"The distribution of power is forever zero-sum, no matter the technology. Because power is relative and weighed against the potential and abilities of other people, there are many things that are not a zero-sum game, but power absolutely is. Some people have to be disempowered for others to have power—the capital class, government, etc. It is the ability to control other people's behavior. Poverty is a tool—it's a choice, a policy choice. We don't need to have it; we've chosen to adopt it because it's useful to specific ends."

A more empirically defensible version

If the underlying argument you're trying to make is the one I think you're making, I'd formulate it something like this:

Power is fundamentally relational: it concerns the capacity of actors to affect the behavior, choices and outcomes of other actors. Some important forms of power—particularly coercive authority, control over institutional decisions, and bargaining power over scarce resources—are inherently relational and can be zero-sum: expanding one actor's control can constrain another's. But power is not universally zero-sum, because individuals and groups can also acquire new capacities to act through cooperation, organization, institutions and technology.

Economic deprivation can function as a mechanism of power because dependence on scarce resources can constrain people's ability to refuse, negotiate or exit relationships. Poverty is therefore not merely an unavoidable natural condition: its prevalence and distribution are substantially shaped by political and economic institutions and by policy choices. This does not mean that all poverty is intentionally produced as a tool of control, but it does mean that particular forms of deprivation can be institutionally maintained and can have predictable effects on the distribution of power.