So it's wrong that democracy and Communism are more similar than a lot of people think because you say so?
They might be more similar than some people think, but it is wrong to suggest that they offer no difference in their impact on the life of a commoner. It is wrong to suggest having similarity means having no difference either.
I was born in a communist country while it was still mostly (economically) communist. I'm afraid that I can only offer an anecdote.
My father is one of those people who desires to work hard for a better life. In around '87 he started building a hatchery for the factory which both my parents were working in, with a goal of providing two whole chicken to every family in the factory, on the Chinese new year. Yes, two whole chicken per family per year, for a relatively well doing factory with over 10,000 employees, was a worthy goal just twenty years ago. That was how I know that the poor in America had been richer than at least those in China.
He succeeded in building the hatchery. In fact, just earlier this year, when I was back in China to stay with my family, we had dinner with a friend of my parents who was also in the same factory. We dipped briefly in this topic, with the guest mentioning, amusingly, that how he did not believe my father could do it, but were surprised when he collected the chicken.
A man like my father will be well rewarded in a market economy. Indeed, he was. But that was years later, after the market gradually opened across China. For the hatchery, though, the factory simply replaced him after the first year's chicken was delivered. He was not credited. I think he earned a bonus, somewhere around a few hundred dollars in value, but I'm not sure if he did.
Now, you are free to denounce my anecdote as meaningless, but I can tell you that this theme was a fairly common occurance. My father was actually lucky - he had at least had his voice heard and did what he wanted. Many more simply could not have their ideas going anywhere. As a circumstantial proof, just think about how China's development stagnated for thirty years, with no real improvement in living standards apart from the first few years of communist rule - which was mainly because of the end of war - and how fast China caught up with the rest of the world in another thirty years. Was it because people were dumber in the first thirty years? Maybe, if you count in the numbing effects of propaganda, but that doesn't explain the huge difference. It was because in the latter thirty years people with ideas could actually carry them out, instead of waiting for approval from party officials, whose interests often did not coincide with the life of the commoner.
Of course, even back then it was possible to climb up on the social ladder, the existence of which was officially denied for as long as the communist economy existed. But how? It was not possible if all you had was an idea to build something. No matter how smart you were, you had to have the right kind of skills: skills to thrive in a fierce, autocratic, and sometimes brutal bureaucracy. Only those who mastered the dark arts of politics got to climb up. That was the where the real difference in social mobility lay: forget about becoming a professional, a doctor, or Marx-forbidding, a small business-owner. If you didn't know all those politics tricks, you were stuck at the bottom, hoping for an annual raise of your wage that was worth twenty dollars.
There was no middle class. There was only the proletarians, who had nothing, and the mandarins, who had everything. In the most theatrical irony, Marx's dire predictions of monopoly realised in its entirety not in any capitalist country, but in about all communist ones.
Simple history lesson. Do you know why Fascism was such a bitter enemy of Communism? Fascism had strong business support. That is not the case with the Communist system, so comparing the two systems by saying that in both the elite controlled the state and business is pure BS.
And how was the communist system not the elite controlling both the state and business?
I don't see too many Communists in power in the US. And there were party members who thought differently in Communist parties, imagine that!
Mayhaps that was because few people these days actually believe in communism, rather than that the government was suppressing believers?
The difference between factions within a communist parties are nowhere near the difference between the parties allowed in a democratic country. You are suggesting again that since people also "thought differently in Communist parties", the range of opinions you are allowed to have could be as large as anywhere else. This idea is dangerous: it had been a very powerful argument employed by authoritarian governments against change. After all, if they are as black as us, why do we want to move in their way? As long as you keep thinking all shades of grey is equivalent to black, you will never get any closer to white.
Much of the rest of your reply was, unsurprisingly, still using the same tactics. I do feel like to address this specifically, though:
You have the secret on how to get rich easy and join the elite? Please share. My dream is to become like the Kennedys or the Bushes
I don't have an answer to get rich easily. Very few people had. Many that you would believe that they had did not get rich easily. In all seriousness, you would not understand how hard it is for the rich people to get their success without at least witnessing it. I have. Luxury cars and yachts are as far from this secret you are seeking, as Marx's promise of paradise was from Stalinist Russia.
I do have an answer to how to get rich slowly. Work hard, live within your means, invest smartly, and look out for yourself. Here's a site for you:
http://www.getrichslowly.org/
In case you are tempted to trash this site for being capitalist propaganda, I suggest you hold back and first read the story of the site owner, J.D.
In "praxis" (which I don't think is the right term anyway), any system ever used is about the elite. The elite is just defined differently. In capitalism, it's the wealthy; in Fascism the military in conjunction with the wealthy; in historical Communism the political elite/ party members. 
