You ignored the point. You're operating under the assumption that "your wealth" accurately represents your contribution. It doesn't. It's inflated by the thuggery of the state you live under.
I live in capitalism, i am not a capitalist. The thuggery of the state i live under may have allowed some capitalists to accumulate vast amounts of capital with the benefits eventually trickling down to everyone else. However assuming this thuggery went away, we had a worker controlled world and this source of ill gotten capital stopped i dont think that would be a huge reduction in our standards of living because even if we had less capital as a nation the average person would own capital and get the benefits directly instead of the trickle down effect.
The global product is X. The population is Y. Now tell me how it is that your portion of X is more than the other guy's, without making yourself sound like a member of Stormfront, and without saying "the economy is not a zero-sum game."
By a blind stroke of luck I happen to live in a country with enough capital to make my 8 hours of work more productive. Making my portion smaller doesnt neccessarily make the other guy's bigger, just like making his portion bigger doesnt have to make mine smaller. What matters is that they are able to make their labour more productive and they get to keep a just reward for their labour, it has absolutely nothing to do with me unless as a temporary measure we gave them loads of free capital but that still doesnt mean we can only gain at their expense.
Sure, it would be nice if we could just raise the other boats without lowering ours. But you can't do that without maintaining the injustice that made ours higher in the first place. You seem to think wealth creation happens magically. Wealth is created by labor acting on resources, both of which are under finite supply.
I dont think wealth creation happens magically and im well aware that resources and labour are under finite supply, however finite doesnt mean inelastic. By "give them the means to create their own wealth" i meant stop exploiting them, give them loads of capital for free or on non interest bearing loans (or some similar scheme) and then leave them alone (by which i mean dont start exploiting them again, not ignore them) i never said this would be an instantanous thing. Sure some boats will get lowered as others are raised if their previous hight was built on exploitation however are all the people in the west in the same boat? I disagree.
The bottom line is that if you want to somehow maintain your privilege, then you're not an anarchist. That would be true even if your privilege didn't derive from the state.
Privilege as in unearned gain at the expense of others? Sure, of course that would have to disappear. But i never mentioned anything about maintaining privilege unless by privilege you mean wealth but then whats wrong with someone gaining while no one looses?
The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that 'the best government is that which governs least,' and that which governs least is no government at all.