I've already conceded that a small tribe could do it. It's not entirely clear that they have 'wealth' at all, since i'd define it to be that thing which accumulates 'alike pref-A' (ie., I will concede that processes which disrupt/regulate social networks produce, at best, power-laws in a theoretical limit).

But the issue is that small tribes arent stable. The primary objective of tribes is foremost survival, and in the pursuit of every more gauretees of survival, they will pref attach to other stronger tribes (often by concequest, occasionally by consent, see eg., the formation of the UK vs. the formation of the british empire).

So there are different 'social logics' taking place at each level: the individual wants to minimize the amount of their life wasted; the group wants to maximise its chances of survival etc.

It's not that I do not see 'local violations' of pref-A-type expectations; they're quite common indeed.

It's more that I see the 'effect size' from pref-A processes to be, empirically, overwhelming. A force of nature at every scale.

People who are "anti-capitalist", ie., the person i was addressing, arent offering an analysis of the entire history of the human species in terms of these processes --- and how alternatives can be provided; rather they are profoundly ignorant of all this, have no interest in learning it, and are rather engaged in a religious crusade against their notion of sin.

The first step to help this ideologue out of their crusade, is if even possible, to show that it isnt Sin which makes the world Fallen -- it Falls even under extremely simple, extremely fair procedures. This is intolerable to the fantatic whose crusade is against a human psychic reality they thing they can attack -- tilting at windmills, of course.

If we're talking "two good-faith people who arent fantatics trying to model possible realitites" then the dialetic is different.

I'd say: i have sets of entirely plausible propositions each of which entail 'inevitable extreme inequality', each of which plausibly model reality, each of which have high credences from a range of experts (etc.).

I do not see the same on the other side; this may be my ignorance, but I have never encountered a systematic presentation of any explanatorily-plausible alternative.

How on earth do you propose to hault 2*2*2*2*2... vs. 0.001*1.001*1.0001* ... ? By what means are most individuals on the planet coordinated so that the labours of one do not multiply benefit themselves, but "divisionally benefit" everyone? What process to the general benefit of society could be imagined where net wealth grows without inequality?

THe only "divisional processes" i can imagine not only reduce net wealth, they are horsemen of the apocalypse.