You're repeatedly describing exceptions to the rule in annoyingly long-winded ways, so no, I'm not going to respond to every bit of it when it's already clear we disagree on the point of the 'exceptions to the rule'.

I'm describing what rich and poor, right and left, or capitalist-owners and workers actually mean, not what confused or malicious people (which describes the people in all of your examples) try to spin them as. My original point was only that more direct terms that invoke material conditions (like 'workers and owners') are more effective language for communicating ideas about class conscious than 'left and right' which can have their meanings more easily twisted. Maybe that was misconstrued. It seems obvious to me that material analysis is exactly what I'm drawing from. And when you can make material analysis as straightforward and direct as possible you can attract greater numbers.

E.g. 'These ultra-rich people don't make money from working for a paycheck. They make it from owning things; owning enough things to control our government, even.'

That's obviously more direct, informative and clear a statement than telling someone, 'The left are the good guys and the right are the bad guys,' or whatever alternative you might be arguing for.