1. The questions that were historically enunciated as referred to the party’s ideology and doctrine, to its action in the various historical situations, and therefore to its programme, its tactics and its organizational structure, are to be regarded as a single body; thus, in the course of the Left’s struggle, they have several times been set to order and enunciated without ever introducing changes. The party press will be committed to the reproduction of texts; for now, it is sufficient to recall some of them, cornerstones of our doctrine:
(a) Complete Theses of the Abstentionist Communist Fraction of the Italian Socialist Party, of 1919;
(b) Rome Theses, i.e. of the II Congress of the Communist Party of Italy, March 1922;
(c) The positions taken by the Communist Left in the International Congresses of 1922 and 1924 and in the Enlarged Executive of 1926;
(d) Theses of the Left at the illegal Conference of the Communist Party of Italy, May 1924;
(e) Theses introduced by the Left at the III Congress of the Communist Party of Italy, Lyon 1926.

2. In the above and in many other texts that will be utilized, and which will be included, in a perfect continuity of positions, in the volumes of the "History of the Communist Left", are constantly vindicated and reaffirmed certain former results, considered as heritage of revolutionary Marxism; it is there also that its classic and programmatic texts, such as the Manifesto of the Communist Party and the Statutes of the I International of 1864, are set store
    The programmatic cornerstones of the I and II Congresses of the III International founded in 1919 are likewise vindicated, as well as the fundamental and preceding theses of Lenin on the imperialist war and on the Russian revolution. At the same time the Left, having taken a clear stand, has as part of its heritage the historical and programmatic solutions that stemmed from the dénouement of great crises faced by the proletarian movement; in them the theory of counter-revolutions and the doctrine of the struggle against the ever reviving opportunist danger is summarized.
    Among these historical cornerstones bound, both to the sound theoretical outlook and to the great battles of the masses, are, for example:
(a) The ridding, wanted by Marx, of petty-bourgeois and anarchist currents, which endangered the basic principles of centralization and discipline to the centre of the organization, and the condemnation of the harmful concepts of autonomy of local section and of federalism among the sections of the world party; in such deviations lies the cause of the shameful ruin of the II International, founded in 1889 and shattered in the 1914 war.
(b) The judgment of the glorious experience of the Paris Commune, given in the texts that Marx wrote on the International’s behalf, which confirmed the parliamentarist methods being obsolete, and applauded the insurrectional and terrorist vigour of the great Paris movement.
(c) The condemnation from the true revolutionary Marxist Left, on the verge of the first great war, not only of revisionist and evolutionist reformism, risen in the whole International with the aim of dismantling the vision of a revolutionary catastrophe, peculiar to Marxism; but also of the reaction to it – apparently proletarian in the "workerist" sense and in perfect agreement with far right Labourism – that was the revolutionary syndicalism of Sorel and others. Such a current, on the pretext of getting back to the violence of direct action, condemned the fundamental Marxist position on the need for a revolutionary, centralized party and of a dictatorial and terrorist proletarian State; which are instead the sole instruments able to lead the class insurrection to victory, and to strangle any attempt at revenge or corruption by the bourgeois counter-attack, thus laying the foundations of the classless and Stateless communist society which will crown the victory on an international scale.
(d) The criticism and the relentless demolition, made by Lenin and by the Left of all countries, of the ignoble betrayal of 1914; the most lethal and ruinous form of such betrayal not being so much the shift under the patriotic national flags, as the return to deviations – contemporary with the birth of Marxist communism itself – according to which both programme and action of the working class are to be framed within the limits of the bourgeois canons of freedom and of parliamentary democracy, boasted as eternal conquests of the early bourgeoisie.

3. As for the following period in the life of the new International, the correct theoretical diagnosis and historical expectation of new opportunist dangers taking shape in the life process of the early years of the new International, constitute an unforgettable heritage of the Communist Left. In order to avoid heavy theorizations, the above facts must be developed by a historical method. The first symptoms – denounced and opposed by the Left – occurred on tactics, with regard to the parties from which the communists had organizationally parted through scissions; and consequently also on wrong steps on matters of organizational structure.
    The III Congress had correctly noted – already in 1921 it could be noticed that the great revolutionary wave, which followed the end of the war in 1918, was cooling down, and that capitalism would try counter-attacks, both in the economic and political fields – that having formed communist parties, strictly bound to the programme of violent action, of proletarian dictatorship and of the communist State, was not sufficient if a great deal of proletarian masses could still be approached by the influence of opportunist parties, which we all considered to be the worst instruments of bourgeois counter-revolution, and whose hands were stained by the blood of Karl and Rosa. Nevertheless , the communist Left did not accept the formula making the condition, for revolutionary action (deprecable if a Blanquist initiative of small parties), that the "majority" of the proletariat should be won (among other things we never knew if it was a question of the true wage-earning proletariat or of the "people", including the property owning peasants and microcapitalists, artisans, and any other petty-bourgeois). Such a "majority" formula, with its democratic taste, aroused a first alarm about the likelihood of a rebirth of opportunism, under the usual flag of homage to the deadly concepts of democracy and electoral counting (unfortunately history demonstrates that such an alarm was justified).
    From the IV Congress, end of 1922, onwards both the pessimist expectations and the vigorous struggle of the Left keep denouncing the dangerous tactics (united front between communist and socialist parties, watchword of the "workers’ government") and the organizational mistakes (according to which parties had to grow, not by means of an increased membership of workers that abandoned other parties with social democratic programme, action, and structure, but by fusion with whole parties, or portions of parties, after negotiating with their headquarters, as well as by admitting as national sections of the Comintern the alleged "sympathizer" parties, which was a clear error in the federalist sense).
    In a third direction the Left denounces since then, and always more vigorously in the following years, the towering opportunist danger; the third argument is the International’s method of internal work, by which the centre (represented by Moscow’s Executive) uses towards parties – or sections of parties falling into political errors – methods, not only of "ideological terror", but above all of organizational pressures; which is a wrong application in the beginning, and thence becomes a total falsification, of the correct principles of centralization and discipline with no exception. Such a method of work grew worse everywhere, and particularly in Italy in the years following 1923 – when the Left, which the whole party followed, displayed exemplary discipline by handing the leadership over to the rightist and centrist comrades, appointed by Moscow – because both the spectre of "fractioning", and the constant threat of expelling from the party a current artificially accused of preparing a scission, were seriously abused, with the sole purpose of allowing the predominance of the dangerous centrist errors within the party’s policy. Such a vital third point was thoroughly discussed in international Congresses and in Italy, and is not less important than the condemnation of opportunist tactics and of federalist-type organizational formulae. In Italy for instance the centrist leadership, while accusing the Left leadership of 1921 and 1922 of dictatorship over the party (which instead several times demonstrated to be in total agreement with the Left), kept using the spectre of Moscow’s orders, even daring to exploit the formula of "international communist party"; as was done in 1925 during the pre-Lyon polemics by Palmiro Togliatti, real champion of the Communist International’s liquidationism.

4. It is worth showing how the demonstration of the correctness of such criticisms and diagnoses is to be found in historical events; although it was then easy to object to the Left, which denounced the warning signs of a mortal crisis, that it was merely based on doctrinal worries.
    As for the tactical question, it is enough to recall that the united front was born as a method to "ruin" the socialist parties, and to leave their leaders and headquarters deprived of the masses which supported them; while such masses were supposed to come over to us. The evolution of such tactics demonstrated that it contained the danger of leading to a betrayal and to an abandonment of the classist and revolutionary bases of our programme. The historical sons of the united front of 1922 are today well known: the popular fronts, created in order to support the second war of democratic capitalism; the anti-fascist "liberation fronts", which led to the most open class collaboration, extended to declaredly bourgeois parties; and in the above is summarized the monstrous birth of the last opportunist wave, upon the corpse of the III International. The first organizational manoeuvres of the 1922 fusions laid the bases of the total confusion existing in the present parliamentary and democratic policy of all parties, including the communist party, which thus tore to pieces Lenin’s theses on parliament, of the II Congress. Since the Russian party’s XX Congress of 1956, while getting rid of the world organizational unity in order to admit the various socialist, workers, and even popular parties in this or that country, what the Left foresaw was done, that is the abandonment of the programme of proletarian dictatorship, reduced to a peculiarly Russian phenomenon; and the introduction of democratic and "national ways" to socialism, which only indicate a relapse into the same infamous opportunism of 1914; or rather, as it is operated in the name of Lenin, into a much more base and infamous one.
    Finally, the accusation of the method of work in the International and of the wrongful pressures from above, while seeing in 1926 the misleading offer made by centrists of "a bit more democracy within both party and International" – which was rightly rejected by the Left, which remained on its opposition positions, though without threatening until then (1926) to leave the International or to split parties – is historically confirmed by the ferocious Stalinist terror, employed in order to devastate the party from the inside, by means of State forces; that is in order to crush, through tens of thousands of murders, a resistance which was led in the name of a return to revolutionary Marxism and to the great Leninist and Bolshevik traditions of the October revolution. All those positions outlined a correct prevision of the future course of events, although unfortunately the force relations were such as to allow the third infamous opportunist wave to overwhelm everything.
    The Left indicated in time the right terms of the relations between parties and International, and between the Russian party and State. The reversal of such positions is to be historically related to the issue of the relations between Russian state policy and proletarian policy in all other countries. When, under Stalin, who in the Enlarged Executive of Autumn 1926 laid all his cards on the table, it was declared that the Russian State would give up the idea of making its future conditioned on a general class engagement, able to overthrow the power of capital in all other countries; and when it was stated that the watchword in internal social policy was that of "construction of socialism" – which in Lenin’s language only meant construction of capitalism – then the further course was a foregone conclusion; and it was confirmed by the bloody conflict through which the opposition, too late arisen in Russia and crushed just in time under the loathsome accusation of fractionist work, was exterminated.
    The above is to be related to the delicate question that – once a suffocating apparatus was imposed, in the name of a falsified centralism, on all parties which had in their ranks fervent revolutionaries – it was relied, not so much on the influence of huge names like Bolshevism, Lenin, October, as on the common economic fact that Moscow’s State had the means by which the officials of the apparatus were paid. The Left saw all these shames in a remarkable silence, because it knew what other tremendous danger would have been the petty-bourgeois and anarchist deviation, with its chatterings: You may see that the end is always the same; where there is the State, where there is power, where there is a party there is corruption, and if the proletariat wants to free itself, it has to be done with no parties and with no authoritarian State. We knew that too well, though Stalin’s line meant, since 1926, the delivery of our victory to the bourgeois enemy, such aberrations of middle-class would-be intellectuals are always – we can now refer to an experience more than a century old – the best guarantee for the survival of hateful capitalism, by snatching from the hands of its executioners the only weapon able to kill it.
    To this painful influence of money, which will disappear in communist society – but only after a chain of events of which the success of communist dictatorship is only the first one – was added the handling of an instrument of monoeuvre that in no uncertain terms we declared worthy of parliaments and of bourgeois diplomacies, or of the very bourgeois Society of Nations, that is encouraging or inculcating, according to the circumstances, careerism and vain ambitions in the persons of petty government officials, with whom the ranks were swarming; so that each one of them would be faced with the inexorable choice, between immediate and comfortable notoriety, coming after a yielding acceptance of the theses of the omnipotent Central, and obscurity, and perhaps poverty, with no chance of reascent, if he wanted to defend the right revolutionary theses from which the Central had deviated.
    It is today indisputable, as from historical evidence, that those international and national Centrals were on the path of deviation and betrayal; according to the unchanged position of the Left, such condition deprives them of any right to obtain, in the name of a hypocritical discipline, an unquestioning obedience from party members.

5. The work carried on to reconstitute everywhere the class party after the end of the Second World War, found an extremely unfavourable situation, with the international and social events of such a tremendous historical period in every possible way favouring the opportunist plan of wiping out the policy of conflict among classes; thus emphasizing before the blinded proletarians the need of supporting the restoration on the whole world of democratic-parliamentarian constitutionalisms.
    In such a terrible position, worsened by the diving of big proletarian masses into the stinking practice of electionism – which was apologized by false revolutionaries in a much more shameless way than that of II International revisionists – our movement, though compelled to go against the stream, appealed to its whole heritage coming from the long and unfavourable historical event. Having adopted the old watchword "on the thread of time", our movement devoted itself to bring back before the eyes and before the minds of proletarians the meaning of the historical results marked along the course of the painful retreat. It was not a matter of being confined to a function of cultural diffusion, or propaganda of petty doctrines, but it had to be demonstrated that theory and action are dialectically inseparable fields, and that teachings are not book-learned or academic, but come (we want to avoid the word experiences, today prey of Philistines) from dynamic results of clashes, occurring between real forces of a remarkable size and extension; also by utilizing the events in which the final result was a defeat of the revolutionary forces. It is what we named, in an old classical Marxist way: "lessons of counter revolutions".

6. Other difficulties, for the setting of our movement on its own bases, arose from overly optimistic prospects; according to which, having the end of the First World War bring a great revolutionary wave and the condemnation of the opportunist pest – thanks to the action of the Bolsheviks, of Lenin, and of the Russian victory – the end of the II war in 1945 would give rise to parallel historical phenomena, and make easy the constituting of a revolutionary party in conformity to the great traditions. Such a prospect might be judged generous, but it was greatly wrong because it did not take into account the "hunger for democracy" that had been instilled among proletarians, not so much by the more or less truculent exploits of Italian and German fascisms, as by the ruinous relapse into the false hope that with the recovery of democracy everything would in a natural way come back on the revolutionary lines; while the central position of the Left is the consciousness that the biggest danger lies in the populist and social-democratic illusions, which are not the basis for a new revolution, supposed to make the Kerensky-Lenin step, but of opportunism, the most powerful counter-revolutionary force.
    For the Left opportunism is not a phenomenon of a moral nature, caused by the corruption of individuals; it is instead a phenomenon of a social and historical nature, owing to which the proletarian vanguard, in place of drawing up in the array that opposes the reactionary front of bourgeoisie and of petty-bourgeois strata – the latter much more conservative than the former – gives way to a policy welding the proletariat with the middle classes. In this sense the social phenomenon of opportunism does not differ from that of fascism, as it is in both cases a matter of subjection to the petty-bourgeoisie, of which the so-called intellectuals, the so-called political and bureaucratic-administrative class, form part – and which naturally are not classes able of historical vitality, but only base, marginal, and bootlicker strata, who are to be recognized, not as the deserters of the bourgeoisie of whom Marx describes the fatal passing to the ranks of the revolutionary class, but as the best servants and select knights of capitalist conservation, living on salaries that come from the extortion of surplus value from workers. The new movement showed even signs of falling into the illusion that there would be something to do within bourgeois parliaments, although with the aim of giving new life to the plan contained in the famous theses of Lenin; thus not taking into consideration the fact that an irrevocable historical result had demonstrated that such tactics could not end – however noble and grandiose they would be in 1920, when history seemed poised – with the perspectives of a revolutionary attack aiming to blow up parliaments from the inside; while instead all was reduced to the vulgar revenge against fascism of Modigliani’s cry "Long live parliament!".

7. As it was a transition and a handing over, from a generation that had lived the glorious struggles of the first post-war period and of the Leghorn scission, to the new proletarian generation that had to be freed from the foul happiness for fascism’s fall and brought back to the consciousness of the autonomous action of the revolutionary party against all others, and above all against the social-democratic party – in order to reconstitute a force, devoted to the prospects of dictatorship and of proletarian terror against the big bourgeoisie as well as against all its hateful instruments – the new movement found, by an organic and spontaneous way, for its activity, a structural form that was submitted to a test that lasted for 15 years. The party put into effect aspirations that were well known in the communist Left ever since the times of the II International, and thence during the historical struggle against the first symptoms of opportunist dangers within the III. Such a century-old aspiration is the struggle against democracy and any influence of this shameful bourgeois myth ; it is well rooted into Marxist critique, in the fundamental texts and in the first documents of proletarian organizations, from the Communist Manifesto on.
    Man’s history cannot be explained through the influence of outstanding individuals who could excel by strength and physical valour, or even intellectually and morally, and political struggle is seen in a false and diametrically opposed way in respect to ours, when it resides in the choice of such exceptional personalities (be it thought to be done by divinities or entrusted to social aristocracies, or – in the most hostile form for us of them all – referred to the votes "count" mechanism, to which all social elements would be finally admitted); history is instead the history of class struggles, and it can be read and used for battles, that are no longer critical but violent and armed, only by making clear the economic relations that arise among classes, within given forms of production; such a fundamental theorem having been confirmed by the blood shed by countless fighters, whose generous efforts were cancelled by the democratic mystification; and the heritage of the communist Left having been erected on such a balance of oppression, exploitation, and betrayal, the road to be taken was only that which, in the course of history, would free us always more from the lethal democratic mechanism, not only in the society and the various organisms getting formed within it, but also within the revolutionary class itself and above all in its political party. Such an aspiration of the Left, which is not due to a miraculous intuition or to a rational illuminism of thinkers, but is on the contrary connected to the effects of a chain of real, violent, bloody, and merciless struggles – even when they ended up in a defeat of the revolutionary force – can historically be found in the series of the Left’s manifestations, ever since its struggles against election coalitions and against the influence of Masonic ideologies, against war suggestions, first for colonial wars and then for the gigantic first European war – which triumphed over the proletarian aspiration to desert the military uniforms and to turn the arms against those who forced the workers to take them up, by waving above all the lewd spectre of liberty and democratic achievements –; and, finally, ever since when in all European countries and under the leadership of the Russian revolutionary proletariat, the Left threw itself into the battle to knock down the prime and direct enemy and target still protecting the heart of the capitalist bourgeoisie, the social-democratic right-wing and the even more ignoble centre which, by defaming us as well as it defamed bolshevism, Leninism, and the Russian Soviet dictatorship, played upon its attempt to create again the trap-door between the proletarian advance and the criminal democratic ideals. At the same time such hankering for getting rid of any influence of even the word "democracy" itself can be found in countless texts of the Left, which we briefly listed at the beginning of these theses.

8. The new movement’s work structure – being evident the historical greatness, hardness, and length of the task in the years to come, that could not promote dubious persons or those desirous of a rapid career because it did not promise, but instead excluded, historical victories within a reasonable lapse of time – was founded on frequent meetings of envoys coming from all the organized party sections, where no debates or polemics between contrasting theses, nor anything that could arise from nostalgia for the anti-fascist disease took place, and where nothing had to be voted or deliberated; there only was the organic continuation of the heavy work of historical handing over of the fertile lessons of the past to the present and future generations, to the new vanguards that will emerge from the ranks of proletarian masses, ten, hundred times struck, deceived, and disappointed, which will finally rise up against the painful phenomenon of purulent decomposition of the capitalist society; they will at least feel in their living flesh how the extreme and most poisonous enemy are the ranks of populist opportunism, of bureaucrats of big unions and parties, and of the ridiculous pleiad of alleged cerebral intellectuals and artists, "committed" or "engaged" in earning some loaves for their harmful activity, by entering through the traitor parties the rich classes’ service like bootlickers, and by serving as well the bourgeois and capitalist soul of the middle classes posing as "people".
    The above work and dynamics are inspired by the classic teachings of Marx and Lenin, who presented the great historical revolutionary truths in the form of theses; and our theses and reports, liege in their preparing to the great Marxist traditions of over a century, were reverberated by all those present, thanks also to our press communications, in all the peripheric reunions of local groups of regional meetings, where such historical material was put in contact with the whole party. The objection that they are perfect texts, irrevocable and unmodifiable, would be a nonsense, as in the course of these past years we always declared within the party that they are materials under continuous elaboration, destined to assume an increasingly complete and better form; and in fact from the ranks of the party have always come, with an increasing frequency and even from the very young elements, remarkable contributions, in harmony with the Left’s classic lines.
    Only from the development of the work in such a direction, which we have just outlined, we expect the quantitative growth of our ranks and the spontaneous adhesions to the party, which will make of it one day a stronger social force.

9. Before leaving the subject of party formation after the Second World War, it’s worth reasserting a few results that today constitute characteristic points for the party, as they are de facto historical results, in spite of the limited quantitative extension of the movement, and not discoveries of useless geniuses or solemn resolutions of "sovereign" congresses.
    The party soon realized that, even in an extremely unfavourable situation, where its sterility is at its utmost, the danger of conceiving the movement as a mere propaganda press and political proselytism activity is to be avoided. The party life must always, everywhere, and with no exceptions, integrate, by an unceasing effort, into the masses’ life, as well as into all their displays, even if influenced by directions contrasting with ours. It is an old thesis of left-wing Marxism that we must work in reactionary Trade Unions in which workers are present, and the party abhors the individualistic positions of those who disdain to set foot in those backgrounds, going so far as to theorize the breakdown of the few and weak strikes that today’s unions dare to call. In many regions the party has by now an already remarkable activity in this sense, although we always have to face serious difficulties and contrary forces, superior to us on a statistical point of view. It is important to assert that, even where such work has not yet had a noteworthy start, the position is to be rejected for which the small party is reduced to closed circles, with no connections with the outside, or limited to find adhesions only in the world of opinions, which is for the Marxist a false world if it is not treated as a superstructure of the world of economic conflicts. Similarly it would be wrong to divide the party or its local groupings into watertight compartments, active in only one of the fields of theory, study, historical research, propaganda, proselytism, and trade union activity; as in the spirit of our theory and of our history they are absolutely inseparable and in principle accessible to each and every comrade.
    Another historically conquered point, which the party will never give up, is the clear-cut rejection of any proposal aiming to increase its strength and its bases by convening constituent congresses, together with those countless circles and grouplets, swarming everywhere since the end of the war, that elaborate distorted and disjointed theories, or whose only positive statement is the condemnation of Russian Stalinism and all its local derivations.

10. Going back to the history of the C.I.’s first years, we remind that its Russian leaders, who had, as background, not only a deep knowledge of Marxist doctrine and history, but also the outstanding results of the October revolutionary victory, conceived the theses such as those of Lenin as material to be accepted by all, though admitting that a further elaboration of them would be developed in the course of the international party’s life. They never asked for putting to the vote, because everything had to be accepted by unanimous adhesion and to be spontaneously confirmed by the whole of the periphery of the organization, that in those glorious years was living in an atmosphere of enthusiasm and triumph.
    The Left did not dissent from such generous aspirations, but believed that, in order to achieve the aims we all dreamt of, it would have been necessary to render more rigorous and strict certain measures concerning both organization and constitution of the only communist party, and to explain for the same reasons all the norms of its tactics.
    When it emerged that a certain loosening in such vital spheres, which we denounced to the great Lenin himself, started producing harmful effects, we were obliged to set reports against reports, theses against theses.
    Unlike other opposition groups, including those formed in Russia and even the Trotskyist current, we always carefully avoided giving to our work within the Comintern the form of claims for democratic and electoral consultations of the party members, or of a claim for general elections of steering committees.
    The Left hoped to be able to save the International, and its vital core rich of traditions, without organizing scissionist movements, and always rejected the accusation of being organized, or of being about to organize itself, as a fraction, or as a party within the party. Nor did the Left encourage or approve the practice of individual resignations from the party or from the International, even when the dispalys of the rising opportunism were becoming more and more undeniable.
    Nevertheless, the above mentioned texts indicate in hundreds of passages that the Left, according to its fundamental thought, has always seen the path towards the suppression of electoral choices and of voting on names of comrades or on general theses, as a path leading to the abolition of another ignoble store of politicians’ democratism, i.e. that of expulsions, removals, and dissolutions of local groups. We have several times enunciated in full the thesis that such disciplinary procedures had to become more and more exceptional, and finally disappear.
    If the opposite occurs – worse if these disciplinary issues serve to save, not sound and revolutionary principles, but just the conscious or unconscious positions of a rising opportunism, as it happened in 1924, 1925, 1926 – it only means that the centre’s function has been run in a wrong way, which caused the loss of any real influence on the party discipline towards the centre itself; and the more a counterfeit disciplinary rigour is shamelessly praised, the more the above is true.
    In those very first years the Left hoped that the organizational and tactical concessions could have found a justification in the fruitfulness of the historical moment, and that they would have had only a temporary value, as Lenin’s prospect expected great revolutions in central and maybe Western Europe; and after them the line would have become again the integral and outstanding one, in keeping with the vital principles; but, as such a hope was gradually substituted by the certainty of an opportunistic ruin – which could not avoid taking its classic forms of extolling presentation and exaltation of the democratic and electoral intrigue – more than ever did the left lead its historical defence, though without undermining its distrust towards the democratic mechanism. Such a distrust was maintained even when we were forced, by electoral combines, within parties, to accept the game; and, while such tricks had to be welcomed when made by fascism, which thus enabled workers to reply to the provocation by taking up arms, they had to be repudiated when impudently perpetrated by the fathers of the new opportunism, on the point of reconquering both parties and International; though if in theory it could give ironic satisfaction hearing them say: We are ten and we want to submit you, who are a thousand; as we were far too sure they would end their shameful career by cheating workers’ votes by the million.

11. It has always been a firm and constant position of the Left that, if disciplinary crises increase and become the rule, it means that there is something which is not going right in the party’s general leadership, and it is worth studying the problem. Naturally we won’t disavow ourselves by committing the childish error of seeking salvation in a search for the best people, or in the choice of leaders and semi-leaders, all of which we hold to be baggage characteristic of the opportunist phenomenon, historically opposed to the march of left revolutionary Marxism.
    The Left staunchly defends another of Marx and Lenin’s fundamental theses, that is, that a remedy for the alternations and historical crises which will inevitably affect the party cannot be found in constitutional or organizational formulae magically endowed with the property of protecting the party against degeneration. Such a false hope is one amongst the many petty-bourgeois illusions dating back to Proudhon and which, via numerous connections, re-emerge in Italian Ordinovism, namely: that the social question can be resolved using a formula based on producers’ organizations. Over the course of party evolution the path followed by the formal parties will undoubtedly be marked by continuous U-turns and ups and downs, and also by ruinous precipices, and will clash with the ascending path of the historical party. Left Marxists direct their efforts towards realigning the broken curve of the contingent parties with the continuous and harmonious curve of the historical party. This is a position of principle, but it is childish to try to transform it into an organizational recipe. In accordance with the historical line, we utilize not only the knowledge of mankind’s, the capitalist class and the proletarian class’s past and present, but also a direct and certain knowledge of society’s and mankind’s future, as mapped out by our doctrine in the certainty that it will culminate in the classless and Stateless society, which could in a certain sense be considered a party-less society; unless one understands by ’party’ an organ which fights not against other parties, but which conducts the defence of mankind against the dangers of physical nature and its evolutionary and eventually catastrophic processes.
    The Communist Left has always considered that its long battle against the sad contingencies of the proletariat’s succession of formal parties has been conducted by affirming positions that in a continuous and harmonious way are connected on the luminous trail of the historical party, which continues unbroken along the years and centuries, leading from the first declarations of the nascent proletarian doctrine to the society of the future, which we know very well, insofar as we have thoroughly identified the tissue and ganglia of the present avaricious society which the revolution must sweep away.
    Engels’ proposal to adopt the good old German word Gemeinwesen (common being, i.e. social community) in place of the word State, was connected to Marx’s judgment on the Commune, which was no longer a State, just because it was no longer a democratic body. After Lenin, such a theoretical question does not require any further explanations, and there is no contradiction in his brilliant remark that, apparently, Marx was much more of a "champion of the state" than Engels, as the former better explained the revolutionary dictatorship being a true State, provided with armed forces and repressive police, and with a political and terroristic law, which does not tie its own hands with legal traps. The question is also to be referred to the two masters’ unanimous condemnation of the German socialists’ revisionist idealization, in the foolish formula of "free people’s State"; which not only sends out a stench of bourgeois democratism, but above all reverses the whole notion of inexorable conflict between classes, which involves the destruction of the bourgeoisie’s historical State and the erection on its ruins of the more unmerciful, eversive proletarian State, indifferent to eternal constitutions.
    It was not therefore the matter of finding a "model" of the future state in constitutional or organizational features; which is just as stupid as the attempt to erect, in the first country won to dictatorship, a model for other countries’ socialist States and societies.
    But equally futile, maybe more so, is the idea of constructing a model of the perfect party, an idea redolent of the decadent weaknesses of the bourgeoisie, which, unable to defend its power, to maintain its crumbling economic system, or even to exert control over its doctrinal thinking, takes refuge in distorted robotic technologisms, in order, through these stupid, formal, automatic models, to ensure its own survival, and to escape scientific certainty, which as far its epoch of history and civilization is concerned can be summed up in one word: Death!

12. Among the doctrinal processes, that we can for a moment name philosophical, included in the tasks of the Communist Left and of its international movement, is the development of the above mentioned thesis, that we supplied with quite a few contributions, by carrying out a research that demonstrates its consistency to the classic positions of Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
    The first truth that man will be able to gain is the notion of future communist society. Such a structure does not require any material coming from the present infamous society, with its capitalist, democratic, and paltry Christian features, and does not regard the alleged positive science, created by the bourgeois revolution, as a human heritage on which to be founded; as for us it is a class science, to be destroyed and replaced piece by piece, just as well as religions and scholastics, belonging to previous forms of production. In the field of the theory of economic transformations that from capitalism – the sturcture of which we well know, and official economists completely ignore – lead to communism, we do as well without the contributions of bourgeois science; the same contempt we have for its technology, which is highly praised, above all by the imbecile opportunist traitors, as on the path of great conquests. In a totally revolutionary way we set up the science of society’s life and future outlet. When such a work of human mind will be perfect – which won’t be possible before the killing of capitalism, of its civilization, of its schools, of its science, and of its technology worthy of thieves – man will, for the first time, be able to write also both science and history of physical nature, and to know the great problems of the universe’s life, to start with what is still called creation by the scientists won back to the dogma, till all its infinite and infinitesimal implications, in the so far undeciphered future.

13. The above and other problems are the field of action of the party we keep alive, not unworthy to get into the same line of the great historical party. But such concepts of high theory are not resources, able to solve petty disputes and small human doubts, which will unfortunately last as long as the presence of individuals – surrounded and dominated by the barbarian environment of capitalist civilization – among our ranks will last. Thence such developments cannot be used to explain how the opportunist-free party’s way of living takes place, as it lies in organic centralism and cannot arise from a "revelation".
    Such an evident Marxist thesis can be found, as a heritage of the Left, in all polemics against the Moscow Centre’s degeneration. The party is at the same time a factor and a result of situations’ historical course, and can never be seen as an extraneous and abstract element and able to dominate the surrounding environment, without falling again into a new and faint utopianism.
    The fact that within the party there may be an inclination to give life to a fiercely anti-bourgeois background, widely anticipating the character of communist society, is an old enunciation, made also, for instance, by the young Italian communists in 1912.
    But such a worthy aspiration cannot lead us to consider the ideal party as a phalanstery, surrounded by insurmountable walls.
    The screening of party members in the organic centralist scheme is carried out in a way we have always declared to be contrary to the Moscow centrists. The party continues to hone and refine the distinctive features of its doctrine, of its action and tactics with a unique methodology that transcends spatial and temporal boundaries. Clearly all those who are uncomfortable with these delineations can just leave. Not even after the seizure of power may we admit forced membership within our ranks; all terroristic pressures in the disciplinary field are therefore out of the correct meaning of organic centralism; they even copy their vocabulary from abused bourgeois constitutional forms, like the faculty of the executive power to dissolve and reassemble elective formations – all forms that for a long time we consider obsolete, not only for the proletarian party, but even for the revolutionary and temporary State of the victorious proletariat. The party does not have to display, to those who want to join it, any constitutional or legal plans for the future society, as such forms are only proper to class societies. Those who, seeing the party continuing on its clear way, that we attempted to summarize in the these theses to be set out at Naples’ general meeting (July, 1965), do not yet feel up to such a historical level, know very well that they can take any other direction turning away from ours. We do not have to take any other steps on the matter.