The reality is more complex than any simplistic interpretation of the facts may lead us to believe. It insults both our intelligence and our cause when embrace such tactics. I feel silly quoting a Cracked article to make my point, but it is surprisingly appropriate for this very topic: "Train yourself to get suspicious every time you see simplicity. Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency. So reject binary thinking of "good vs. bad" or "us vs. them." Know that problems cannot be solved with clever slogans and over-simplified step-by-step programs." Quote source: http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html
All that said, although the wealthy may not actually be intentionally malicious towards the poor, they are still not absolved of moral responsibility for their actions by saying that simply "anyone would do the same" or that they're just "playing the game" and "didn't write the rules". The unfortunate fact is that in a world with finite resources we really can't satisfy unlimited desire to posses material goods, and at a certain point the more one possesses the less is available for those in need.
The dehumanizing nature of it does bother me, though. It's the foundation of any war. And yet, although many wealthy people don't actually feel this way, the distribution of wealth might be seen to be enacted by someone that did.
Going back to your original comment, what I was trying to say was that the rich/poor divide isn't nearly as arbitrary as racial/religious divides. The rich/poor divide is increasingly important to be conscious of, and it's perhaps even more important to be conscious of the stratification that keeps people poor, and all the ways that robs a large chuck of humanity of its potential, which is what the piece is really about.