> There are different types of "capitalist." Some of these are more
> progressive than others.
Of course, although I disagree most strongly with the framing of this in terms of ethnicity (whether it be Scots-Irish or Japanese).
There is a world of difference between a Scots yeoman planted in Ireland in the 16th Century and one of his descendants running an oil company in Houston, although the latter might well like us to believe he/she is upholding a venerable tradition. Conversely, as has often been pointed out, the Bushes ties to the Saudi and Gulf ruling classes are entirely logical --- they are all "oil men".
In other words, IMO, a particular capital enterprise (or more broadly, a sub-class of capitalists) is defined, even dictated to, not so much by the cultural background of individual capitalists as by the particular historical character of its disparate material manifestations/elements (inputs): the labourers, the raw materials, the physical environment, particular capital equipment, (etc.) and the way(s) in which these can be used to maximise accumulation.
regards,
Grant.