This isn’t terrible, but it’s important to be aware that the class analysis and definition of capitalism in this is nonsense. The capitalist class is not just “rich people” and the working class is not just “poor people.” Capitalism is not defined by…whatever this attempts to define it by. Capital is the power to prioritize the allocation of resources and labor.
Capitalism stands for the idea that the purpose of all value, surplus and base really, of production is to increase the capital of the holders of capital. That is it. It is the worship of allocative power solely for the sake of allocative power. And that’s why it inevitably degenerates into fascism–the worship of power solely for the sake of power.
All class dynamics must oriented themselves within the structure of that allocative power analysis. The capitalist class is not “rich” people, or at least not definitionally, and the working class is not poor people. The capitalist class are those who derive increase to their allocative power primarily from the direction of capital under the capitalist system. On the flip side, working class is anyone who increases their own allocative power primarily through the application of their own labor. The vague vibes based class analysis in this would effectively place servers (like, at a restaurant) as bourgeoisie capitalist-class/adjacent just like doctors, lawyers, programmers, and the like. I think it’s clear why that maybe feels like complete bullshit to most peeps.
He literally says the bourgeoisie, namely doctors, lawyers, and the like, are, in their interests, aligned with the capitalist class if not altogether a part of it. And even the parts you quote are hard to parse as they are both focused on the outputs of production rather than the allocative power leading to production but also touch upon the problem of how our overly financialized economies obfuscate the allocative power issue. At the same time, when he says shit like “the business man is entirely at [the big bankers financiers] mercy” it makes me think we are not on the same page here, unless his definition of business man is not the investor class–absolutely capitalist class–business man I use.