So? By that logic, the superrich shouldn't mind relinquishing almost all their wealth.
Wrong.
Yes, the _Marxist_ view of how the rich exploit us is incorrect. But that doesn't mean the rich---well, a large fraction of the rich---don't exploit us.
A large fraction of the rich are rich because they collect economic rents (land rent in particular). Those rents are collected by right of owning a government title. There's nothing just or efficient about rent collection.
Take land rent in particular. Landowners in their role of landowner contribute absolutely nothing to production; they just collect rent from the rest of us, using a government-granted license to steal. (Yes, land ownership _per se_ is extremely broad in the US, but if you look at rent collected, it's far from uniformly distributed.)
For more, see e.g. "Are you a real libertarian or a Royal libertarian?" at
Except for the fact that landowners are wealthy through no effort at all.
Depend on whether they actually create something of value.
Landowners don't.
Uh, you have that backwards. Landowners loot from _everyone else_ by charging a fee for access to what was already there, irrespective of the landowner's existence.
Some, yes.
You're just as blind, albeit in a different way.