Been reading Dolgoff's "The Anarchist Collectives", and he quotes the textile branch of the CNT thus:
In a viable social order, money only as a symbol to facilitate exchange of goods and services will have to be adapted to the revolutionary economy, preserving all its invaluable advantages (the product of the economic experience of generations). It is to be used solely as the most efficient means of conducting transactions yet developed
Dolgoff in the footnotes
Incidentally, this opinion is in harmony with Malatesta's statement that after the abolition of the state and capitalism, with the coming of abundance, and pending the full realization of an anarchist society, money will still remain "the only means (apart from the most tyrannical dictatorship or the most idyllic accord) so far devised by human intelligence to regulate production and distribution automatically." (Life and Ideas, p. 101).
Now I've read Life and Ideas but don't remember that bit, will have to see if I can find the context. Looks like a holdover from Proudhon (and Bakunin's collectivism) to me, and not a good one. fwiw Dolgoff in the rest of the book tends to make a virtue out of the preservation of money in the collectives as well.
Now I think we can all understand why money would remain during periods of massive upheaval - it's very central to people's lives and it's a symbol which denotes a whole series of social relations not yet thrown off. In the same way the formal abolition of a particular currency and it's replacement with labour notes or whatever wouldn't necessarily mean the end of capitalist social relations either. However this defence of money by Malatesta and Dolgoff as some kind of neutral 'measure of stuff' (Dolgoff later goes on to liken the revolutionary transformation of money to the rise of the metric system), divorced from the social relations that created it, seems very, very poor to me and almost a denial of communism's potential.