Without a more precise description of the society you’re depicting I’d have to say the question can be answered with both yes and no.
Just to clarify my understanding of the setting of your described world:
- Food, housing, transportation and information services are made
available for every human individual to consume without the need for
anything in return
- Money exists but is not a motivating factor when people make
For 1) to be valid the means of production are likely entirely mechanised and roboticised. If every human did nothing the goods and services would still be made available. This demands that non-humans produce the – to some extent even highly technological – goods and services.
With 2) – and here is where things get really interesting – it has been made quite clear that the goods and services supplied are of high quality. Paying money for higher quality goods and services than the ones supplied for free is not something any one would do. In fact, 2) is stated irrespective of 1) which would allow it to apply to a wider range of goods and services, and indeed challenge our view of value and what’s important in life.
For 1) to have developed from contemporary society, I can see three ways for that to have come to pass.
- A highly advanced, compassionate, irrepressible entity has come
from outer space and started producing the listed goods and services. This is leaning more towards fantasy-fiction.
- New technology for material production has become so accessible that every
household has gotten its own omni-manufacturing unit with an unending power supply,
but society has been left very similar to what it is today. This is not a very plausible scenario as the development would throw the market into copmlete disarray.
- The technological advancement in material production has required an
intricate web of infrastructure and cooperation across the planet,
and has happened gradually over time, allowing other institutions to develop
Additionally, 1) severely restricts the presence of organised physical force. If 1) is to be truly valid, no one should be able to systematically prevent anyone else from accessing the listed goods and services.
The concept of class
According to the Weberian school, class in a broader sense is derived from three sources: wealth, status and power.
Assuming some form of private property is still a thing, the influence attributed to owners of means of production (capitalists) would be somewhat diminished by 1) in general, and by 2) in particular. Money is central for a capitalist because of its universally translatable value. Yet, money seems so inflated by 2) that any capitalist unable to produce every part or link or module in a production chain with their accumulated capital is rather powerless because the money they would (if they even could) pile for selling these parts would not be enough to buy any missing one. A capitalist’s role as someone to deeply envy or as an oppressor therefore seems unlikely.
Through status one can have influence by being someone people trust or look up to. However, it can be considered volatile and inconsistent. What someone might find awe-inspiring someone else might detest. Trends might swing and the source of the status deplete. The person who holds the status is ultimately reliant on other people to maintain their influence.
Through power one can be in a position where a decision or action has consequences beyond the ordinary. Power is derived from being responsible for a certain task and is just like status tied to that exterior something. Someone might through their position be able to shut down a power station or create new laws which would allow them to exert influence. However, their power is derived from their position. To stay, one would have to do so through sheer force (yet not enough to also be able to disrupt 1)) or by being irreplaceable – being the only one who can perform the required task for instance.
Oppressive high class aristocracy
An aristocracy is a form of government where a few privileged individuals decide upon a political agenda to rule their subjects. Such a government would theoretically be possible in your setting, however its existence might be slightly difficult to motivate. I am going to assume the aristocracy is powerless to have the conditions of 1) discontinued (otherwise there can hardly be unlimited abundance). And any form of government is reliant on its ability to enforce its political decisions. This means the aristocracy is weak enough to be unable to change the means of production yet strong enough to keep a vast majority of well fed and housed, mobile and informed throng of oppressed and exploited citizens in check. Autonomous, indestructible, kind-hearted, one minded super-robot workers and a heavily militarised/influential, power hungry, psychopathic elite? I don’t know…
The other option I suppose would be that high end technology capable of producing the goods and services listed is so easily accessible that no matter what the aristocracy did, the populace could still feed, house, transport and inform themselves. I fail to see how there could be any problems whatsoever in such a world.
All in all, an oppressive aristocracy coupled with 1) and 2) seems quite far-fetched.
Sufficient for class struggle
Aristocracy or not, there is still the prospect of inequality and a flamboyant, resourceful clique as a motor for class conflict. In my interpretation of this fictitious society economic gain is not a motivating factor and physical violence is not an available tool within the eventual class struggle. This leaves status and non-physical power as both means and end. Those with the highest class would then be famous people with important duties, maybe charismatic and reputable politicians or influential mega star artists. Such positions alone might be so sought after that acquiring or maintaining them would bring about class strife. Remember however that everyone’s survival is guaranteed as well as some luxury. No one seemingly has to work but the responsibilities of a politician might be hefty, and the attention a mega star receives might be intolerable. The politician would have to work more than non-politician and the artist would have to deal with things like heavy media attention or millions of mobile admirers with loads of time on their hands.
On top of this there are two important consequences of 1) and 2) which will add to the speculative nature of this question: free time and the view of value.
If everyone’s basic needs and wants are guaranteed, no one would be required to work. This means that people would have an unprecedented amount of free time on their hands. Actually, I fail to see how it would ever have been seen or available for study in the history of mankind, especially not in a wide sense. Imagine the amount of self-fulfilment billions of people could embark upon and all that it would entail. Its effect on class might be noticeable as well. The upper class, the famous and powerful, would have to work hard to maintain their position or they would be replaced whereas the lower class could live and love and thrive without any input in the form of work. It seems to me that the lower class would live the “good life”, a life without struggle, with security, with freedom; a satisfying, happy, easy life. To me it sounds then as if power and fame are punishments or necessary evils which everyone would try to get out of.
Lastly there is the deeper implication of 2) “possessing [money] is no longer a motivating factor”, that money – a universally translatable medium of exchange and store of value – exists but has no or very little value. The accepted medium of value has very little value. Objective value no longer exists. So almost nothing is sold. Or bought. The implications of this are almost breath-taking. And, to be frank, makes the discussion above largely irrelevant. It would mean that status and power or whatever else desirable can’t be bought. For this to be true a radical shift in human behaviour must have taken place. I am uncertain if this was the OP’s intention but it would be rather decisive.
Highly sentient beings will likely always be able to make decisions and take action of questionable ethical nature. However, in an environment where every individual’s survival, relative freedom and social recreation is guaranteed and where society has been severely de-monetised powerful oppressive forces would find it difficult to exist, and even if they did it should not take long for them to be phased out.