@jaredhowe

Wouldn't the maintenance of abolition of money require an amount of resources which could only be procured in an environment where market prices exist?

I don't think they could - this seems unlikely with regard to the models in my head about how the world works. But it's possible I'm mistaken about that.

Or I'm right, and the money abolitionist is mistaken. But holding a mistaken belief is not necessarily the same thing as committing a performative contradiction. The money abolitionist's mistaken beliefs and actions are qualitatively different (I claim) than someone saying "I never speak" - an actual performative contradiction, and a statement we know apodictically to be false.

I don't think this would nullify the concept of demonstrated preference,

To be clear, I do agree that the concept of demonstrated preference is a useful one.

I'm not sure this analogy really works given that the use of money isn't the same as joining the army or being conscripted. The use of money doesn't create victims as where military action does, including victims of taxation.

Here are the way I think the two situations are analogous:

In both, the agent has an aim in mind and takes action that seems to undermine that goal in the short term. In the belief that this will ultimately bring the world closer to that goal in the long term. Whether their belief is true or not is an empirical question in both cases (even though bodies of theory might predict the belief to be false at least in the case of the money abolitionist).