I understand that libertarian communists generally support economies based on gift exchange rather than the current monetary system, but as much as I dislike money, I have a nagging concern about gift economies: they may not address the root evil of money. Money is evil because it creates socioeconomic inequality, often for unfair reasons, but couldn't a gift economy also disproportionately favor certain individuals over others? For example, people who earned more social capital or performed more essential services for society (e.g. doctors or food-producers) might earn more gifts than others.
Sorry for the newbish question, but although libertarian communism appeals to my morality far more than any other, I have a hard time justifying it to other people.
It might be more accurate (if still a simplification) to say that private property in the means of sustaining life and liberty and the dispossesion of the majority from such ownership and control such that we are reliant today on working for a wage (or scrapping by on benefit payments or charity) is what sustains an exchange based economy and the requirement for money. Calling money 'evil' misunderstands it's necessity in this society as a means of accumulating wealth for the minority class that monopolises the ownership of such private property and a means of survival for most of the rest of us if we're lucky! A society based on the principle of the 'gift', assumes no 'private (ie class) ownership' and no universal equivalent of exchange ie 'from each according to their abillity, to each according to their (self-determined) needs' - so no one can 'earn' a gift.
Have a look at the various discussion threads elswhere on the question of ' the abolition of money' or on Parecon and perhaps David Graeber's book on debt for a further exploration of these ideas - it's worth a search around on this site for more detailed answers to the issues concerning you.