Which means no one can fix the machines when they start breaking down... because that depends on the innovation your society cannot have that would permit even the possibility that everyone could work for free. Non-market ecosocialism as advocated by Anitra Nelson: as for the nonmonetary aspect, each household "guesstimates" its basic needs, which are met in return for "collective production as a community obligation." The production, distribution, and procurement of goods and services from "more distant communities" are collectively agreed on. [32] Selling is the practical aspect of alienation. Just as man, as long as he is in the grip of religion, is able to objectify his essential nature only by turning it into something alien, something fantastic, so under the domination of egoistic need he can be active practically, and produce objects in practice, only by putting his products, and his activity, under the domination of an alien being, and bestowing the significance of an alien entity—money–on them” (p.174). There still be some people with a strong sense of responsibility who will work because they believe that it is something they ought to do. There will be some people who work because it is the lesser of the two evils (I hate dirt more than cleaning toilets). And, of course, all those people who work because they enjoy it, find it personally gratifying, fulfilling, etc. will continue working. However, there will be quite a few people who do not work at all because they are not being rewarded. We shall execute our king instead, sir, and exalt our tailors," said Chauvelin in Baroness Orczy's The Scarlet Pimpernel. To which Sir Percy replies, "More's the pity. Then your tailors will rule the land, and no one will make the clothes. So much for French fashion, and French politics."

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 principle, a communist society is supposed to overcome this problem by employing an all-powerful central planning organization, which uses pervasive (and invasive) sources of information to learn how many size A bras are to be produced in the next quarter, how many size B, how many size C and so on. Unfortunately, this doesn't work, from both practical and theoretical reasons. In extreme cases of survival, the open nature of the household economy is most evident. Food, clothing, toiletries, and basic necessities were often shared or exchanged amongst war-torn, impoverished families in East Europe post-communism. [7] Cooking, cleaning, clothes-making, and forms of work may seem to be intuitively thought of as work. An Australian study (1992) determined that an estimated 380 million person-hours per week were spent on these types of unpaid activities, compared to 272 million hours per week at paid work. [8] If slaves produce all the required goods, the non-slave population can live in wealth and splendor, free of the worries of money. They just do the prestigious stuff, research, art, architecture and such, whatever they feel like on the day.Without money people would not depend financially from their families as they are today. People could abandon their parents houses and go have their own lives in a much earlier age. I also want to note that money is one of many reward mechanisms. Fame, recognition, respect, special treatment, and so on are examples of other reward mechanisms. In addition to rewards, societies employ coercion mechanisms to make their members perform necessary work. The social stigma attached to those who refuse to work can be used as coercion. So, while a moneyless society may not have one of the rewards mechanisms it will still have all other reward and coercion mechanisms. And even if people are not willing to accept working for free they might be forced to do so. The specific use of coercion and reward systems determines whether your moneyless society is a utopia or a dystopia. The absence of money does not automatically lead to any of these two outcomes.

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. a b c White-Means, S. I.; Zhiyong, D. (2012). "Valuing the Costs of Family Caregiving: Time and Motion Survey Estimates" (PDF). Consumer Interests Annual. 58: 1–8. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-03-20 . Retrieved 2013-05-17. Vila, Luis E. (2000). "The Non-Monetary Benefits of Education". European Journal of Education. 35 (1): 21–32. doi: 10.1111/1467-3435.00003. JSTOR 1503615. Living or traveling without money and adapt your life to this is a huge personal challenge. You really embark on an exploration by living this way. But how would it be of the entire society or even just a community would be focused on a moneyless existence? Said differently: a world without money, how would it be? Would it be possible?Rakitskii, B.V. (1979) Law of Economy of Time. In: The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3d edition. Refers to K. Marx and F. Engels, Das Kapital, "Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 46, parti, p. 117". https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Economy+of+Time%2c+Law+of Unpaid care work is defined in the cited document as ' Unpaid care work refers to all unpaid services provided within a household for its members, including care of persons, housework and voluntary community work (Elson, 2000). These activities are considered work, because theoretically one could pay a third person to perform them.' 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.