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.