That's a very philosophical question. Yes, pretty much. Everything takes money or labor to produce. Check out the labor theory of value. Way back in 1300 Ibn Khaldun wrote

" [earning] results from something other than a craft, the value of the resulting profit and acquired (capital) must (also) include the value of the labor by which it was obtained. Without labor, it would not have been acquired."

More or less, there is inherent value in your labor. When you write something on steemit or medium or facebook, there is some inherent value there because you created something that others are consuming.

In A Second Treaties on Government John Locke explains that until the invention of currency, in the state of nature, people were limited to amassing what they could consume. For example, you couldn't keep more corn than you could eat because it would spoil. Of course you could trade your excess corn for clothes and bananas, et al but you couldn't keep more of anything than you needed. That might seem well and good at the moment but what happens when you are no longer able to produce? The idea of socialized retirement in America is only about 60 years old, before then people worked until they died. However, in our corporatized world, the value of a person's labor is diminished after a certain point.

Without money we'd be hard pressed for everything that we need. Think of the electric company, supplying power to all of the homes and businesses in your city. Now imagine that you're a baker who uses their power for your ovens and lighting. Without money all you'd have to offer is bread or whatever your customers choose to trade you for the bread. Come the day your bill is due, you'd have to load a truck with bread and goods to try and barter with the electric company to reimburse them for their product.

In a world where everything is free, is there a communal pot? Who's to collect the goods and distribute them to the masses? Or would people keep shops wherein you just go and take whatever you want?