[reese_john]

It's true that formal wealth systems (like land, stock ownership and trademarks) require an elaborate legal and cultural infrastructure to maintain — but only at scale. The absence of such systems doesn't eliminate wealth inequality, it just changes how it's enforced.

In less formal or collapsed systems, wealth and resources are often controlled by a ruling oligarchy or individuals whose hard power acts as a de facto property right.

For example, many argue that Vladimir Putin is one of the wealthiest individuals in the world, despite lacking formal ownership on paper — his political and military power effectively grants him control over immense resources. Wealth inequality ultimately stems from control over resources, whether legitimized by law or enforced through power.

[boh]

Power people have power because of power is more of a movie trope than the actual mechanics of the world you live in. Wealth is exclusively abstract legal constructs in the modern world. You might be surprised to know that even Putin's wealth is tied to legal ownership structures, (regardless if they're maintained by bogus shell companies, he has effective rights to the property). Whatever niche counter-example comes after doesn't influence how global inequality is administered or experienced by the majority of people.