No order of society can last in which one man says to another, “You work and toil, and earn bread, and I will eat it.”
Buckminster Fuller made the often misunderstood statement that “no one should work for a living.” Did he mean that no one should work?
Find out what this revolutionary educator and author has to say about Fuller’s statement, and about the right relationship between workers and work, right here:
Work, to some, suggests drudgery–prostitution in order to earn a living–something one must do. For others of us, this is a gross misuse of the term; we believe that work is the productive and creative ability that makes human life possible. When the necessary work of the world is shared by all of its people, there need be no painful toil.
Work most certainly will continue to be done, but not by coercion and bribery. One should work for the love of it, the joy of it, the excitement of it–to be of service–to be of use–to learn. Why must there be such a close relationship between work and income? Imagine if people would work for satisfaction and not merely for pay. And if no one would work for another for hire, or no one would do certain tasks, many people would have to start taking care of themselves. Everyone would be required to do his or her own work, or else convince others to trade labor. Doctors would sweep their own floors; bankers would wash their own windows. The CEO of General Motors would change his own oil.
Work is one of our most useful learning tools; children love to imitate adults at work. It is drudgery that needs eliminating, not work.