They're not feelings, they are definitions. Socialism is based on collection and redistribution. How do you collect without an actual use of force? By definition capitalism doesn't require that same use of force. The difference is that there's a literal gun to my head, rather than just the figurative one that you think is just always there. Not saying I agree with your language, but if that gun did exist then it exists in a socialist society as well. In other words you would have the figurative gun of life and the literal gun of the socialist state. So, no it's not just as much of an enforced system. In fact in a capitalist system you are more than free to create a socialist community within that system.
There's
literally no "literal gun" necessitated by socialism. And I know you think you're dealing in "definitions", but you're simply not: you're providing your understanding of the implications of a system, which is not commensurate with a/the definition of said system.
Any economic ordering of a polity will be coercive to some degree, as whatever form of governance is employed will always include, among its constituents, dissenters to the prevailing institutional system. Democratic systems (which is admittedly a broad swath in terms of actual instantiations) attempt to limit the number of arch-dissenters by including greater shares of the polity in the decision-making; if a polity democratically elects to transition to a socialist system, it's no more coercive than a polity democratically electing to remain under a capitalist system (whatever the precise instantiation).
As the for more specific morality of capitalism versus socialism: you're free to diverge; neither of our moral frameworks are absolute. I personally believe that capitalism (and particularly capitalism sans regulation) is inherently immoral, since I believe—as abovementioned—that capitalism's natural telos is the consolidation of wealth to the holders of wealth, producing a dramatic asymmetry of resources. And I would argue history suggests that I'm not wrong to suppose this. Moreover, as I have said to sturg before, by moral understanding is founded on the belief that it is better to trade some measure of unrestricted liberty (say, the freedom to accumulate massive amounts of wealth; or the freedom to pursue any industry, and the attendant profits, without concern for the negative ramifications to society) for some measure of freedom from want (say, a baseline level of material security for every member of the polity). To this end, I have no qualms in denying material excesses to the few in order to ensure material security for the many—and if the many agree with this position, no "literal gun" is necessary at all for its implementation (assuming you still believe in the overall viability of democratic systems, even a mitigated one such as we have in the United States).
Lastly—and just for shiz&gigs—I'd love for you to demonstrate how one would be "free to create a socialist community within" a capitalist system
without being first forced to participate in the capitalist system.