Wealth, Power, and the Structures That Shape Us • Record reality Piece memory

In the past few weeks, I found myself revisiting two questions that I have been thinking about for quite some time: wealth and power. These are not new topics to me. I have been reflecting on them on and off over the past few years, but mostly in a fragmented way. Recently, I had the chance to revisit them in a more focused setting, which pushed me to reorganize those scattered thoughts into something more structured. What follows is an attempt to articulate part of that thinking.

Wealth

First, wealth inevitably influences a person — the difference lies only in the degree and form of that influence.

My thinking about wealth originally started from my own cultural background. In everyday Chinese contexts, people may not explicitly say that money is the most important thing, but if you look at more concrete expressions — holiday greetings, personal wishes, or definitions of success — it becomes quite clear that wealth is often placed very high on the list. In many cases, words like “health” or “happiness” seem to function more as a softening layer, rather than reflecting the true priority.

This led me to a simple observation: the issue is not whether people pursue wealth, but that wealth is often placed at an excessively high position.

Based on this, I gradually developed a different way of looking at wealth. Instead of seeing it as something people simply “pursue,” I tend to think of it as something that “attaches” itself to certain individuals. In other words, wealth is not entirely the result of intention. It is more likely to appear when certain conditions are present — judgment, execution ability, sensitivity to opportunity, or even luck.

If I use an analogy, I sometimes think of this relationship as a kind of “parasitic relationship.” In nature, parasites do not attach randomly; they select hosts, and once the relationship is formed, the host is inevitably affected.

This influence can be subtle — a shift in one’s attitude toward risk, sense of security, perception of others, or definition of success — or it can be deeper and more structural. Even a small amount of wealth has an effect; the difference lies in how strong that effect is and in what direction it unfolds.

When wealth enters my life, where will it lead me?

Second, this influence cannot be understood by looking at wealth alone — it must be understood together with the person.

If the influence is inevitable, then the more important question is not only what wealth does, but under what kind of person that influence takes place. Continuing with the same analogy, it is not enough to analyze the “parasite”; the “host” matters just as much.

This shifts the focus. Instead of asking only what does wealth do, the questions become:

Why did wealth come to me?
What kind of traits made that possible?
Given those traits, what kinds of influence are more likely to emerge?
If I want to guide or avoid certain outcomes, what needs to change on my side?

In this sense, wealth is not an isolated variable. It is part of a relationship — one that is deeply connected to the structure of the person involved.

There is a saying in Chinese:

“A compassionate person is not suited to lead troops; a person who values loyalty is not suited to manage wealth.”

I do not see this as a moral statement, but as an observation that different personality structures tend to attract or repel different kinds of forces.

From this perspective, wealth is less like a tool and more like a relationship that needs to be continuously observed and adjusted. That relationship is dynamic, similar to driving — even small deviations, if left uncorrected, can eventually lead far off course.

What matters is not how much wealth one has, but what kind of relationship is forming between the person and wealth — and where that relationship is heading.

Power

Compared to wealth, my view on power is simpler and more direct.

All power should be limited.

This belief is not based on any particular political system, but on an observation about human nature. In Chinese culture, there are two well-known views: that human nature is fundamentally good, or fundamentally evil. I do not fully agree with either. I tend to think that human beings are fundamentally oriented toward what is beneficial to themselves.

Here, “benefit” does not only mean wealth, but anything that is perceived as advantageous from one’s own perspective.

From this point of view, people tend to act in ways that seek benefit and avoid harm, and power becomes a tool that makes “what benefits oneself” easier to achieve.

Power expands not because of some abstract rule, but because it resonates with the self-protective and self-serving tendencies already present in human nature.

Once there are no constraints, this resonance intensifies, and expansion follows.

The real question is not who should have power, but what can limit power.

There is a metaphor in Chinese: a good blade must have a proper sheath. Without it, the blade will either harm others or eventually harm itself. Power is the blade; limitation is the sheath.

A Further Question About Power

While thinking about power, I sometimes take one step further and consider a more abstract question.

If power is understood as the ability to continuously influence and shape the world, then could life itself be seen, in some sense, as a form of power?

If that is the case, then the idea of “infinite life” — such as immortality — is not only appealing, but may also represent a form of existence without boundaries.

Any force without boundaries raises a question: does it eventually lead to distortion?

This is not a conclusion, but a question I am still exploring.

In Chinese history, there have been many attempts to pursue immortality — alchemy, searching for elixirs, sending people across the world in search of eternal life. These efforts are often framed as a fear of death, but they also seem closely tied to control, possession, and the unwillingness to give up power.

What This Means for Me

What has changed for me is not that I have found answers. It is that I have come to see more clearly that these questions — wealth and power — are not abstract topics, but structural forces that shape how a person lives, decides, and relates to the world.

More importantly, I have realized that I am not thinking about these questions in isolation. There are different traditions, stories, and perspectives that are grappling with similar underlying issues, even if they approach them in very different ways.

I am still working through these ideas and remain open to refining them as I come across new perspectives.