According to the school of thought I follow, every individual on a society has a direct say on everything discussed. Rules, or laws, are defined through a consensus between every individual. If a single individual disagrees, provided they present valid arguments, then the rule must be expanded in a way everyone agrees with it.

On this society, everyone’s basic needs are a core right that cannot be taken or restricted in any way, shape or form. That includes, but not restricted to, proper housing, including electricity and Internet, food and water infrastructure, education and healthcare. That explains the “to each according to their needs” part partially.
Having their needs, therefore their survival ensured, individuals can dedicate themselves to the field they prefer, ensuring no-one is stuck on a job they hate, they can at any point change, and society as a whole benefits from this liberty. Of course there are some fields that individuals with some kinds of disabilities physically cannot work on normally, but there can be jobs that are adapted to their condition, if possible. That covers the “from each according to their ability”.

Those two statements allow for an economical reform. The basic needs of an individual are fulfilled from the get-go, but if they desire some other commodities, they can work for them. Money, if needed at all, would only be needed for those commodities, while favoring trading between individuals. Again, society as a whole would determine how much a product would be worth comparatively to others, creating something more akin to a measuring scale of worth rather than a currency.