Will the left ever desist in renaming its enemies, to redirect the magnitude of such wasted strengths toward actually fighting them with the fists of the exasperated and the teeth of the hungry?
Nah. The historical phantom of Left liberation—that is, as an historical doxa that is to come to material realization—has always been ontologically null in the francoliberal revolutionary wake. It has always existed, except in explicitly (as opposed to more implicitly) colonist instances, as an assumed event[u]al reality, as opposed to an eminent one, outside of the bourgeois sphere of reality. There has neither been a “de-fanging”, nor lost objet petit a, of the Left—above all, that messge is what it should have incorporated.
It is a perfect example of Oedipal Complexity going through its self-deceptive maneuvers; it needs not to unite, but to acknowledge there is no actual unity to mobilize. I do not mean this in a Deleuzian “multiplicity” sense—but for a practicability’s sense, it can certainly be tolerated and employed in this context.
Who represents whom? This has never been fit for an answer, because it has always counted on the question never having to be seriously presented. Upon which, we are inevitably drawn back into the problem of autoenunciation…because the “left” is no more a thing than the outcome of theory encountering counterproductive forces: disaggregated defense mechanisms of multifarious groups that occasionally overlap in their (response to) scattershot targeting.
And, whether this is true or not, it’s heuristically valuable enough as a politically-cynical guarantor of practical efficiency that we, as the very question presupposes, cannot afford to do otherwise.