I think the difference is thus: when you're watching a work of fiction, you can only identify with stuff that is familiar, and you assume that the basic stuff is the same e.g. gravity, air, chemistry, etc. unless specifically noted.
The elimination of money -- or any equivalent -- only works if people are radically different from what we are today, or have been for as long as we can look back in time. Such a change would make us something else than humans, presumably, so it's hard to suspend disbelief in this case because A) That's not how people act and B) We cannot identify with people who are so radically different.
I tend to agree with a lot of this post. Maybe the idea of a society using no money is just foreign to a lot of people, even sci fi fans.
Especially when they don't explain the particulars, like how were they able to pull that off without replicators.
There is something very stiff about 23-24th century humans. They dont always come off as 3 dimensional (Opera is the main music, people drink mainly tea all the time, throwing plays set in the 16th century is THE entertainment for all ages.)
One problem is that Trek doesn't dive right into it the subject and have those amusing conversations about it, like what you'd see in a Quentin Tarantino movie .
All we got where small statements about it. I wonder why Trek was so stiff with going into the subject?
Another question is, why do other cultures who have replicator technology insist on dealing with money when theoretically, they should easily be able to feed and clothe themselves, and create a strong industrial base?
I definitely get what Trek is saying. A no money society is supposed to be one of our ultimate achievements.
Life started off struggling and preying on one another, and now we can feed and clothe ourselves easily .
Actually I have a harder time understanding resistance some people have to the idea, to the point where they claim the idea is communist or socialist or something.