Parasite: Is there Really a Such Thing in the Human Definition?

Rating: 8/10 (13 February 2020)

When people think of a parasite, they obviously associate it with a lesser living creature living off of its larger, more prosperous host. For example, fleas live on dogs and consume their blood.
According to society, which is constructed in a way that the most educated are burdened with defining the meaning of words, a parasite is a person who consumes resources off of another without returning anything. At least so it says, right?
Well, what if an economic recession hits and people lose their jobs and no longer have a way of making the money they need to in order to repay whoever it is they are working for? What if they experience an illness, injury, or health problem (in addition to that bad economic situation) which deems them unable to even work productively (at least for a while)? What if the "host" that the so-called "parasite" human is borrowing resources from is actually a "bad person" themselves who "abuses" them both emotionally, verbally, and physically in order to boost their "egos" to make themselves feel superior to the person they are "helping"?....Is there actually a parasitic human, or are all people just human?
Take for instance someone who is born into poverty, physically or mental abuse, or both. Are they parasites just because of this? Things they had no control over? Just because they are poor? What if this person decides to not make excuses and gets a job, but a recession hits that causes them to lose their job? Were they not a parasite before but now after they lose their job, which they cannot help, they are now?
Perhaps most complexly, what if they people "at the top" are actually the "Parasites"? (if there was one). Isn't it true that government workers and "politicians" live off of "taxpayer money" (aka taxpayer labor)? Isn't it true that a mega-rich corporate leader consumes the labor of their subordinates in order to make exponentially more money off of them?
Doesn't this luxurious CEO or executive "suck the blood" and "life" out of their workers by forcing them to work harder, work overtime, sometimes work 60 hours a week or more (with the threat they will be demoted or lose their jobs if they do not)? And isn't it true that due to increase production or productivity, the executive makes even more money on the backs of their employees? Furthermore, cannot the corporation hold onto the laborers' paychecks for at least 2 weeks in order to reinvest it in stocks before paying it out to those who earned it two weeks prior as they wait for their paychecks?
Many years ago, a very startling and eye opening book came out which actually compared corporations to psychopaths. All of the traits in an empirical psychopath are parallel to exactly how corporations are run, and also how corporate executives operate: they callously mistreat their employees, can care less about their health or well being as long as they are greedily and selfishly getting wealthier and growing. As a corporation becomes bigger, the dichotomy between caring for a small group of employees and eventually becoming indifferent to any humanity and well being of the individuals (which also includes the customers) becomes starker in contrast. All that matters is personal selfish gain in an overabundance unnecessary amount of riches, as their employees struggle to pay their bills each pay period and have to wait two weeks often times for their checks. If they lay people off or if the corporation downsizes or relocates, then the employees are back to barely getting by with no check.
So the question again must be asked: who "really" is the Parasite? Either there are none, or everyone is.