#if you depict the wealthy as cartoon villains then when people encounter real wealthy people who are not cartoon villains and instead

[tomwambsmilk]

As a side note I think what makes Succession such an excellent critique of capitalism is how it handles the idea of meritocracy. It's very easy to imagine conservatives (especially wealthy conservatives) as Scrooge McDuck kind of figures who really just want whatever brings in the most money. But the truth is that most of them are deeply, deeply invested in the belief that capitalism is a meritocracy, and that their own success is the result of hard work and others' failure is the result of personal failings. They are so invested in this idea that they will go to amazing lengths to reinterpret any piece of information that challenges it. Succession does a really, really good job of depicting that conviction, and depicting it so well that the audience will be occasionally sucked into it, before slapping you in the face with the utter pathetic incompetency of these people who are essentially running America.

I think that's one of the things that really sets it above a lot of other 'eat the rich' type movies that write their wealthy characters with more of a Scrooge McDuck mindset. Personally, I think any good critique is written so that the critiqued party can see themselves in the story. They may not accept the critique, but if it's good and it's accurate there will be a character they recognize as themselves. No conservative is going to see themselves in Miles Bron, a man who is clearly out of his depth and incompetent and stealing other people's ideas, or the rich people from Squid Game, who insist on 'levelling the playing field' through random chance. But they DO see themselves in characters like Tom Wamsbgans and Kendall Roy (hence why an army of reddit bros turn out to defend their every move), and I think that's what gives Succession's critique a fighting chance of actually landing with the people who need to hear it