This is very true.
If a group got together and ordered toilet paper from the manufacturer, (you have to buy in pallet sized lots) they would get the toilet paper far cheaper than even Samsclub. So cheap, that one or two freeloaders are not a burden on the system.
It is very easy to form communal societies, we in fact, do it all the time.
However, the problem comes in when you get too large to know all the inputs and outputs. Too many freeloaders destroy the system.
And thus money came into being, to balance the load.
However, factory owners get money for free after a large investment of time and money.
And then banksters get money for free, just for printing it.
And then govern-cements start taxing it all.
Which makes the money system so onerous that many want to give it up.
Then we are back to communism...
Yes, the state is the enemy.
"However, factory owners get money for free after a large investment of time and money."
So it wasn't free. And if they fail to meet market needs, they lose it all. And if they fail to pay enough to satisfy their employees, they lose it all. Unless they rely on political plunder, they are hardly freeloaders mooching off anyone.
The problem comes in the form of the playing field no longer being level.
If i have a robot that makes X vs you who makes X by yourself, is our income the same?
This throws off the work/contribution equalization factor of money.
But, then, you also have that i am far more intelligent than you, and so i am able to produce 4x as much for the same work. Or, i am able to leverage that intelligence to build robots, and then i make 16x as much.
This throws off the work/contribution equalization factor of money.
It is one of the problems of the old money system.
But to say that innovation shouldn't earn you better rewards,
Or more work shouldn't earn you better rewards,
Or leveraging your intelligence shouldn't earn you better rewards
will stagnate the entirety of society, making everyone's life perfectly, evenly, miserable.
So, we really need a better money system. If money is going to continue to be used to represent acquisition of food and housing. Because in that system, a large portion of society falls below minimum levels without a massive monetary shakeup. (just look at the tent cities forming everywhere)
It's not a problem of the money system as a concept, but I agree that government fiat money is fundamnetally broken.
Mechanization doesn't replace labor, it multiplies the productivity of labor. When less labor is needed to serve old needs and wants, it means new needs and wants that were less urgent can now be satisfied. Unemployment is a consequence of political intervention retarding the economy, not technology replacing workers.