I think your framing misses a couple key points:

There are societies who have relatively extreme resource scarcity that don't produce significant revolution/societal change.

People are motivated by factors other than resource scarcity (desire for cultural/racial/theological homogeneity/change, desire for a perceived better world for their children, principals of fairness, principals of justice, response to perceived humiliation or insult to honor). These often (nearly always actually even if the change is organic and driven less by resource competition factors since opportunists always exist) also have a resource competition aspect to them, but it's not just that component.

I think you're also undervaluing the real differences between groups. Even in an anarchist society, there would be maintenance of societal and cultural standards. There's no future where everybody accepts everybody as the same as them and holds hands and sings kumbaya. There will ALWAYS be conflict. There are real differences between peoples via theology, race, culture, genetics more broadly, ideology more broadly. I think there is an undercurrent where there are similarities like a least common denominator amongst all humans, but that doesn't mean the differences are small or insignificant. Many conflicts have been motivated by racial tensions and theological tensions that don't easily map to resource competition. I think libertarian/anarchists often just dismiss these things as "they don't matter" because of the overarching issue of the state (which I agree is a substantial issue and the most important one and I favor decentralization over centralization the overwhelming majority of the time unless the centralization is truly voluntary). Being libertarian/anarchist often allows for a "do whatever you want as long as it's voluntary", but I don't think this actually applies in any real society. Societies have standards that can and must be enforced. That doesn't have to mean a state, but it does mean conflict (even solely rhetorical or social conflict). Libertarianism/anarchism often by default accepts and internalizes the belief that "we are all the same" or "we are all equal". These things are not true and have never been true and the nature aspect of the nurture nature debate is significantly undervalued in modern society. My maximum capacity for achievement for cognitive and athletic ability was determined at birth via genetics. Many personality traits and behaviors are determined genetically. Peoples are not the same. We are not all equal. That does not mean I advocate using a state to sort out society, I believe the opposite. A natural elite exists within society, but it requires market forces to determine them and even then there remains a subjective component. I would argue the state has been the largest driving factor against human evolution because it creates negative artificial selections of humans that optimize for short term thinking, net negative opportunism, moral bankruptcy, and compliance to authority.

The history of society is not solely a story of the conquest of bread.

That all being said, I broadly agree with your point. I think it's necessary, but not sufficient in understanding the world. Also, I think you may have missed my point about the importance of understanding, recognizing, and being able to challenge the beliefs and ideologies of others. Being able to undercut positions as illogical and incoherent and to be able to effectively articulate against them is a significant boon for our side. I believe pro-anarchism/libertarianism is correct, but we have to argue effectively for our ideas and a large part of that is understanding what others believe. If we can't effectively advocate for ourselves then we can't effectively grow the movement or undercut the growth of other competing harmful movements. I would also argue that the constant fence sitting of libertarians/anarchists on cultural/social issue that are voluntary is a big part of what turns people away from the ideology. That's not the only problem with them, but it's a big one.