This response is cogent and admirably clear.
^^^ CB: thank you so much (smiles)
^^^^^^^
However, I think it is wrong. Perhaps I should have been clearer that by "left" I mean a political formation whose horizon extends beyond capitalism to socialism (not social democracy).
^^^^^ CB: Ok. That would mean there is no _mass_ left. There are very, very small fairly well organized communist and socialist parties and organizations ( although many "socialists" aim for social democracy). The Bolsheviks were a very small, but well organized left political formation up until the Great October Insurrection. I guess I'm tending to think at this point that it is not worth repeating over and over that the left is not "organized" ( actually very, very small). That's obvious to those in the left as you define it, and nobody in the left asserts otherwise. So , why does Carrol remind us of it so much ? There have been very few mass Communist Parties under capitalism, not surprisingly. Italy had one.
^^^^^
With that clarification made, CB's response to points 1 and 3 below are simply factually incorrect. And with those props removed, his entire argument collapses.
^^^^^^ CB; Except I prefer my definition of "left" to yours, so with the better definition of "left" my 1 and 3 are factually correct; and my whole argument is still cogent ( smiles).
Think of it this way. The trade unions et al are objectively anti-capitalist even as very few trade unionists are communists. Thus, the trade unions et al are objectively left organizations; their struggles are left struggles.