youve hit on the key issue.
There *has* to be a right to *use* property (or it would just lie there). That right can exist only with people, either the owner (because he made it, traded it etc) or by another means.
What other means? A popular vote in the town hall? I can just see popular people being put up, just as spokepersons obviously, and their supporters would add their muscle to their case, just to ensure 'the people' are serviced ofcourse - and oops, theres the statist socialism again. Village hall, city council, national govt or global new world order - it doesnt matter, if the right to use property is decided by other people (than those who made/traded it) then you can bet squabbling over that orange will come about, and the person who grew the orange or made the pots or invented the technology is just thrown into the mix, or maybe he'll become a player - holding back his ability in return for favours like some sick version of 'trade'.
And ofcourse there will be the prolific "capitalist acts between consenting adults" where those who dont agree with the various ways in which the right to use property is being decided venture forth outside of the 'rules'.
: Sure you could buy the junk and commodities that are produced to pacify the people who've really got nothing but you'll always be a tenant in someone elses houes, on someone elses land, using someone elses transport.
The same feeling will be felt by anyone who 'lost the vote' in direct democracy or got the shaft in statist socialism - except this time the very people who made the house possible could be voted into not being able to use the property ("oh but mr builder, young sally and her children should have it, your not needy enough yet") and get peeved.
And the only way to aviod the above is for all (or the overwhelming majority) of poeple to be always in agreement with their democratically alloted life.