I think it's entirely possible for a die-hard (and totally nuts) Communist state to decree that a person in a particular job is entitled to a ration of food and lodgings appropriate to their grade, be able to apply for a certain number of weeks in a resort of appropriate quality, and so forth. Since the State has determined that those are the appropriate rewards for labour, there is no need for trade and barter of goods can be made an offence as it constitutes speculation, wrecking, or some such thing.
This is true, as long as the basket of goods received by each consumer are identical. The second you have any variation, this becomes wasteful; for instance, the worker with children will need certain things that a worker without children won't. People vary in size and will therefore require clothing of different sizes. It is wasteful to provide diapers and baby formula to a worker who is single; that worker might prefer more borscht and vodka instead. It's true that the possibility for barter exists unless banned, but that is wasteful insofar as barter has fairly high transaction costs. If bartering is banned, then there is waste of production and you wind up with the absurdity of non-drinkers being stuck with vodka and nonsmokers being stuck with cigarettes. In practice, banning these transactions is impractical; the single worker will "give away" his diapers to his neighbor, who then happens to "give away" the vodka they don't drink. What you wind up with very quickly when the economy has any complexity is a situation where some form of currency maximizes the utility of all parties. Instead of being paid in diapers and other goods, a worker receives X units of currency, which can be used to procure what they want. For a centralized state, there are other advantages with currency because it is entirely a creation of the state and creates in the state certain powers to change its value and to reorder the relative value of goods to each other. Another advantage of a currency is that it creates the ability of consumers to save. While one could save cigarettes and vodka as a store of value, many consumer goods tend to deteriorate over time which makes them a poor store of value. Currency, obviously, does not have that problem.
In the case of clothing and food, two things which will perhaps vary the most due to personal preference and the individual nature of the purchaser, any coupon or voucher or other device for proving the entitlement of the recipient to a certain amount of a good is a form of currency. It becomes something for which other goods can be traded, even if the voucher is non-transferable because the recipient can always agree to procure something in exchange for something else. This is inefficient and leads you back to a situation in which a more universal currency is a more satisfactory solution.
The Soviet Union did a number of dumb things with its economy and I suppose it isn't completely inconceivable that the ruble could be abolished in favor of some kind of fixed allotment system. But it would be stupid and wasteful and would exacerbate what was already an economy with serious structural problems. The results of the experiment would not be good.