As a British person, I had a few awkward conversations with other British people when I've asked them to explain the difference between a royal or a higher level aristocrat and an oligarch.

It seems to be something to do with the length of time society had to endure their bastardry. Well, it's either that or that they're not from the Oligar region of Russia. Its one of the two.

[–] herrcaptain@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I guess the technical difference would be that one had ancestors who took their power by force and managed to cement it into hereditary rule, while the other acquired it as a "captain of industry" and then largely did the same thing through lobbying or other forms of cronyism.

Mostly the same end result, but for some reason we put one on our coins and hold celebrations in their honor.

I do prefer your champagne analogy though.

[–] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Would you still feel that way, about the very first part, if I was to remind you that some of the Russian oligarchs were crime bosses who took power and wealth by force?

Admittedly, it doesn't have the hereditary rule part but that, for me, would simple fall under "the difference is the passage of time." I see it much like the difference between a cult and a religion.

[–] herrcaptain@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 days ago

Very fair point. And just to clarify, I loathe them all about equally regardless of how they obtained their wealth/power or what country they're from.