One difference between them is that a dangerous concentration of power is inherent to communism. It's intentional. In capitalism, it's an unintended consequence that can be mitigated by regulations (anti-trust laws, subsidies to startups, etc.)
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletaria...
So that doesn't say anything about how it's unintentional, if anything it just underlines it.
Radical economic egalitarianism implies a (strong) governmental system. If capital can be sold/transferred, capitalism (i.e. concentrated control of the means of production) will naturally recur. If capital cannot be sold/transferred, someone has to decide how it's distributed, and the only body that can do that is a (governmental) central planning authority. That gives the government enormous power, whether it's a dictatorship or not.
> You can have a dictatorial communist system. You can have a democratic communist system.
This is unrelated to what I wrote. The US is essentially an oligopoly, but it's also a democratic republic.
A governmental system is affected by the dynamics of the economic system. After many generations, the governmental system may be utterly different from what was originally established or intended (as is the case in the US).
Please define "naturally", because I don't see anything natural to that. For me, it's a tautology to say that in a capitalist culture and education environment, capitalism will "naturally" occur. That doesn't convince me that the same human genetic pool (which I guess is the natural part ?) in another environment would behave the same way.
You mean in opposition to a system that promotes the concentration of capital, which is power ?
Or do you think non capitalist systems don't have laws and a group of dictators must be at the top?
Empirically, for 100% of the sample size, socialist systems always turned into dictatorships after a few years at most.
Capitalism + regulation + social safety net != socialism.