The Dark Knight critiqued

So I know I'm not the most avid pop-culture consumer, but went with some friends to go watch the newest Batman flick. Now, I have no idea what has been happening prior to this one; I haven't seen a Batman movie back since Michael Keaton was the Batman (yes, I know some people will think that is lame, but that's just the way it is).
However, the film disturbed me in the way it critiqued worldview. We all know Batman is this brooding, independent, reluctant to cooperate with government and authority structures, ridiculously wealthy gazillionaire because of his vast holdings. In short, a libertarian, capitalistic, wealthy hero. He wins, in part because of his wealth, but also because of his subversion and general avoidance of working with authority and rules. Hm.
The villain in this movie decides what should function instead is a more horizontally economic system, with democracy handed back to the 'people'. Admittedly, he is a bit psycho with the nuclear bomb, and you do have to wonder how he manages to eat in order to keep his strength up, but his concept is to raze the power structures entirely, allowing a horizontal governance system, where the rich are no longer allowed to oppress the poor and marginalized.
And this is one of the great clashes in this story: The Occupy Movement, characterized as chaotic and terrible, vs. the Dark Knight, with hints of aristocracy in knighthood, coming to re-establish the status quo of the power structures already in place.
It's interesting in looking at the movie from that angle; clearly Hollywood would be one of the first to be demolished if the ideas of the Occupy movement could take hold - the power structures and clear class discrepancy is rampant. No wonder why they would demonize the idea of the marginalized taking back power and taking back wealth.