Interesting idea, what would you define as success?
As Ian said, things like quality of life, family, friends, free time, enjoying your work, freedom to do what you want to do. Some of those money will help bring them about, but not solely by themselves. In some cases it can tip over into reducing them.
in terms of biological/natural world, you'd take about success in terms of offspring and/or not needing to spend time working to survive , so those that are having a huge amount of children on benefits in a 'natural' sense of success are smashing it. As we're the only species to have ever had money does that mean every other species has not been successful? Including the ones that survived for millions of years longer than humans have been around for thus far?
One way I certainly wouldn't define success is a huge imbalance of wealth with a small number of people having huge amounts of money while others struggle to get by. It leads to hardship, resentment and crime. Neither is aiming to improve growth constantly in a place with finite resources, cos all your doing is using up those resources quicker and quicker and hastening your own eventual demise.
Trouble is those that have that money have all the political influence and so the large number of people who don't set their stall out by the same metric are forced to dance, to some extent at least, by their tune. Imagine if our politicians couldn't be corrupted and influenced by sums of money when creating policy. Imagine if we weren't held back by rich people and organisations preventing progress due to their own investments.
In fact, if you so wished, you could argue the desire for money and wealth when you already have loads is an addiction. If you made the same comparison with drugs, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, sex you'd classify it as addiction. So in fact rather it being success, they are in fact, to a certain degree, ill.