The analysis is a simplistic division of the population into two categories, labor and capital.
In fact, the lines are quite blurry. Labor that wishes to have capital can easily have it, and many do. Many are required to do so with their pension plans. Most owners of capita also put in considerable labor. Those that do not tend to have their capital worn away, as a couple of generations of owners that do not work tend to lose capital.
What tends to happen is that the top 10% of capable people tend to accumulate 80% of the assets in society. And it is not very hereditary.
The more important situation is the movement to centralize power so that political power becomes far more important than productivity.
Enormous regulations make political “capital” much more important than mere money. That is how congress critters go in with modest forturnes, and come out with large ones.
It is how Russian and Chinese apparatchiks become wealthy.
The difficulty is how to limit the power of the state while having sufficient power to protect from external and internal enemies.
I think the distinction is between economic marxism and cultural marxism. The former is concerned with the creation and distribution of capital, while the latter is more concerned with the aggregation and “equitable” distribution of raw power. The former attacks a nation’s economic structures, but the latter attacks everything else, using its Hegelian hammer.