Basically you’re arguing against the state, which we sure both want.

You are aware that communism, too, not just anarchism, is a stateless society?

(Side note: In the ole socialist definition of "state". Both still qualify for the modern political theory definition of state which bogs down to "a people, a territory, a type of governing system (organisation)". Gotta be careful with that one it often gets confused).

I think that without a state you cannot abolish the existing forces that give rise to class society as it’s not a even playing field between labour and capital.

Indeed, without state power labour would have the upper hand. You saw that in the Russian revolution where workers very quickly formed soviets and kept things running. Then the Bolsheviks re-established state power, deliberately destroying horizontal worker organisation with hierarchical structure, and everything went to shit.

Then, going back a tiny bit:

The abolishion of class society, meaning one class is not subjugating it’s will on another, be it capitalist or a socialist state bureaucrats.

How do you envision a state without state bureaucrats?

Only the proper application would be of the building the restaurant and how noone likes to do the actual work of building it as everyone is free not to do it.

How do you come to the conclusion that nobody likes building things? Doubly so if there's a couple of people around who like cooking for the community who could really use a nice place to provide their services?

There's actually interesting modern polls around this, made in the context of UBI: The overwhelming majority say that if they received UBI, they'd still be working about as much. Maybe get another job, maybe cut down hour a bit, maybe take a sabbatical to do learn a new trade and switch there, but overall the wheels would keep churning at about the same speed. Meanwhile, the same overwhelming majority, when asked what other people would be doing, said "they'd stop working". That kind of mind-bug is a mixture of capitalist realism and hierarchical realism, the notion that people need to feel the whip to be motivated to be productive. That without imposition of force, humanity as we know it would cease to exist: We'd lose our zest, our creativity, our ambition, our love for one another, everything. That humanity is an inherently asocial species, held together by the powers that be. That we need to be domesticated to be ourselves.

Fruit in fruit salads describes the salad. It’s the qualifier.

Indeed, it is a qualifier. A qualifier that the botanists widened. When they said "you can make a fruit salad with tomatoes" they used their definition of fruits, but the narrower definition of cooks for "fruit salad" (there's no botanical definition of "fruit salad", it's a purely culinary term). Thus, we have a category error.

On the narrowing side that category error is generally not present, say, you can narrow down "fruit" to "tropical fruit" or "temperate fruit" and still get perfectly valid fruit salads made from those narrower categories. Heck you can narrow it down to "banana" and get a fruit salad, even if it may be a bit bland.