The honorary leader of the Communist Party in my country (also a founder of the former Association of European Communist Parties) recently founded a parallel, anti-imperialist party whose main concern is reclaiming the economy from what he characterizes as an oppressive "global financial system". He claims communism can never be achieved (even on a smaller scale) until the workers are freed from the soft colonization of neo-imperialist forces led by the "new bourgeoisie", defined as a class of multimillionaires/billionaires with direct or indirect control/monopoly on the means of productions, politics and mass media.
The interesting thing is, his message resonates with the voters of smaller anti-establishment parties, even on the right. He only failed to get a seat in the parliament because he refused to form an alliance with another alternative party as it wasn't explicitly on the left (it was a centrist party and together, they had enough votes; roughly the same voter-base was basically split in two equal parts and that failed to get both elected). He later changed his mind on the matter, reaching the conclusion that opposing supranational financial/political institutions is the single most important issue that prevents the self-determination of workers (and by extension communism itself), which is why he's now willing to find compromise with whatever party shares the same concerns -including anti-establishment parties on the right or even the far right.
I don't believe in the horseshoe theory but I'm more and more convinced it is possible for people on the fringe of the political spectrum to get "politicized" (and then, possibly radicalized) because of the same kinds of issues/struggle; they may fall on the opposite side of the spectrum, but that's only because external influences framed the same problems in different ways, and that led them to pursue different/opposite solutions and ideologies.
The only people that benefit from such ideological divisionism are the ones that have no interest in finding solutions for problems that are common to both sides (or at least, to the people on both sides); alternatively, it's people that actively benefit from such problems.
It's unpopular by definition but I genuinely believe the fact we're blinded by our differences is the single most determining factor in the common failure to solve the problems that led people to the opposite side of the spectrum in the first place.
Compro
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.