In a money-less world, society’s output and services would no longer be limited by the availability of money. We would have a massive labour force available to produce goods and services far beyond what we produce today. Collectivist cultures are more concerned with society's needs and goals. For example, collectivism was one of the best predictors of mask usage during the COVID-19 pandemic. Individualistic cultures tend to prioritise personal autonomy and may lead to the politicisation of questions, actions, and activities related to the public good (which could also be seen in the US where mask usage during the pandemic became a political issue and at the same time resulted in a higher number of super-spreaders compared to more collectivist cultures). To be frank, I cannot imagine a situation where workers are not rewarded at all. Even housewives whose work is often undervalued, unrecognised, and looked down upon, receive at least some reward from friends and families complimenting their cooking, smart arrangements in the house, the aesthetics, and so on. Although, I do admit that this kind of reward can be insufficient motivation for many people.

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. 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. 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. 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. The society which you described in your question is basically a communist one - a society in which not only money is removed, but a property as a whole do not exist. If we allow property to remain and remove only money the barter will emerge as a substitute. To remove the barter, the property as a whole has to be removed and everything has to be public. I will not discuss here whether this is achievable in the real life or whether it is a good goal to struggle for. But let me draw attention to some aspects of such society.

Please note that I came within an inch of voting to close this question as opinion-based. I'm only answering it because your specific question, "would everyone accept to work for free?" has, IMO, only one plausible answer. 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.

If someone gets enraged one night and smashes their television set as a result. Does society immediately replace it? What if the same person repeatedly smashes their replacement television sets on successive nights because they repeatedly become enraged over other issues. Are they entitled to continually receive replacement television sets? 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: Some goods and services are inherently scarce. There is only so much space available on the sea shore for houses with an ocean view; there is no way to give such a desirable house to everybody. There are only so many seats available at a concert. There are only so many tables in good restaurants.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. IMHO, such society is possible even now and the people will be willing to work without becoming hardcore altruists (it's a different question if such society will be viable in the long run). In other words, the very concept is inhuman. Worse, it depends on the removal of innovation, curiosity, the drive for improvement... (it makes Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World look like paradise). In fact, it would require whoever is in charge (yup, something someone who isn't in charge is going to want...) to give up the very technological basis that allowed them to have the society they have. Keep in mind, such a society would require a ruling class that enforced the condition of equity — not equality, that's impossible in such a society, but equity.

Even in a monetary economy, there are a significant number of nonmonetary transactions. Examples include household labor, care giving, civic activity, or friends working to help one another. These nonmonetized labors represent an important part of the economy, and may constitute half of the work done in the United States. [1] These nonmonetary subeconomies are referred to as embedded nonmonetary economies.

While some people equate work with paid labour only, this is not accurate. For example, according to OECD research, unpaid care work is one of the important factors explaining gender gaps in labour outcomes (participation, wages, and job quality). Across all regions of the world, women spend on average