He goes on to discuss the ways in which he sees the transition to a moneyless society taking place and then poses and answers, in convincing fashion, some of the most common ‘objections’ (many of which socialists are used to hearing) to a free access society of voluntary cooperation without money and wages. These are objections such as ‘don’t we need money as a motivator?’, ‘aren’t human beings intrinsically lazy and selfish?’, ‘would there be enough to go round?’, ‘how could we operate an economic system without a pricing mechanism?’, etc. Finally, he issues a ‘Call to Action’ urging those who agree with the need for a moneyless society and see it as possible to share their views with others and ‘get this information into the world’, thereby helping to put into the mainstream an idea that may currently seem ‘extreme’ to many. He also encourages people to communicate, cooperate and associate themselves with other movements with similar ideas, listed in a ‘Resources’ appendix to the book. Here he includes some 50 organisations, including the World Socialist Movement, as well as, for example, his own ‘Moneyless Society’ group, the Auravana Project, the New Zealand Money Free Party and the Zeitgeist Movement. Han, Qiaoming; Du, Donglei; Xu, Dachuan; Xu, Yicheng (2018). "Approximate efficiency and strategy-proofness for moneyless mechanisms on single-dipped policy domain". Journal of Global Optimisation. 70 (4): 859–873. doi: 10.1007/s10898-017-0586-x. S2CID 4593321. (Mentions many more non-monetary mechanisms.) In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! ( Critique of the Gotha Programme. Part I) In a normal economy, the interaction between supply and demand works as a distributed information system which by and large makes sure that producers allocate resources to what consumers actually need. The basic premise would be that each person living within the society would need their own plot of land, they would be limited in how many children they could have and it would require that the entire multi-generational family would remain on their given plot with the exception of spouses moving to other established plots. Each family would grow their own food, manufacture their own clothing, and in all ways be self-sufficient.

If someone wants to create a new product, he goes to the slave slums, grabs a few of them and has them do it. If he wants to provide more of those products, he grabs more slaves. There might be specialist slaves which live in slightly cleaner slums, which can build machines to aid large scale production.The point being that in a normal economy highly desirable and scarce goods and services will command higher prices, and people will have to prioritize their resources if they really want them. In a communist society there is no money, hence there are no prices, and allocating those desirable goods and services can only be done by decree. Arjan van Aelst (1995) Majapahit Picis: The Currency of a 'Moneyless' Society 1300-1700. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde,

Since there is no money, production needs to be commanded from a central authority. In a normal economy, each and every producer is independent of any central authority, and they thrive or fail on their own, with little risk of bringing the entire economy down. In a command economy, when the central authority fails, and it will eventually fail, the entire thing goes to pieces. The sad truth is that the State Committe for Planning is a single point of failure, and it is guaranteed that sooner or later it will fail, because humans make mistakes and unexpected events happen. And then you have a revolution...Of course this criticism is still rather philosophical—capitalism (a term which Marx doesn’t even use) is identified with individualism, “a world of atomistic individuals who are inimically opposed to one another” (p.173). Marx argues that in such a world it is money that emerges as the god to which everything else is subordinated and which completely dominates people’s lives. A moneyless society is a very utopian idea. Nevertheless human beings were living in a world without money at some point in the past. According to Wikipedia money emerged already around 12,000 BC. Though the first coins have been created quite a bit later. As many other concepts such as insurance, banknotes have first come up in China. The first banknotes were merchant receipts of deposit in the 7th century. Is a moneyless society possible? Very soon however, Marx (who, it must be remembered, was still working his way towards a full understanding of capitalism and socialism) identified “private property” rather than “egoistic need” as the root cause of people’s domination by money, in the sense that it was private property society that led to human beings being obliged to pursue their self-interest as the means to survive. In some unpublished notes he made in 1844 after reading James Mill’s Elements of Political Economy (which marked the beginning of what was to become a life-long study, and critique, of political economy) Marx argued that in private property society people produce with a view to exchanging their products for money, so that what they produce becomes a matter of indifference to them as long as they can sell it, and that it is this that leads to money dominating their lives: These coupons wouldn't be money, as money serve as a medium of exchange, and these coupons don't serve as medium of exchange. It's often said that money serve as a medium of exchange, but the whole concept of "medium of exchange" was invented in context of solving "double coincidence of wants" of a barter system. Like if I have a bag of rice, but I want to have some beef, then I need to find a person who wants to get rice and give some beef in return. If I have some kind of medium of exchange (like dollars), then I can just exchange my bag of rice for said medium of exchange, and then exchange said medium of exchange for some beef, which give me much more flexibility. But this flexibility is gone if I have, say, food coupons for X loaves of bread, that only I can use. Thus this version of coupons can't be considered to be a medium of exchange, at the least if rules are properly enforced.

Whether you agree with Marx or not, he makes a very good point: Moneyless economies require different cultural values and behaviours compared to money-based economies. I think that a moneyless society will put great emphasis on: Azis, Haris; Li, Bo; Wu, Xiaowei (2019-05-22). "Strategyproof and Approximately Maxmin Fair Share Allocation of Chores". DeepAI. arXiv: 1905.08925. Barter economies also constitute an important form of non-monetized interaction, although for the most part this kind of interaction is viewed [ by whom?] largely as a temporary fix as an economic system is in transition. It is also usually considered a side effect of a tight monetary policy such as in a liquidity crisis, like that of 1990s Russia where barter transactions accounted for 50 percent of sales for midsize enterprises and 75 percent for large ones. [15] Moneyless interaction of individuals with the monetary economy [ edit ]

In Holland

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] People would probably be much lazier than they are. I read on Reddit about why money exist and someone said that humans are also animals and will do the least they can to survive and need some sort of "pressure" to be stimulated to do things. So he said that without money people would realize that they could have a good standard of living without doing anything to anyone. I did not agree with him but it was just his opinion.