I think we have a mental image of an anonymous "wealthy capitalist" who takes away from the system.

The wealthy people whose names we know become wealthy by contributing. Bill Gates directed the creation of software that became extremely popular. People were happy to exchange their money for Windows.

Madonna is worth almost a billion dollars. People were happy to exchange their money for her music. She did not have to extract anything from the system, and the music world is richer for her contributions.

I mentioned folk hero Jacques Cousteau earlier. He made money inventing and selling scuba gear. That's fine, right? Would it become bad if he sold a lot more scuba gear, and made a lot more divers happy, and became a billionaire?

Some wealthy people use legal leverage to dodge competition, or deceive customers into making decisions they will regret, but I don't think that's the norm. When the law gives unfair advantage, the law should be reformed.

"Fight wealth as well" seems misguided. Poor people have a little wealth too, let's not fight them. Well-intended changes meant to close the gap can hurt everyone (e.g. by stifling innovation, as Paul Graham argues, adding "economic inequality per se is not bad"). Bill Gates already paid more in taxes than the rest of us combined, and what he has left he is spending in the fight against disease and poverty. He is not alone.

If the "wealthy plants" need more shade they can take care of themselves. We do best by helping the poor become less poor, continuing the beneficial, positive trend that been continuing since the Industrial Revolution. I wanted to link to a chart of rising incomes here, but when I search for "global income history" all the links are about inequality. That's all anyone wants to talk about.