The gray scale between political extremes is really so often ignored that it is almost scary. The real issue comes down to concentration of power in one subsection of the population. Be it a communist/facist/what have you dictator, plutocracy, or even entrenched political elite backed by corporate lobbying.
Yeah... that sounds really good in conversation. But let's pick it apart.
Any political system is going to concentrate power because otherwise any act will require buy-in by vast numbers of people. Imagine a committee of 300 million and you'll see why democracy delegates power.
The problem then is more that these groups are the wrong people (selected badly) or that there's not a clear communication to them as to what they should be doing. I'd say both of these are huge problems in our society.
Before taking from "the rich" while on this income-redistribution crusade, find out how many others they're already supporting, by contract or charity or responsibility.
Even not riding a train without a ticket is ultimately enforced with a gun pointed to someone's head, as is paying taxes.
I'd be in favour of taxation that works like air friction does, the faster you move, the more friction increases, reaching a hard limit at some point. Instead of the opposite, the super rich and corporations effectively buying loopholes.
The ultimate solution to such problems remains intact: vote. Lobbying and voter persuasion is quite effective, so vote out those who create/preserve such loopholes and vote in those who close them. For all the whining consternation people exude about such problems, very few actually direct that energy toward meaningful solutions; the super rich and corporations have learned to direct such energy and exploit it accordingly.
Not that I disagree with that part, though of course one problem is what a politician promises before election, and what they do afterwards, is often not correlated at all.
But, as you might guess, there's a catch. Any political system picks up inertia like a ball rolling downhill. Thus whatever direction you go in, you keep going in... and so unsubsidized egalitarianism usually becomes subsidized (as in the 1960s in USA and Europe) and moderate conservatism eventually gets more conservative as it did under Reagan. The reason for this is that, believe it or not, political systems aim at visions of society. The more power they get, the closer they get toward realizing that vision, which is actually what the people who believe in them want.
Conservatives and liberals, by the way, have radically different visions for what they want out of society:
http://www.volokh.com/2014/01/17/jonathan-haidt-psychology-p...
http://chronicle.com/article/Jonathan-Haidt-Decodes-the/1304...