "new oligarchy" in Russia, for example, you get sick.