I think the social utility of wealth, for the owner, is an under-discussed concept; capitalists have convinced society that it’s impossible to even discuss it,

I think the social utility of wealth, for the owner, is an under-discussed concept; capitalists have convinced society that it’s impossible to even discuss it, it’s a natural law that all accumulated wealth belongs to its holder. I, like you I suspect, disagree with that framing. Nevertheless, I think trying to redefine wealth (which has a pretty clear economic meaning, regardless of your beliefs about appropriate distribution) isn’t really a good conversational gambit. The accumulation of wealth can be destructive, no doubt. But defining away liquid societal resources with broad based utility, because they happen to be too expensive for the general populous, doesn’t strike me as a way to convince people of the merits of a different distribution.