A lot of that would suggest using force to be achieved and raises a whole bunch of other questions regarding what would happen if people don't agree with that outlined above.

Yeah, those would mostly be the authoritarians; but there's a difference between state violence and individual violence and it's important to keep that difference in mind.

As we already have accumulated property now, how would you get people to give up whatever property(capital) they now have without using force?

Actually to be honest they are doing it already. When the banks went tits up in 2005-8 the US government became the owner of the vast majority of the residential real estate in the US. Similar crises were brewing in every country in the world, and it kept bailouts on the order of tens of trillions of dollars to rescue them. Had they not bailed out the banks, the crisis would have gone much further, and the government may have been able to step in and take a much larger share. And then, like the One True Ring they would have to be willing to give that property up, to not be a centralized powerhouse themselves. The only entity that needs real close attention, and possible violence to topple it, generally, are governments.

What if people, such as workplace employees and the such, disagree that their workplaces are exploitative or that hierarchies are naturally bad, and continue on as before?

Then that workplace continues as before -- even the threat of their being able to do so should suffice to keep things honest.

Would trying to remove people's control over such property not be considered as attempting to implement some form of authority, and if it weren't, why wouldn't people ignore it/actively oppose it?

Right now the courts enforce property rights. Without that force there would be effectively no control. It takes a whole system of thuggery to make property work - it's not a matter of "what happens if people ignore it" so much as removing that thuggery from holding it up.

What incentive is there to create/innovate/improve if there is no competition and no individual achievement, i.e. why work as hard as the next guy if I receive the same as him?

There is always incentive to create/innovate. This is a natural part of being human. Especially in the days where we are increasingly connected to eachother, globally there is pride in being the first person to figure out how to improve the rest of the world, and it's often one person to come up with an idea that makes the difference.

In fact, under capitalism, creations/innovations/improvements must jump through 2 bottlenecks: 1) they must make things more efficient/better in some way 2) they must advance the interests of the class of people with control of capital.

The incentives to innovate have to brush up against the protection of the interests of Power. For example: compare the distribution of R&D into viagra related drugs vs. ebola. In one case, you have rich western hedonists with money to spend, in the other mostly poor africans who have been at the pointy end of a couple of centuries of exploitation. Would the incentives be perfectly balanced without this bias? No, but we can do a lot better than putting more R&D behind the interests and needs of wall street bankers than the entirety of the minimum wage working population.

What if people don't want to clean toilets?

Do you live on your own? You want to clean toilets because you need to use toilets.