It sounds like you're talking about a reputation-based economic system, where people don't work for money, but reputation instead(like StackExchange). The farmers would grow crops because people would respect the value of feeding others. Truckers would bring crops into the city, because people would respect the truckers for providing this service. Everybody would work for the approval and respect from others. This would superficially function very similarly to a money-based capitalist society, except that people's "paychecks" would be based on how much others believed their work to be worth, rather than how much their work was actually worth. This system would have its checks and balances just like a capitalist one. For instance, if garbage started piling up, people would realize that garbage men provide a very valuable service, and they would begin to respect garbage workers a lot more. This incentivizes more people to become garbage workers, and the garbage problem is alleviated.
There would be some notable problems in such a society. Without money as a fundamentally mathematical mechanism to determine the value of a service, inefficiencies would arise. A farmer could gain much more respect by bringing in 10 truckloads of crops into the city, even if the trucks where only half-filled, because people can't see how full the trucks are from the outside. Another problem is that there would be no incentives for jobs that don't yet exist. If someone wants to provide a valuable service that has never before been provided, there is no existing incentive to do so, as people don't know about it. Facebook would never have been created, as nobody really believed in the beginning that it would have had value. Mark Zuckerberg could have gained more reputation by being a farmer, which is a known and respected trade, instead of doing something that many would have considered useless. Therefore, innovation would stagnate under such a system.