"We want to achieve the same goal," is not a good basis for establishing common ground. This is a mistake I see when opposing political sides try to find unity. It is not the end goals that are in contention, but rather the means to those goals that lead to fighting.
Who would argue against a society where everyone is well off enough not to struggle financially? No one, really. But different attempts to reach that goal often conflict with one another.
For example, those who want to have a more free market system as a means to attain prosperity are going to be at odds with those who want to have an expansive welfare system to attempt to reach that same goal. You cannot just agree to try and reach the same goal if you are going in opposite directions in your prescriptions to fix the issues.
Apply this principle to other end goals, and you should see that attempting solutions that clash with each other will just not work.
A less political example is the goal of reaching a million dollars in net worth. One approach is to go all in on a get rich quick scheme. This will most likely not work and just make you poor. But if it does work once, you will reach the goal.
The slow and steady approach is far more likely to succeed, but it is slow. Not only that, but the very implementation of that plan simply cannot work alongside a get rich quick scheme, as you are unable to make such risks.
Unfortunately, with a mixed economy that is neither purely free market nor purely communist, we are always stuck fighting over how far we attempt each of these opposing plans. Obviously a pure communist approach will fail, but in theory should fail quickly enough, which gives people a chance to realize it won't work. The split the baby approach gives commies enough plausible deniability to just blame capitalism for the failings of their plans. You know this because we see them do it every time.
@houseoftolstoy capitalism works because of competition, and "creative destruction", which is just economic darwinism.
Welfare works in exactly the opposite way. It subsidizes the economically weak and unfit, even incentivizing people to stop being productive and "game" the system, while burdening the productive with higher taxes, diversity quotas, etc.
At the end of the day, a society that demands it's government be responsible for their welfare is submitting to slavery.
