In the system advocated by the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement, there would be no money. Critics jump on this and say that without money there will be no motivation. The argument comes back that many people are altruistic and do things as volunteers - and amy more people would be able to if they weren't "chained to the desk". Furthermore, inventors and scientists such as Tesla and Einstein acted altruistically. Tesla for one died poor and the progress his inventions would have brought humanity has been set back by the fact that there was no way of monetising some of them so they didn't happen.
Let's think through the motivation of money. Money is worthless in and of itself and is only useful for acquiring the goods and services that people need/want. So money itself does not motivate, only access to goods and services. In a truly abundant society people could have access to whatever they want or need anyway, but we don't know for certain if we can have an abundant society ir not because we are in a system with waste built in. The scarcity we have may not in fact be an attribute of the planet on which we live, but of the very system that purports to deal with the scarcity we think but do not know we have.
So in fact people motivated by money are in fact motivated by getting either more than their fair share of available resources, or simply by getting more than others get. This means that having starving people in the world is what motivates people to earn money for themselves.
OK, some people on seeing the starvation may give to charities that try to deal with it, but why take the food from people's mouths through the monetary system and then give [some of] it back through charity? The motive here might be being better in a moral sense than someone else, but if someone wants to be better than someone else, why can't they directly help people, like Tesla tried. Why the complex monetary system mediating all this?