It’s shit like that what makes me hate when people try to humanize the oligarchy. “Anyone with that much wealth would act that way.”

That’s not what the humanizing argument is. It’s that 1) human beings are in fact capable of being that fucked up, which leads to 2) we can do something about it in how we design systems going forward, i.e. it’s not an inevitability that the most monstrous of human beings exist in the first place.

If we instead insist 1) the worst of us aren’t human, that leads 2) there are literal monsters among us whose origin is beyond our comprehension and control, and all we can do is try to catch them before they do damage and kill them before they gain any power.

In practice, the first mindset is typically associated with liberation forces and what they practice and believe. The second mindset is typically associated with class and caste, racism and things like that. Note that this does not mean the liberation forces are pacifist in the face of already existing monstrous human beings, nor does this mean they feel a need to mourn the death of a violent oppressor. It just means that they do not treat the existence of the worst people as an inevitable part of life.

So, it’s not that “anyone with that much wealth would act that way.” It’s that a system that produces an oligarchy also produces and elevates sociopathic behavior. It’s not a flip of a switch that means everyone over a certain amount of wealth instantly starts acting like the top worst kind of human being. It’s more of a gradual process and we’re not going to tend to hear as much about the ones with wealth whose character is a “lesser evil”, whose ties to industry are exploitative but whose personal MO remains somewhat conscientious. After all, rare as they may be, class traitors do exist. Generalities about what a system produces do not prevent exceptions to the rule.