Does this sound like work is not something to be done? People would work but in return for giving to the community what they can they also in return get their needs met without being ordered about by superiors.
This is not realistic in the slightest. Believe it or not, there are people in the world who don't
want to give up most of what they earn for "the common good". Hell, I consider myself pretty liberal on most fronts, and even I have limits to how much and for what I'm willing to shell out. I want to reap the fruits of my labor, not have most of it sucked out for an idealistic communist paradise where everyone's a winner. Not everyone can be a winner. Not everyone is
a winner. Bookmark this statement in your mind -- I'm going to be coming back to it.
I would argue most people will work of that work is of interest to them and if its drudgery technology should be used to do it as far as possible we are not there yet but could at some point.
And what if someone enjoys that "drudgery"? What even constitutes "drudgery"? What if that's all a person is good at? Is it still drudgery if one person likes/wants to do it? If ten people? Twenty? What if we can't automate it? There are certain tasks that are difficult to automate because they require a human eye -- is it fair to make those people keep working their crap jobs while everyone else gets to go on a hobby vacation? What if that technology malfunctions and suddenly we have a massive lack of qualified sewage workers, for instance?
What if someone wants to be an artist and you don't get in their way if they are poor and need to work or have someone telling them they can't make a living at it we just say go ahead go to this art colony and work on your painting. In return for that and seeing people get them to enjoy by selling them for what you can get you will get your needs met. Isn't that more equal? You might love to cook so you might opt to cook for a wage twenty hours a week in return for also not having any wants using the money for your personal desires for things.
That's not equal, that's distributing money to people who don't necessarily deserve it.
I'm going to come back to my earlier statement now. Not everyone is a winner. Some people are actually pretty terrible at what they do -- I see it all the time in art and literature. Watching bad artists make bad art is not
a joy to me and I frankly find it a little juvenile to encourage and support people as if we are all equal in talent and we are all deserving of merit. To put it more colloquially, if you suck at being a doctor, then I really don't want you to be my doctor and other people probably won't either. If you're bad at acting, you don't deserve to be in films. Failure serves a purpose.
I agree with Marx most would try lots of things not being forced to do one thing over another if they were free to do so.
How are people today forced into their career? Nobody is making you do anything, you get precisely what you prepare for and if you want to change careers, nobody is stopping you. If you didn't go to college, guess what? You're probably going to have to work a lot of unskilled jobs before you work your way up to something better.
I fail to see what limitations are placed on people such that they can't explore other subjects in their free time. If you work a full-time job, let's break this down -- There are 120 hours in the weekdays / - 40 hours (8 hours of sleep a day * 5 days) / - 50 hours (full-time job + room for overtime) = 30~40 hours on the weekdays alone that you are free to do whatever. That's the equivalent of having another full-time job, or time you could spend working on something else. Factor in the weekend and that's an additional 32 hours or so, giving you ~72 hours of free time in your week.