You’re right, money isn’t everything.
Let’s say you’re in a collectivist community. No money is involved. Everyone contributes to the community by providing both needs (infrastructure, maintenance, etc) and wants (culture, arts, beautification, etc).
Would the person who chooses to contribute to community duties 1/10th the time and effort of the amount the rest of the community puts in face social consequences?
I think in most tightly-knit communities of this sort, they would. Money is just the exchange mechanism we use to enable more complex exchanges.
Not everything is about money. A healthy rural society has a variety of people in it, some bring in more money that others, but the mix is necessary. Otherwise people will leave.
This guy for example seems to be able to write, and has lots of spare time. Perhaps he helps his neighbors. There's no money involved, but the entire community is better off.