Your comments on Socialism vs. Communism are accurate, from what I've been reading.
Basically, Socialism is the notion that the community should own and control the means of production and the distribution of wealth.
Communism takes that idea further, taking most (all?) private property away from the individual, turning it over to the state. Bad idea.
From my view, Communism goes too far, because who can trust the State to behave equitably?
Like Communism, Capitalism can go too far as well, and should be resisted at certain points. For example, there are multi-billion-dollar conglomerates that own many (most?) of the companies in the world. When this happens, you have too much power in the hands of too few.
For example, there is a company called Diageo that owns Tanqueray, Bailey's, Guinness, Smirnoff, and several other brands. This is not unusual (I read a book about these conglomerates several years ago...The bottom line is that it's hard to compete against these investment companies, so we don't see many new brands [except for wineries]).
Isn't it ironic? Competition is at the heart of Capitalism, but Capitalism, taken to its extreme, becomes Communism, where a few big companies take control, making decisions that effect everyone.
Personally, I like a blend of Socialism and Capitalism. It's good to have State Parks, for example, don't you think? And it's good to have the Allegheny National Forest as public lands (rather than some rich dude's 500,000 acre estate).
At the same time, it's important for average people to own their own homes and their own plots of land. Private ownership is critical to personal liberty. It is also critical for the economy.