Classical anarchism is socialist. That means the the means of production should be owned by the workers and all decisions that affect their work (salaries, what to produce and how, etc) should be made by the workers as well, not a boss. These two pillars would significantly reduce the gap between rich and poor and and also go a long way towards a more egalitarian and democratic society.
A recent example of anarchist economics is developed by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel in the late 1990′s, called participatory economics (parecon for short). They envisioned this economic model as an alternative to capitalist market economies as well as state-based socialism. Participatory economics would strive for human and worker solidarity (rather than isolation and selfishness), equality (rather than disparity), and self-management (rather than having a boss). Some of the ways they proposed to achieve these goals were from worker and consumer councils that would use anarchist methods of decision making; rotating the least desirable and most desirable jobs so that nobody gets stuck in a power position or in mind numbing work all the time; some extra pay for those who put in extra effort and are required to sacrifice more; and other ways. One modern example of the kind of vision they have in mind is the current movement in Argentina where hundreds of thousands of workers have taken over abandoned factories and ran them along these lines (the films, The Take (2004) and Sin Patrón (2007), document the movement).
This type of anarchist vision is in stark contrast to capitalist free market economies where workers have little say in their own pay, hours, what they produce, and experience an instability in their work since their jobs could be moved at any time if a more profitable location were discovered by the owners, who exploit their labor for profit. Just to refute one argument that capitalists often make: that capitalism is the only model that has produced a better quality of life for people. Thus capitalism is necessary and superior to all other models. Yet that argument could be made for almost any society. Slaves in the 18th century were better off than they were in the 17th, and better off in the 19th than they were in the 18th century. But is that an argument for slavery? Likewise, under Stalin, the Soviet Union underwent tremendous economic growth. This economic growth was what struck terror into the heart of capitalist leaders, because it proved a viable alternative. But economic growth, because it is present in a wide range of forms, is not an argument for any economic ideology’s superiority.
Articles for further reading:
Kapila. “Race, Gender and Class: Structure of the Global Elite and World Capitalism.” In Our Culture, Our Resistance: People of Color Speak Out on Anarchism, Race, Class and Gender, Vol. II, edited by Ernesto Aguilar, 72–80: http://www.illvox.org, 2004.