> There are quite a few leftists, in fact probably 10s of
> thousands, which is why the problem they all face is
> soemhow coalescing into some sort of provisional loose
> coalition out of which may come both more impact on
> national affairs and a clearer basis for theorizing what,
> in these post-2d Inernational post-3rd international "A
> Left" might look like.
To the extent that I can make sense of the distinction between "leftists" and "the left," it sounds like Hegelian mysticism to me: the whole is true. But how can you account for what happens in the interim, between political eras (or political sequences, as Badiou calls them in a move similar to yours), between the internationals? Is what is happening now not political, or must some negating threshold be reached for an era to be called political?
> Of course not, but that's not the issue. The issue is
> whether leftists can widen their circle of relations
> through participation in (or creation of) efforts (known
> to be futile) to impact on national policy. This is how
> every significan popular movement in modern history has
> developed: through the repeated futile efforts of
> scattered resisters to coalesce around various attempts to
> constrain ruling powers.
>
> I'm not pushing anything at all original: merely
> summarizing universal practice of the last 200 years.
No, not the universal practice. Movements don't always move by expansion; sometimes subtraction makes a movement. And the best ones don't seek their end in influencing national power. Also, while I do think "futile efforts" are valuable -- at least when the compared to their opposite, the measurement of success -- it's wrong to say that "every significant popular movement...coalesce(s) around various attempts to constrain ruling powers." Feminism, for instance, did effect a blockage of male, state, and democratic power, but that was secondary to its political desire, a consequence not a cause of its actions.