People simply call them rich. They are moneyed, have flashy cars, live in palatial homes, eat gourmet food, have a lot of helpers, can send their children to the most expensive schools without thinking of the costs, and do not concern themselves with the problems of survival the way most of  us do. They may not have millions in their bank accounts, but most of their problems have to do with how to increase those bank deposits or find new fields of investments. 

In the heyday of the Marcos years when student activism resounded in the streets and the corridors at the university were full of DGs and teach-ins, it was almost a mortal sin to simply  classify the rich as "rich". There were apt terms for them, like "upper class" or "upper middle class" or "national bourgeoisie". These were the more "scientific", "politically correct" terms that one had to use, lest one fall into the pit of "revisionism" or "clerico-fascism".

Now some 30 years later, one is back on the prowl cavorting with the upper middle class in an attempt to have them elected to positions of power. If some of my friends were around, I would probably be accused of becoming a "capitalist renegade" or, worse, an agent of the bourgeoisie. Whatever.

Truth to tell, I think a scientific approach to organizing the middle class would have resulted in fewer errors in strategy and tactics. I would have better understood their thought processes, the way they saw realities, their reactions and their responses to certain issues. I would have understood their conservatism and hesitation to confront issues and tendencies to compromise. I could have easily understood their vacillation and inconsistencies, their failure to live up to articulated values....These, after all, are typical middle class attitudes that result directly from their normal social environment. 

It was a mistake to even think that these middle-class elements could be in the forefront of a sweeping political change. I remember the term used here: "Wishful thinking." .