What's the difference?

The way I see it, as simple as I am and as unconcerned as I am with being "right" about these play-as-you-go political labels, I say the difference is night and day. To me, it seems as if communism clings firm to the belief that "wealth" is a set number and is not created, but rather held by people. So government must see to it that every man, woman and child gets to share the pie equally, which results in tiny slivers of stale crap and frustrates people and bankrupts governments and drives earners and innovators out. Capitalism, for everything it isn't, relies on the belief that wealth is what you make it, and that you can make it. It definitely has its flaws, and it can run people over. But at its purest, you can get in there and stake your claim. It's ironic. Progressives tend to be more secular, where something like communism seems to be more like a utopian religious vision of sorts. Capitalism is more like Darwinism, but those same progressives shun it. It's all pointless to me. I don't care what anyone calls it, my belief is that government needs to move out of the way of micromanaging countries. Institute fairness justly, not redistribution or forced equality.

Well not everything you used is an example of one system or another, but I'll work with what you gave me. 1. There is no difference. Modern day American unions have many communist ideals. They believe in "economic justice" which is basically saying everyone they represent should benefit equally from the job regardless of their performance or ability. That, as I'm sure you know, is at the root of the communist system in Russia where everyone was a "comrade". 2. Forcing ideals really has nothing to do with either system of governing. It happens, but you can't force ideals in capitalism without violating the core purpose of a capitalistic society. That's why unions are able to exist in capitalism despite often being the antithesis of it. 3. In capitalism you negotiate a wage with your employer. That wage may be based on hourly work, or on the quantity of work performed so in some situations, people would divide the pay instead of giving it to the company. For example, three guys are hired to paint a house for $60. One of them blows it off and never shows up. The remaining two split the $60 and get $30 each instead of getting $20 each the way they would if the third guy had shown up and earned his keep. 4. You're talking about wealth redistribution. That is a communist policy. Using complicated methods like progressive taxation to redistribute wealth is an in between technique which is more of a socialist tenet. Socialism is basically the midway point between the two. 5. There is no real difference. Trading goods for something as opposed to currency is more common in some places than others, but it's done in all societies. 6. In a capitalist society both have power. In a communist society the government can raid a farm storehouse and steal the fruits of their labor. So those that produce are largely powerless while those that distribute are controlling everything. 7. Aside from private insurance, the examples you listed are largely socialist programs, which again, is a midway point between communism and capitalism. 8. I don't know exactly what you see as the difference between extra work and working harder. Both systems are much different in my opinion, but you're taking a lot of socialist programs which have infiltrated a capitalist country and thinking they are examples of capitalism. I actually think the biggest difference in how things work is not the government, but the governed/ the people. That's why I constantly have to remind people that what may work great in a closed off, elitist Scandinavian country that limits immigration, will not work the same way in a wide open country with thousands of legal and illegal immigrants entering from all over the world on a daily basis.

It only means that we need to refine the systems, or evolve new systems. I agree there are a lot of things that dont make sense in both the systems. But if followed in the right spirit by everybody concerned including the worker, and the employer, there would be little for anybody to complain. Problem is people want to take it easy and not work. They want to make full use of what has been written in words but not follow the sincerity of the idea proponent. In such case, any system, however well thought out, is likely to be abused.