I am not sure to exactly what kind of communists and Marxists this would apply to but I have heard communists tell me that we need to get rid of class and we need to get rid of money. History is a class struggle, as they say, so we need to destroy the concept of a class without there being the workers and the employers. Now I am not sure if all communists or Marxists want to abolish money, but I have heard some hold this position.
This is a stupid idea. First off the problem with Marxists is that they think that the world consists of workers and employers. They think that the workers have to work for someone their entire life, that is, to the employers, while the employers are in the class by themselves. This is a mistake. Everyone is a worker. You think a businessman does not work? There are businessmen who work harder and longer than any of his workers. Yes, businessmen and entrepreneurs work. They work for other people. A entrepreneur for computers is working for the consumption of the masses. If the people think that his computer sucks then he will lose his job. Possibly lose many millions of dollars (or sometimes billions) if he does not work hard enough for the masses. So let us just get that Marxist fallacy out of the way, that there are the employers and the workers. In reality, we need to ask "employer and worker, relative to whom". Consider the entrepreneur again. He is an employer of his employees, but he is a worker for the masses.
My first problem is that let us suppose that we eliminate class. Everything is collectively owned. My question would be is how is incentive for progress created? I do not see it. People create new innovations because they want to be successful. If people cannot rise above anyone else, for that would create class, then why would they want to achieve more? Suppose that people only work six hour a day in a communist utopia. What incentive would these people have to work for eight hours a day, invest the money, and start their own business to benefit more people? Why would someone want to work more if he is part of the same fixed status in society? This is an economic failure, that I see, with Marxism. There is no incentive to improve the economy. Or even if I am wrong, even if there is incentive, it would be much much lower than otherwise in a society where people can improve their status.
My second problem is that money is necessary. It serves two important functions. First, it is a medium of exchange. If I want to get something from you, I have to give you something back. But let us suppose what you want I do not own. Thus, I would have to find another person who has what you want and trade something of my own for what he has. Then and only then would I be able to trade with you. Sometimes this gets more complicated, with three or more transactions before I can finally trade with you. Money eliminates this problem, it is a medium of exchange so that people would not need to go through multiple transactions to trade with one another. The second function, perhaps as important, is that money is used for economic calculation. Prices tell us the demand. How would economic calculation be preformed in a Marxist society that rejects money?
My problem with Marxists is that they are a political philosophy without any understanding of economists. Marxism does not understand anything about economics. Their entire philosophy is based on the class struggle. The problem with this is that a society cannot be created unless an economic theory is proposed. Marxists do not know any economics so that is why they would never be able to form a successful society.