Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on the character of the small number of people "hodling" the majority of the BTC. I expect it would be a catastrophe after a generation or two of inherited BTC wealth, with BTC "nobles" raising private armies attack each other and lord it over the population.
Yes I recall the great Swiss Civil War of the 1990s, when the holders of the gold backed Francs fought for spoils of each canton. Perhaps our Polish friend can chime in on the horrors of the refugees he saw.
>no lending or spending would be possible without their assent
Lending and spending shouldn't be possible without the assent from those which the money comes. Involuntarily spending someone else's money is also known as theft.
You are indicting the greater system you think Bitcoin represents (which resembles sort of monarchy or feudalism). You ignore that this system has been overcome even with those transacting in hard currencies. This reads of fear mongering or some desire to emulate Nostradamus.
I wouldn't expect those plutocrats to get along in perpetuity, and if there's no way to expropriate their inheritances, they'd form a permanent class of (potential) warlords.