I feel like this thread has become more of an outlet than for actual political discussion.

The Potato, that system doesn't really seem fair. Why should billionaires not be allowed to vote? Surely there would be too few of them for their votes to matter very much. And if you want to punish billionaires, why not make it so that there can't be any? Make a limit on how much money people can earn, and anything over that limit must be invested in some new company (that's not related to them), donated to charity, or taken as tax.

And instead of making it so that certain people cannot run for office (I don't really understand why this is the case), make it so that all campaigns are publicly funded, so that billionaires and well-connected people don't have much advantage over people who are relatively unknown. And instead of keeping a political system where one person can hold a huge amount of power, why not change the system entirely? What about a parliamentary system, with a limited presidency, and a multi-tiered meritocratic legislature and executive panel?

I did vote for communist representative for my city's elections even though I am not a communist. I knew they wont get majority anyways.

It was one of a time vote and I am not going to make it a habit of mine. At that time I did not really have an idea who to vote for. 

And if you want to punish billionaires, why not make it so that there can't be any? Make a limit on how much money people can earn, and anything over that limit must be invested in some new company (that's not related to them), donated to charity, or taken as tax.

That is a good Idea, When I first had started becoming socialistic that Idea was always kinda in the back of my head, then I forgot it.

Congress passes a law preventing companies from firing employees on the basis that they are part of an industrial union.
Congress then passes a secret bill that creates an industrial union secretly run by the government.
With this new industrial union formed workers from all markets join it. (The workers control the government, the government controls the companies through the workers, Essentially socialism)

The industrial union controls everything pertaining to the economy, it prevents companies from paying low wages by threatening to move all of its workers to other companies and dismantling it.
Companies that benefit society more then others will have more workers given to it and will be given more gov't funds.
Companies that don't benefit society as much will lose workers and be given less gov't funds. (This is to keep competition and development of technology.)
Workers can work there way up like in a capitalistic society but as they get higher up they lose political power.
The Industrial Union would also be funded with taxes (Of course).

make it so that all campaigns are publicly funded, so that billionaires and well-connected people don't have much advantage over people who are relatively unknown.

Here's an addition. A person running for a political position will first sign-up, a committee will examine all of the applications to weed out un-qualified applicants (We don't want a 100,000 people campaigning it would be a nightmare) after several levels of weeding-out the committee will get to maybe it's last 5 or 10 candidates, these candidates will have their campaigns publicly funded by taxes, Several elections go by like a tournament, On the first election whoever has the least votes is removed from the ballot of the next election, it goes on until there are only 2 people left on the ballot and whoever wins this ballot gets the position.

I am not a communist.

I'd like to be a communist, but I don't feel like the political parties we have right now (at least in Italy) follow any of the basic principles of communism. Also because having a communist society is a perfect utopia, maybe not even Soviet Union was.
My dream is having the capitalism gone, since it is the cause for most of the decay of this civilization (air/water pollution, unhealthy food, toxic materials that still haven't been replaced etc.), and so creating a new and more modern type of economic system. But, since all this is impossible, I'm seeking for the political parties that mostly have new and intelligent ideas, regardless if they are from "right" or "left".

Anyway, someone might have something to argue about, but I'm slightly intrigued about having an authoritarian society. I'm not saying that Fascism/Nazism was good, absolutely not, but maybe it's because I have very little faith in humanity, and I'd like to have a more "clean" and "regularized" world, rather than an anarchy. I know there are many people that are awesome, very intelligent and with an open mind, this forum is the living proof, but still letting everyone decide what it's good and what it's not for its country is very dangerous. I would prefer an authority of a few and very competent people, not even hundreds of politicians with very little competences and that only care about themselves. 

Edit: Here is mine too. 

I'd like to be a communist, but I don't feel like the political parties we have right now (at least in Italy) follow any of the basic principles of communism

Glad to see I'm not alone I don't affiliate with any party, I just identify as a communist.

These results say I'm more like anarcho-communists, though I'm more on the traditional communist authoritarian side (I've heard this test is infamous for having a libertarian bias). Government, or some sort of large organizing body, is necessary if we want to do space exploration, large infrastructure projects, international science cooperation, etc., which I believe are the most important tasks an advanced society must undertake.
I believe people are inherently good, and that the evil we see being done in our world by ordinary people is because of capitalism, which is designed to bring out the worst in us. It allows us to give in to temptation, since doing so makes corporations profit and prevents society progressing socially. Not even mentioning what capitalism has done to the environment, native peoples around the world, and the wars that have been fought in its name, it's clear it's got to go.

Call me Ghandi.

My dream is having the capitalism gone, since it is the cause for most of the decay of this civilization (air/water pollution, unhealthy food, toxic materials that still haven't been replaced etc.)

Not even mentioning what capitalism has done to the environment

I think these issues have very little to do with which system of government is in place.  Communist China isn't exactly a gleaming symbol of clean air and water or of protecting the environment.  Neither was the Communist Soviet Union.

Communist China isn't exactly a gleaming symbol of clean air and water or of protecting the environment.  Neither was the Communist Soviet Union.

Anyone heard of the Aral Sea?

yeah soviet union was responsible for that sea shrinking.

I also identify as a communist. A militant one if you want

I really hate that political spectrum graph. It is as unscientific and misleading as IQ tests. But I gived it a try for curiosity this is what I get:

By the way, I'm also glad to see I wasn't alone. Also I noticed It's quite common to find communists at international debates, forums, conferences, but quite unusual to find when you are in a american dominated debate. This points out to different history than Europe or South America, or at least a very different interpretation and education.

I think these issues have very little to do with which system of government is in place.  Communist China isn't exactly a gleaming symbol of clean air and water or of protecting the environment.  Neither was the Communist Soviet Union.

Communism is not only about goverment is about economics. I wouldn't say communist China nowadays considering their economic system. The vast majority of communists parties in the world dont' consider it like that. It has the name and part of its history, but today the communist party of china has even a neoliberal and right-wing dominant current inside. China is a very good example in fact of a capitalist economy in many senses, in the exportation, in the aproach to the explotation of natural resources, in the aproach to labor rights and in the incomes.

The issue with the Soviet Union is simple, countries make bad decisions and worst decision when there's scarcity (the aral sea drainage provided a powerful cotton agriculture in uzbekistan, something that has a been very important for their economic growth and resource soverainty), in that times there was little counciousness about the enviroment at that scale.
There is no modern communist party in the world that don't care about the enviroment, new problems, new ways of learning about the issues humanity has to overcome, and therefore more adapted politics and programs.

The Soviet Union made a mistake. A big mistake. Is it relatable to the communist ideology or economic framework? no.
But in the capitalist society a great number of hazards to the enviroment is quite relatable indeed to the economic system. The fact that a firm has to grow and compete in a voracious anarkist market has generated a lot of mechanisms that incetivize the local explotation of resources and a very narrow view of the future needs of the company. Only the state intervention has allowed to create mechanism that make companies to adhere to the ecological view, and even with that the vast majority of states are well more fragile than certain corporations. The coorporations that can avoid those mechanism would avoid them, simply because they would have incentives to do so, gaining predominance in the market. A way to avoid been sanctioned by the government is to deploy your industry in a third world country with way less expense and the capability to exploit more easily certain resources, where there are less problems in doing so because there is a diferent legal framework or directly because there is little law enforcement against these actions. And what If they decided in a gesture of kindnes not to do so? well doesn't matter because that coorporation would be less advantageous than other one that do so, and therefore by simple natural selection the companies that have certain behaviours get selected and dominate the population of companies of that industry. This is a system not a metter of god and evil. If there are mechanisms that allow these kind of behaviours then they would occur systemically.


Sorry for my bad english, I realize that I explain myself better in more physics-related debates hahaha

I think politicians shouldn't be allowed to take large donations from corporate interests, and that financial transparency in politicians should be a rule, not a rare virtue.

I think a combination of direct democracy (using the internet to vote directly on issues and to elect officials to carry out decisions) and UBI with a monetary incentive to vote (a voter's bonus, or a way of making voters stakeholders in a decision) would both provide a much needed social safety net and encourage participation in government.

This isn't relating to any particular existing government, rather it's a general feeling of how the world could be better governed.

A high-turnover council is elected as necessary to vet web voting for brigading and to ameliorate conflicting decisions.

Military spending is de-prioritised in favour of science, education, infrastructure and healthcare funding.

For anyone wanting to make more than Basic plus the bonuses, capitalism is still an option, though I favour strong financial and environmental regulation to prevent too much money being taken out of the public purse and further damage to the environment. Capitalists shouldn't need the sky to be the limit to sense opportunity.

Can this society exist today? Probably not.
Can I see a way for this to come about? Not realistically.
Do I think this sounds better than what we've got? Yeah.

We've gotten so distracted by the puppet show and focussed on 18th century concepts of governance - it doesn't have to be a godsdamn team sport. There can be more than two points of view, and there middle ground between them - compromise exists!

Mars will probably end up being the crucible of the first 21st century model of governance. That'll be interesting to see.

I supposed you could call what I describe above a "capped capitalist direct democracy"?

I think these issues have very little to do with which system of government is in place.  Communist China isn't exactly a gleaming symbol of clean air and water or of protecting the environment.  Neither was the Communist Soviet Union.

In fact, even if there's a Communist government, doesn't mean Capitalism doesn't exists (it is the basis of our entire society). But I guess I'm quite ignorant about the term itself, so don't take my words too seriously. 

It's okay, I wasn't trying to argue against either of you so much as to say I don't think it's so simple that Capitalism is to blame for those problems.  FFT had a lot of good insight to add.

I don't think it's so simple that Capitalism is to blame for those problems

Yeah I agree. It's a very complex issue and the big disgrace of the left in some countries like my own is that it has embraced to many times a romantic, idealist and little scientific aproach. But hopefully this view would change. And its great to see there are people that have a more rational and materialistic point of view in all these issues.