So long as there have been people, there have been those who had more than others, be it material goods or power, which gains more material goods, which begets power. I'm not really sure there it's true that any society predates wealth, ergo no social construct predates wealth.

▲

pixl97 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>ergo no social construct predates wealth.

How wealthy is your dog?

▲

zdragnar an hour ago | parent [-]

Compared to feral dogs, quite wealthy indeed. They've claimed sleeping and feeding spots that are very valuable for being both safe and climate controlled, and have a number of chew bones and toys that are free of dangerous splintering wood, animal bone, parasites and fleas. These are things that are valuable enough to fight over and will contribute greatly to their lifespan.

If you think the only measure of wealth is money, you have it backwards- money is a polite fiction representing an abstraction of value, and is only good for use as an exchange into another more concrete form of value.

	▲	qarl an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think you missed his point - that social behaviors exist outside and before human societies.

▲

qarl 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Right. I'm thinking of social behaviors that predate humans.

▲

zdragnar an hour ago | parent [-]

Territory and hunting grounds are a form of wealth, in that it is a form of control over shelter and natural resources like food and water.

Money is a social construct for trading value, but is not itself a prerequisite for the accumulation of value (wealth).

	▲	qarl an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think you missed my point. Let me try again: > ergo no social construct predates wealth. What about the social construct of parenting?