[WS:] I fundamentally disagree with the premise of this argument. I do not believe that there is a unified "capitalist class" (other than a statistical construct) - let alone one that is acting as one and pulling all the strings, including alienating "the masses". For that matter, I do not believe that there are "the masses" either (other than an ideological agit-prop construct.) Instead, I believe that there are many different groups with fuzzy boundaries and multiple, ambiguously defined interests, groups that sometimes act together and sometimes against each other. Furthermore, there is no one master plan or oven one overall strategy for most of these groups - but at best interim short term goals as seizing opportunities as they emerge.
Some groups are better at setting these interim goals and seizing these opportunities than other - for a variety of reasons.
In short, it is always muddling through, never following a master plan, ideological proclamations and ex post facto rationalizations notwithstanding. Nothing is preordained or predetermined, everything is possible given the circumstances and strategic skills of the players.
So if you are telling me that the left cannot organize itself into an organized political force capable of pursuing interests of its constituents (which does not mean always winning) - what I see is a bunch of bush league players complaining that they cannot play in a major league because the rules as rigged against them. In a way, they are right - the major league rules require a certain level of skills that pretty much precludes those who do not have them from playing.
PS. There is no capitalism either - only multiple institutional arrangements that vary within- and between- states, arrangements that have some things in common but other things substantially different.
Wojtek