Multiple experiments with a basic income showed that alleviating the material incentive to work do not make people less likely to seek for employment. Living without money is not easy. You have to really care and also give up some things. You will give up the comfort to buy what you desire. Instead you'll get another lifestyle: one in which you'll be happy with what you have. One in which you are obligated to be more creative to satisfy your needs. This is a case of mutualism (see macroeconomies below) embedded in the monetary economy and restricted to intellectual labor. Typical examples are posting questions and answers on an internet forum, the production of open-source software, and the development of articles on Wikipedia. In these cases, subsistence is usually guaranteed by the monetary economy. Categories of such contributions are Commons-based peer production, Open source, Creative Commons license, and so on. A lot of work is done not because it is rewarded monetarily, but because it needs to be done. For example, I clean my toilet not because I am paid to do it and definitely not because I enjoy it. I do it because it needs to be done to avoid future problems (and because I hate dirt more than I hate cleaning toilets).

Practical need, egoism, is the principle of civil society, and as such appears in a pure form as soon as civil society has fully given birth to the political state. The god of practical need and self-interest is money. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man—and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal self-established value of all things. It has therefore robbed the whole world—both the world of men and nature—of its specific value. Money is the estranged essence of man’s work and man’s existence, and this alien essence dominates him, and he worships it” (p.172). One could argue, that the material incentive to work in fact discourage people to work efficiently. Karl Marx said, that the alienation caused by the need to perform work which one do not enjoy, leads to the dicrease of one's possibilities and thus hinders the progress of the society. One who perfom his job only to satisfy his most basic needs will never be an efficient worker. And, of course, there will be a lot of work done because people enjoy it, receive social approval and respect, achieve self-fulfilment through it, and similar reasons. The technological, scientific and artistic characteristics of this world could be much richer and more advanced than in our own since money would not be necessary to make such developments; Nelson, Anitra; Timmerman, Frans, eds. (2011). Life without Money: Building Fair and Sustainable Economies. London: Pluto Press. ISBN 9780745331652. Abstract: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Non-Market_Socialism See pp.33 ff. of ch.2 by Anitra Nelson: Money versus Socialism, pp.23-46.

Communities that live without money

Technology-driven, often centralized ("resource based") societies: the Zeitgeist movement, its related projects named Venus, Auravana, or Kadagaya in Peru, [19] and the Money Free Party. However, from another perspective, money and the pursuit of it reveals a far more negative aspect of humanity, greed. Because money can expand life choices and gain power over those with less of it, it is by nature the corruptor. Our monetary system, devised to be a means for fair economy and balances has become the controlling force of all human endeavor. It has become a sole purpose and the false God of a race of beings immersed in self-involvement. Organizations that administer time banks, barter networks, or currencies may register for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) as non-profit organizations working to benefit the community. [33] The IRS has recognized some time banks as tax exempt; it is harder to obtain exemptions for a barter network or local currency, as they are harder to prove as operating purely on a basis of service to the community.

Heavy use of censorship and primitivization of culture. The government will likely to actively shape culture, and it will shape it in a way, that will make people less diverse and complicated in their wants/needs. The greatest advocate of the communist society, Karl Marx, himself emphasised that such society is possible only is some kind of post-scarcity world. He claimed that social structure is a result of material conditions and posession-free society could not emerge in the medieval times when even the food was scarce. He claimed that capitalism is a necessary step toward the communism because it creates the means of production necessary to enter the communist stage. But with time, the capitalist regime becomes obsolote, as it is no longer suitable to control these forces of production - in the same way as medieval nobility was not able to control the industrial forces of early capitalism. One could say, that we in fact already observe this situation, as competition between small capitalists (what is a definition of the capitalism) is currently replaced by monopoly of huge corporations. Marks believed that is will be replaced by property-free comunist society. The most importat aspect here is the fact, that Marks was seeing the capitalism as a force which creates this post-scarcity society which will be able to satisfy the needs of the people without the rule of the capitalist bourgeoisie. So whenever you speak about society without money, you have to speak about (at least in some sense) post-scarcity society. One could argue whether we are already in this stage - current food production is enough to end the world hunger and the wealth created is enough to eliminate the global poverty. Caregiving has a disproportionate effect on women and white households. [11] The cost of caregiving is exorbitant, nearly five times what Medicaid would have spent on long-term care, meaning only wealthy families can afford to do this type of in-home care. The intersection of class and race in this phenomenon is an important place to explore as less advantaged families will have to rely on government care, potentially at the risk of having less quality care. These statistics also highlight a differential effect on women, showing that women disproportionately do caregiving work. [11] Civic duties refer to the responsibilities of citizens, e.g. voting and jury participation in democratic countries. Social responsibilities are responsibilities as a member of a group. There are a lot of things that people do not want to do for one reason or another. However, these things still need to be done. A person with a strong sense of duty and responsibility will be much more likely to do unlikeable but necessary things. There may be a closed household economy, where a specific (perhaps familial) group of individuals benefits from the work performed.

Is a moneyless society possible?

Such system works worse if people are diverse and complicated in their needs and wants. Which will encourage the authorities to try to make people more standard in their needs/wants. The easiest way would be for the Government to get rid of non-standard people, to bully/brainwash them into behaving like the general population, or just left their needs/wants unfulfilled. Like chronically ill and disabled people will have needs/wants that are different from needs/wants of an average Joe, so the government can decide to heal them once and for all, ignore their problems, or even to kill them. Such society will see being different as deeply problematic, people will feel ashamed/depressed for being different. People would not need to worry about bills and housing to pay because otherwise the companies will cut the service; Publius Ovidius Naso wrote "Fertilior seges est alenis semper in agris" (the harvest is always more fruitful in another man's fields). Which is where the modern proverb, "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" is believed to have come from. What both mean is that it's human nature to believe their life would be better if they have something they don't currently have.

Living or traveling without money and adapt your life to this is a huge personal challenge. You really embark on an exploration by living this way. But how would it be of the entire society or even just a community would be focused on a moneyless existence? Said differently: a world without money, how would it be? Would it be possible? So the second part focuses on how a new moneyless society could be established and work and how many features of that society can already actually be seen existing in the world today – in spite of the constraints the current system imposes on their optimal use. He refers to these features as ‘future systems in action’, focusing in particular on the way capitalism’s advanced technology, which has built a world ‘ripe for the next phase of our socioeconomic evolution’, can be put to use. It can develop for example, he argues, a ‘super-grid’ (ie, ‘a large-scale electric grid… enabling the transfer of renewable generated electricity over long distances’), automatic manufacture and assembly of goods by 3D printing, and democratic organisation and decision-making by use of advanced, user-friendly data systems. He is insistent that ‘we already have the systems and technology to create real, lasting abundance and sustainability’ with resources capable of providing ‘all necessities and more for every living person on the planet’. Is it possible to live without money? How to live without needing money? On Moneyless.org you'll find the answers to such questions, with inspiring examples, such as people who choose to live without money, tips on how to create a moneyless existence and stories about traveling and living without money. Mark Boyle (2012) The moneyless manifesto. Hampshire: Permanent Publications and White River Junction: Chelsea, p.34

Moneyless travel

a b Ironmonger, D. S. (1996). "Counting Outputs, Capital Inputs and Caring Labor: estimating Gross Household Product". Feminist Economics. 2 (3): 37–64. doi: 10.1080/13545709610001707756. Nobody reading these passionate denunciations of money can be left with any doubt that Marx stood for a moneyless society. Although he abandoned some of the more flowery philosophical language in his later published works such as A Critique of Political Economy (1859 ) and Capital (1867), he never abandoned his view that money should be abolished through the establishment of a society based on common ownership and production directly for human need. Indeed, his later analysis of the process of capitalist production was still based on his early view that in capitalist society the producers (the working class) were dominated by the product of their own labour which had escaped from their control and confronted them as an alien, exploiting force (capital). But, then, the distinction between an “early”, philosophical and a “later”, scientific Marx has never been all that convincing, since not only are the views of the so-called early Marx to be found in his later writings, but also his early writings are not just philosophising as to the true nature of humanity, as the following passage from the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 shows: The complete domination of the estranged thing over man has become evident in money, which is completely indifferent both to the nature of the material, i.e., to the specific nature of the private property, and to the personality of the property owner. What was the domination of person over person is now the general domination of the thing over the person, of the product over the producer. Just as the concept of the equivalent, the value, already implied the alienation of private property, so money is the sensuous, even objective existence of this alienation” (p.22). Which means no one can fix the machines when they start breaking down... because that depends on the innovation your society cannot have that would permit even the possibility that everyone could work for free.