Lawrence, both consequentialism and deontology can be reconciled with a subjective personal ethos rather than universal morality and imposing moralism on the actions of others. We can have values and a personal ethic without them becoming spooks.
How does scamming the rich in the existing world to fund survival or struggle directly tie to authoritarianism? You didn't make the case at all, you just asserted it. You certainly could make the case, but it's not as simple as you're making it sound.
It is certainly at least a compromise, and I think the relevant examination of it is from a strategic standpoint. Do you apply the same standards to actions like armed robbery of banks that you're applying here? Is that "inverted capitalism"? How about workplace theft? In what ways do the actions categorically differ?
If the target corresponds to an anarchist analysis, the strategy is expropriative, and the tactic is an "inverted capitalist" ploy that does not change to a different category of target or strategy inconsistent with anarchism, does that justify the "inverted capitalist" maneuver? And if the trajectory especially is one of expanding the capacity for survival, networking, and mobilization of anti-authoritarian impact, I can see the basis of a consequentialist argument there that's at least worthy of discussion. I think this is an important grey area to explore, I don't think it's as black-and-white as Lawrence asserts.