[WS:] It is a rather unfair interpretation of what I post to this list, really. First of all, "da people" is a mockery of populist rhetoric and ideology, not the ability of people to make rational decisions. Where you and I part ways is that you seem to believe that most people have objectively defined common interests, linked to their socio-economic class position, which the left does or ought to represent. I, by contrast, believe that there is not only a multitude of various interests that have little if any commonality, except perhaps on a very superficial, abstract level, but these interests - their formulation, salience, importance, emotional coloration and congruence (or lack thereof) with other interests is highly contingent on social context. In other words, the same person can strive for better wages in one situation, and support what he/she believes is morally right even if that means sacrificing some of his/her income in another situation. It all depends how the issues are framed, in what context and by whom. In a way, it is similar to views on human intelligence: your view is analogous to a belief in g, mine otoh, to a belief in multiple intelligences not reducible to each other.
As I see it, the intellectual poverty of the left wing discourse lies in its unidimensional economic determinism and populism - it boils down to a belief that most people have common interests defined by their class position, and if they do not act on those interests it is either because they have been bamboozled by the elites or otherwise see no point in engaging in the political process controlled by the elites. It is a convenient argument that blames the left's political insignificance on a force majeure and absolves it of the difficult intellectual task of finding out how people actually think in different social circumstances in favor of received wisdom grounded in a 19th century ideology. I see little difference between this line of thinking and that developed in Milton' Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" except the value signs being swapped. I have a deep aversion to monotheisitic religions (I think polytheism makes a much better literature) and monistic systems of thought reducing all the world's diversity into a single cause or force. I find diversity, contingency, and human agency far more interesting, and that is why I parted ways with the Marxist left.
Wojtek