Work will always be required. The problem however is that work is a coercion under the current system. You work to live, to provide for yourself the requirements for life: food, shelter, and medical care. We do this dispite the fact that our level of technological achievement could provide all those things with very minimal effort. Once you can be provided with these basic fundamental needs with no strings attached, the earnings you do make can go even farther since your not spending as much one food, medical, or shelter. But it goes beyond just these basic needs. As communal creatures we have it in us to reorder society around the well being of people as opposed to the current order: the maitainance of profit and endless growth. This persuite of growth has left the means of life in control of the few, which in turn gives them control over how you get to live. Anyone who thinks that no one will work in the future is foolish. Instead the goal is for work to be a persuite of enrichment for the whole of the community both local and global, to produce such a surplus that those who do not have the ability to work are not coerced into doing so, and those that can will work to ensure we all live dignified and enriched lives.
The shape of the nature of communal work will take whatever the material conditions demand, but what needs to be true first is that we’re organizing our work around the right ideals and goals. We do that by subordinating the productive forces of society to those goals instead of trying to coax them to those goals like we do now. Automation might be the right solution to the productive process of a given necessity; human labor might be the appropriate solution if automation isn’t sufficiently capable. The boon of our current system is the division of labor and the socialization of labor. That is to say, the revolutionary innovation and progressive force of capitalism is reorganizing labor such that we break down the productive process of any given item into smaller processes that join together to produce a single output. Instead of a handycraftsmen working many hours to build a chair, lathing every spindle, every leg, and every seat, each of those components is produced individually, creating the same chair in a significantly reduced amount of time.
The regressive side of capitalism as a political and economic organization is that it retained feudalism’s private ownership of the means of production. The tools necessary to produce any given necessity. The handycraftsmen owned his tools; he owned the workshop in which he created his crafts, and in the migration to a socialized production model, he retained the ownership of those tools and workshop, and hired peasents to split the productive process into smaller processes. They used his tools and his workshop, but they retained no ownership over what was produced and, as a result, had no authority over how their output was distributed.
To answer your question more directly: “So if I understand correctly your point, you assign all that work to a community and we share the benefit?”
What you’re describing here is a plan. Currently, the productive forces are subject to no plan, just the whims of those who currently own those productive forces. There is no plan that outlines what needs to be produced, what needs to be focused on, to deliver that shared social benefit. Getting to that place is the challenge we face right now. To reach these goals, we have to have a political system that can, and should, place the productive forces that exist now in a kind of cage. One that dictates to the productive forces the priorities of the community.
“Do I work as an employee, do I work as the business owner, or do I work directly for my needs without need for that much money.”
I don’t see how these are at all mutually exclusive; that someone within the community wouldn’t be any of these things over another. Again, the socialization of labor is the driving force of our productive capacity. That, in turn, will require those who perform tasks across the productive process. Some of those tasks are organizational; others are skilled; some require academic theorizing and experimentation. The thing that we’re seeking to remove, however, is the corceon from the system, where someone is compelled to work a job that they are not interested in or fit to perform. How that is organized is one that follows the material conditions of the community. That organization could support “business owners” given that those businesses are not exploitative to workers. However, if the community is well enough organized, there would be no need for an individual to “own” the “business”. Take for example, trash collection. This is a service that is obviously needed, but does it require someone to “own” the “business” of picking up trash and transporting it to landfills or processing centers? Not likely. Trash management is something that was for a long time a service provided for the community by the municipality, county, or state, province, or “regional government.” The more you begin to ask these questions of different sectors of every day life, the more you might find that you do not need a “business owner”.
But again, that really depends on the material conditions. All things are interconnected, and so those conditions are often contingent on external conditions as well. Global material conditions will need to be shifted as well, before we might see more and more of our everyday lives be transformed into communal ownership rather than private ownership by a “business owner”.