Sorry for the delay in response, but at first, I didn't know you had responded because I don't get email notifications (haven't bothered to figure out if they are even possible). Then I spent a few days thinking about it. Here's my response:
That sounds very zero sum.
But, it is true there are parts of life that are zero sum. Effort is one. You can spend your time trying to accumulate money/power/status, or you can spend your time trying to effect the system. Now, I'm not saying doing all of one or the other is most optimal. Doing a little of both might have the most effect. But it is a fact you can't really do two things at once.
So, the question is how much time do you spend on "wealth accumulation" and how much do you spend on "effecting the system."
Honestly, in many times throughout history the choice was much easier, as there was no choice. There were no opportunities to do anything but try "wealth accumulation." I imagine when you are a serf in Medieval Europe, your only option is to work hard at trying to get two blankets to sleep with, instead of just one, before you die. I, for one, would not want to be in that situation, so I am glad I have the opportunity to consider putting some effort toward "effecting the system."
While effort is mostly zero sum, I still believe that cooperation with others can be non-zero sum. I put in a little effort in an area I specialize in, you put in a little effort in an area you specialize in, and the results are more than if either of us tried to do it alone.
That's true if it's "wealth accumulation" or "effecting the system."
Let's say you and I work for a boss in Little Widget Shop to make widgets, each needs to be assembled and tested. You're good at assembling; I'm good at testing. We work on "wealth accumulation" by dividing labor, and our productivity is through the roof. Our boss gives us an award, says "good job," and we get a minor pay increase. Our boss, however, is making 10x as much as he used to.
Now, if we just collectively bargain for a bigger raise, or even be made equal partners with our boss, we're not really "effecting the system"--it's really just more wealth/power/status accumulation. Let's say we become equal partners with the boss, well then we realize we don't need the boss, so we out-vote and get rid of him. Then it's just you and I. Turns out that I have a rich uncle who passes away and I suddenly have more wealth/power, so I push you out and run Little Widget Shop alone. But then Massive Widget Corp pushes Little Widget Shop out. In fact, our old boss, you, and I now all have to work for Massive Widget Corp. And the guy who runs Massive Widget Corp has all the wealth/power/status and everyone else has effectively none.
We could try "effecting the system"--and actually fail. You and I leave Little Widget Shop and join the Decentralized Widget Collective A. Everything goes well at first, but the rules at Decentralized Widget Collective A are not very robust. A few people figure out how to turn Decentralized Widget Collective A into Centralized Widget Collective A. Which soon becomes Centralized Widget Corp A. Which eventually is bought out by Massive Widget Corp. And we all end up working for Massive Widget Corp, including the guys who sold Centralized Widget Corp A, and one guy gets all the wealth/power/status.
Finally, we could try "effecting the system"-- and actually succeed. We join Decentralized Widget Collective B. Decentralized Widget Collective B has very, very robust rules that make it very, very hard for anyone to have all the wealth/power/status. The Decentralized Widget Collective B gets more people, so much more that they can actually compete with Massive Widget Corp. Massive Widget Corp tries to take it over, tries to buy it out, tries everything, but fails. This is the only scenario in which one guy does not own all the wealth/power/status.
Of course, will Decentralized Widget Collective B always work? Or will someone find a way to weaken the rules of Decentralized Widget Collective B and will there be a new Massive Widget Corp B that will take advantage of these weakened rules? Will democracy always succeed or will sometimes democratic freedoms slowly erode and eventually an autocrat takes over? I suspect it has a lot to do with how robust the rules of democracy/decentralization are. I don't know what those rules are or should be, but I think it is worth the effort to try to come up with them. Even if it means sacrificing effort that could be spent on wealth accumulation. Because in the wealth accumulation game eventually one guy gets it all, and I doubt very highly it would be me.
You need to be adaptive in the situation that is in front of you between wealth accumulation of affecting the system like you mentioned many times in your comment.
Yes, we are in agreement, sometimes accumulate, sometimes effect. Especially since, when money is made most important in a system, it might be the only way to make a change to the system, such as making it less important. The tricky thing is knowing when to do either, and whether it'll be possible to switch between the two, seeing, as again, power corrupts etc. You may think, finally, I have enough for myself to be comfortable, but what about your immediate family, what about providing for decendents... Is it simply power corrupt or is it more that people who seek it are ambitious types who would continually be ambitious. Would it occur to those who wanted wealth to then change the system from being controlled by wealth. I have none of these answers.
I have been reading a book called "Algorithms to Live By" and I just read a page about bacterial resistance (p 200 in the paperback). The question in the 1940s was does bacterial resistance to viruses occur because the bacteria responds to a virus or because random chance. Salvador Luria realized that if you raised multiple generations of different lineages, and then exposed them all to a virus, if it were reaction they'd all have roughly the same amount of resistance. If it were chance mutation, it would be more wildly dispersed. Those that mutated earlier in ancestors, would pass it on to all, they'd all survive. Those later would have it fewer descendants with resistance. Some would have no resistance. That is what he found. When I think about rich people who stop amassing wealth and then distribute wealth, I notice it is generally the same. Either not at all, or a little, or everything. A person evolves over time, like bacteria over generations. This suggests that an evolution early on, not something after they've amassed wealth, leads them to give back or perhaps effect the system. Thus, this gives credence to the idea that if a person truly does not want to live/act zero sum, wants to change things later, that once they receive wealth they will be more likely to have "resistance" to the "virus" of "power corrupts." Otherwise, there would be more even amount of "giving back." Real data would need to corroborate this, but anecdotally this gives me hope that someone with good intentions will do good things with money. It also gives me little hope for those who have accumulated wealth/power and have a history since their earliest evolution (childhood) of being zero-sum, or worse charges against their character.
You are someone educate and well informed, adaptation is what you need when you want to build wealth. You can be on the side of power and be a corrupted person or a man that spread his fortune for good causes.