It seems that as participants in this discussion we are proceeding from the assumption that with enough brainstorming, willpower, and good faith, or whatever, we can reverse the course of defeat of some or other "left." This seems to me a very cynical and idealistic standpoint, as if folks can breathe into their noses, miraculously implanting a repackaged paradigm in the mind of the unconverted. If only the pure and innocent savages could understand our Christianity, they will truly be saved, etc.
So that seems problematic. Also, it seems that people are getting crosswires for simple lack of a definition for what a "revitalization" of the "left" actually is, and entails. For some folks, this seems to mean a return to the idealism and political eclecticism of the 1960s, some kind of renaissance in "activism." For others, more progressive party politics. For others, the labor movement and dictatorship of the proletariat. So I think it would be helpful if people define their terms. Maybe some people prefer the lack of clarity and anti-intellectualism inherent in pretending they are talking about all vital issues and interests at once, as this is supposedly the way in which to "attract the most people." I don't, personally, though.
Another trend seems to be the tendency to refer to the "left" in completely classless terminology, by talking about "activists," "the movements", "the people," etc. My opinion is that this cannot really be done in a society where the vehicle of power is so clearly an economic vehicle, a class vehicle. While it is completely understandable that many of us (including myself) work for reforms of some type as part of our day-to-day lives, I think it's important to understand here that a lot of the "reforms" necessary for insuring the survival of working people-- especially, for instance, the halving of working hours coupled by wage increases-- are completely unnattainable within a capitalist economic system.
That's about all for now, David