So basically, you're saying that if you for ex. didn't have any friends that would just want to basically gift you their time and love to further your goals, you wouldn't give anyone money to do anything for you.
Not only is this not what I said, the generalization you make doesn't follow. Paying people to do things for me is, as best I can tell, never an anarchistic activity. I certainly do so, such being life under capitalism, but I would never pretend that there is anything anarchy-like about me trading money for, say, an oil change.
Couldn't you make it fair though?
There is no notion of Fairness in my value system, so I've no means by which to answer this question.
Don't worker's cooperatives exist where everyone pitches in and everyone is paid equally? When contributions are less equal, the answer seems to get muddy. Any thoughts on that?
I couldn't say, but I don't see what coops have to do with anarchy.
Also, what do you think about other capitalist practices, like writing a book and selling it? Do you live only as a laborer and perhaps thief? Or maybe you are homesteading?
While it is strictly speaking possible to sell a book without it being capitalism, which is rather more narrowly defined, I've no particular thoughts on them. Though I hold no ill will toward them, and certainly know anarchists who make their living in this way, the trade of the merchant is never an anarchistic activity as such. I am both a laborer and a thief, it is true, though, again, there is nothing particularly anarchistic about these things beyond that I enter into my relationship with these things as an anarchist and it absolutely shapes both my way of seeing them and the way I do things.
Just wondering if there is any grey area in your life :)
Actually, no, there isn't.
Ok since you told me what you wouldn't do, I'm left to guess what you would. How about this:
You'd call me up and be like 'FMI, I just stole a bunch of bananas and I know you're super busy and can't help me scrape the peels but why don't you help me scrape them and we'll be in on it 50-50.
The whole premise is flawed, I wouldn't have done any of the things in your original question in the first place. Beyond that, I wouldn't have called you up at all as you and I are nobody to each other. For me, the foundation of anarchy is relationships.
.. but then I'd be like: 'Big homie StrawDog, I'd love to scrape bananas all the way to freedom, but you did all that work stealing the bananas and I appreciate that effort, so I'm going to help you, but I wouldn't feel right taking 50% just because your bananas are going to rot and you have no other choice. What's fair?'
There's that word "fair" again, I can't answer that. However, from time to time I work as a teacher. On a few different occasions I asked anarchist friends for help grading papers, a task accessory to my work albeit one which wasn't directly paid as such. Each of those times, my friends helped me out, their only recompense being food I provided for all of us, whatever ephemeral satisfaction they got from the experience, and, if Graeber is to be believed, some addition to the metaphysical debt account that forms the basis of inter-human social relationships.
The only examples I have for your kind of situation, where I've seen an anarchist bring another into an existing capitalist enterprise absolutely took the form of, using your metaphor, "Reimburse me for the bananas you use, but whatever you scrape you can keep." The friend helping the other out in these situations always acted only as a conduit into the activity and did not profit in any monetary sense from the relationship. Was this an anarchistic activity? I would lean toward no, with the amendment that it seems clear to me that they brought their anarchism with them into the circumstance.
...and then we'd both not have a clue and the bananas would rot. Or maybe this is like when you go out to eat with friends and everybody is trying to split the check and pay what they owe perfectly and then everyone realizes 'this is stupid, let's just split it even and not worry about the jagged edges'.
I actually don't typically encounter such efforts to split bills exactly among anarchists. My experiences find evenly splitting the bill or a few individuals paying for all the rest most common. I also see anarchists frequently eating together alternating who covers the whole bill. In any case, splitting a bill is not an anarchistic activity, but you can certainly bring anarchist sensibilities to the matter.
So would you say it's fair to just split all the profit? Assuming you're ok with selling it for profit in the first place.
Or maybe 'from each, to each' is relevant here? Idk.