This is literally the argument for why communism hasn't worked. Without private property it was impossible to motivate people to do some kinds of work - taking on risk, organizing production, and some kinds of innovation - to a sufficient degree and without many drawbacks.

If someone found a way to motivate people to do those kinds of labour properly - and force doesn't work well for many reasons, so it would have to be non-violent, but without having to allow ownership of capital and wealth concentration, why wouldn't we consider it? The Communists of old thought they found a way to do so and were wrong, but if someone today found a way to do it that doesn't cause many drawbacks, it would be foolish and dogmatic not to consider it, and if it works well, implement it.

Capitalism automatically allocates more resources to those who uses the resources well via markets mostly choosing to buy better or cheaper products. That works much much better than allocating resources via committees or strict laws, until you have a better solution for resource allocation any replacement for capitalism will fail.

However this also means that as long as we keep the resource allocation thing mostly intact you can manipulate all other aspects of it, like adding lots of taxes, giving aid to the poor etc. None of that messes with the main feature of resource allocation, which is why Scandinavian countries still have good economies.

Ah, but you have to make the difference between resources. There's capital, which I agree are often better allocated in capitalism, but other kinds of resources aren't problematic.

Which is pretty much what I said :). Organizing production was a proxy for capital allocation.