Do ALL liberals call rich business owners "greedy and evil"? NO.
I'm a socialist, not a liberal, but even I don't always call rich business people "evil" or even "greedy." Sometimes I do, so you're not ALL wrong, but you don't understand the way socialists, anyway, often think about rich people.
(1) The question of "evil" is irrelevant here, to start with. In wildlife biology, no sensible scientist calls wolves evil just because they're predators. When a wolf eats a defenseless bunny rabbit, it's not because the wolf is wicked; it's just doing what it must -- to live.
If you're a bunny, of course, the wolf will still gobble you up without any attacks of conscience. But not because of the wolf's moral failings.
It's similar with "evil" capitalists, I think. Many will cheerfully eat you, but only because they're acting naturally. They're not being IMMORAL according to their own values.
(2) In terms of Marxist philosophy, rich capitalists -- like everyone else -- are at least partly products of society.
Sure, they may have individual personality flaws; we all do. But as a group, they're trying to survive in a society where the rules of the market & the prevailing culture ENCOURAGE many people to be greedy -- maybe even REQUIRE it.
Blaming them for this, when they almost need to be greedy to succeed under capitalism, is unfair. Why do it?
(3) If you're not a liberal, but an actual Marxist -- as I am, partly -- the whole idea of "evil" and "good" also may not seem eternally fixed the way it probably seems to, say, producers of old Disney movies.
Since Marx himself was an atheist materialist, I think he would say that "evil" is a metaphysical concept that isn't necessarily true in an eternal sense. Instead, "evil" and "good" are INTELLECTUAL concepts largely determined by the biases & the needs -- the "economic base" -- of each given society.
Given that societies differ from each other in their economic structures, their ideas about "evil" vary, too. And at one stage of development, a society may consider something good that it will consider bad at a later stage, because new conditions produce new moral concepts.
Thus in ancient Greece, the philosopher Aristotle labeled slavery "good," because he saw it as needed to support civilization. He reasoned that Greece could not support politicians or philosophers without the unfree work of slaves, so slavery had to be morally justified for Greek society to function.
Much later in Western history, fortunately, the capitalist development of machines powered by wind, water & fossil fuels made slavery unnecessary to support civilization. Then -- and only then -- Abolitionists successfully pushed the idea that slavery was evil. In fact, they eventually got it banned throughout the western capitalist world.
Because of material progress, IOW, the definition of evil changed dramatically where slavery was concerned. The same with capitalist "greed" today, IMO.
I may think it's evil, but when capitalism began in medieval European cities about 500-800 years ago, most medieval burghers thought greed was good. It's bad materialism to blame the capitalists for preferring the old definition to the new one.
(3) To answer about Oprah: From a Marxist viewpoint, the business owner you mention may have gotten rich by exploiting the labor of people working as his employees.
If he's only worth $1 million, of course, he didn't get VERY rich -- not in today's dollars. But if his wealth is $20 million or more and his yearly income is also high, he may qualify for being "evil" according to traditional religious ideas.
In Marxist terms, such a capitalist business owner usually earns profits by extracting a bit of "surplus value" from every day of work done by each of his employees. Because he owns a profitable enterprise and they don't, he can require each employee to do more work & produce more "exchange value" per day than they need to support themselves in decency. The "surplus value" produced is pocketed by the capitalist, and he grows rich (in a sense) by robbing his workers a little each day.
Oprah, OTOH, gets at least some of her income from her popularity with TV viewers -- which is partly the result of her own talent & hard work. She may be indirectly exploiting her production staff & her viewers, but she's not doing so as nakedly as the capitalist employer is. Therefore she gets more love.
-- democratic socialist