However it is important to recall that the people who actually made all the money extracting the wealth got out years before, retiring and/or selling stock. They're bystanders now and probably happy to run the whole operation again.
Although as an aside who these people are who think corporate pensions are a good idea is beyond me. People really should be in charge of their own savings in preference to their employer, expecting some random corporation to cover the cost was always a bit crazy even when it seemed sort-of possible that the system was stable. It is easy to have some sympathy but, as a practical matter, it was never going to work and it isn't a surprise that it didn't.
And therein lies the problem with modern society. Whether you're an MBA wrecking a company or a voter wrecking the local economy there is no mechanism for the people who you've wronged to get at you so there's no incentive not to behave that way.
After several iterations of this pattern throughout our history (other examples are the Leninist/Stalinist purges or the McCarthy era), perhaps it is time we seek a better path—one that doesn’t end up written in the darker pages of our history books.
If your argument is basically assuming "[these people] managed the situation so stupidly they triggered a social collapse" then it is an excellent strategy to try doing things differently. The aim should be to make things better, not worse with different people in charge.
So do the poor not have any resources, or do they have sufficient resources to bully the rich? Because if they have enough resources to cause other people problems they should maybe consider trying to use those resources to better themselves instead.
They don't have much, but they have more than enough to get much better results if they behaved in a sensible and organised fashion. If nothing else, a lot of poor people live in democracies and have the numbers to ram policy through if they have enough neurons to separate good ideas from bad [0]. I suppose it depends on what you want to call poor, but if they've got the numbers, time and energy to wreck things then they've certainly got the numbers to effect positive change.
I'd agree most people probably aren't up to the challenge; but searching for a better way is a much better strategy than being all "we're going for a replay of la Terreur!".
[0] The political process is pretty devastating evidence that they don't, it appears the best effort in a well educated place like the US was either Trump or the US Democrats. Hard to tell which attempt is more pathetic. Most voters have nearly no idea abut complex issues like creating prosperity.