Marxist here. Thank you for this thread. In An A to Z of communization one of the more important ideas is "non-accounting" which is usually explained as what makes communization. Let me give a couple quotes.

All these plans fail to understand money as the commodity to which all other commodities are related, and the substance of which is value, i.e. labour-time accounting : “(..) non-accounting is more fundamental than gratuity alone, provided that the nature of this activity for which there is no accountancy is better defined.” (B. Astarian) This is what communisation is about.

But would non-accounting be enough to abolish value? Wouldn't there still be value as long as exchange seizes to exist just because some materials will be more valuable? It seems to suggest "if we ignore value, it will vanish". Also we have:

For this reason, schemes (such as the councilist one by the GIK in 1930)that wish to base a communist society on labour-time accounting are founded on a misunderstanding of what value is. Value is labour time. Therefore replacing money by time as the regulator of production would be tantamount to creating a worker-led capitalism.

[Emphasis mine] Isn't this contradictory with Marx? My understanding is that value is exchange-value which is decided at the moment of exchange independent of labour time; moreveor, Marx explains that labour-vouchers are not money (refer to Capital vol 2) because it cannot be accumulated.

So, although communization seems appealing to me it seems like a little utopian and its analysis of money seems a bit off. What do you think?