The first is a science fiction that presents an ideal anarchist society without money, where people resolve everything with IOU's and people don't accept your IOU if you don't resolve them. It's a nice read but it draws entirely on the notion that people won't have capital, or stores of value, and instead of choosing to work for capital, they work for services and goods, and those that offer services or goods will do only in return for favors and work, while some do favors and "obligations" as insurance, ie how firefighters would procure a coat, but this never touches on the fact of life, or competition, or what incentive is there to go through the trouble of a coat or running a coat shop if everything is resolved in favors and not goods? we simply are given a scenario where there's no need to do something better, fast or easier, or incentive for that or to create products, people simply endeavor to produce the cans, the coats and other products for favors, leaving much of the product out of the equation, as everyone is busy doing obligations for each other, instead of making their own coat or canning their own stuff the inefficiency of this is that people can stretch out the people's trusts, always being in debt, this debt has no real need to be resolved as it's spread around to the whole community, ultimately the ones who's services are rarely but importantly required such as a doctor, or a firefighter, either get paid before hand, but that won't matter when the fire reaches a certain size, or when the doctor is stretch out and cannot resolve two iou's at the same time.

It's a nice read even though it overwhelmingly tries to promote an anarchist communist society by not touching on the production aspect of it one bit, other than mentioning something of a functional ob on a town, which now causes the whole notion of obligation as it extends to a fictional entity or what represents a group of people, and not just obligations people have to implode with how and what makes a representation of a group of people, responsible for obligations to another "group" of people.

The case for a money-less society is hardly thought out. Money has existed in all kinds of forms, for example people resolved debts, not by IOU's but tally sticks, and there wasn't any problem with that. The money we have today are controlled and regulated to survive pyramid schemes. It's not the idea of money that is evil, it's the idea that banning money will solve human nature, or mitigate the power some have over others, and it won't. It's just an extreme that hasn't resolved the contradiction of freedom and No Money, you cannot have freedom and No money, as one is the antithesis to the other.