The first chapter of a new treatise, linked to the previous ones, on the subject of religions was then presented.

Our current has the ambition not only to indicate a method, but to systematically know the processes, the modalities in the various fields of human experience, that have brought mankind from the origins to our stormy times.

Have we succeeded in laying the essential foundations for this task? We have done something, but ours is a work in progress that we believe can only be accomplished in the communist regime of social life. Should we give up in the meantime? Not at all, our semi-finished works, even if such remain, are not few, and we renounce none of them.

History (istoria, i.e., things seen) to be such, requires evidence, documents, scriptures... These are not lacking, the problem is knowing how to make sense of them for a credible history. Religions have cut off the bull’s head, in general, by claiming to have ‘revelations’, stories delivered by God through prophets, or written directly by Allah.

The human being is oppressed and frightened by religion, which threatens him with the promise of otherworldly punishments, or, as it is preferred to be argued from many sides today, is a consolation without which there is nothing but despair. Religion is both, of course, very cleverly administered by proponents who sometimes threaten, sometimes offer comfort.

If historical reality is in becoming, a distinction must be made between the various forms of society that have followed one another in the course of history. The religious superstructure is not identical in primitive communism, in ancient societies dominated by slaveowners, or in more modern servile and then bourgeois societies. If we disregard these differences, we fall into abusive generalisations without much construction.

There are those who hypothesise the formation of human culture as the gradual emergence of consciousness and its linear evolution up to philosophy as understood by the Greeks to the present day. Our hypothesis is different, not continuous, not linear, but better represented with the diagram of broken lines.

We clearly stated in the thesis that myth and religion correspond to a superstructural and enveloping arrangement that holds for entire epochs.

In the context of crude and primitive communism, the conditions of life are born and developed, which is not simply biological, but cultural. Which elements are to be attributed to the base structure, and, distinguishingly, to the religious superstructure? It seems clear that the two planes coincide, intersect, at least until the need to transmit one’s condition through symbols drives toward the first rites, the first forms of belief and therefore of religious cult. But there is no doubt that in primitive communism there are not yet two contradictory opposing planes, which, on the contrary, will be realised later, particularly due to the class tensions and fractures within it.

Current science, especially that concerning man, is marred by the conflict between classes, to the point that the very image that is prefigured within the party is merely an attempt to escape its potentates. This does not prevent the party from asserting its vision, and thus a reliable reconstruction of past social processes, which postulate the transition to a classless society.

The history of prohibitions, transgressions, and the need to earn a living ‘by the sweat of the brow’ is a constant, differently told and arranged. The very tendency to think of the beginnings now as a happy and positive state of nature, now instead as a fierce war of all against all, constitutes a variant of the same constant, marked by ideological components that are not difficult to decode.

We are not pitting the ‘goodness’ of primitive communism against the feral ‘state of nature’ of other conceptions, we simply adhere to an inevitable and justified reconstruction to project ourselves into the possibility-necessity of the species-society.

The ‘religion’ of early man expresses the perception of the original bond: man is a social being, a bundle of relations that do not come later, but begin immediately. Those who claim the abstract primacy of the individual, on the other hand, follow a path that is neither scientific nor anthropologically tenable.

A dialectical reading allows us to understand how even when certain modes of production change, ways of thinking and representing reality that were dominant in other systems can persist in the most diverse social spheres. This, according to current bourgeois ideology, would mean that religions are always absolutely valid; for us, instead, that the relationship between it and determined social reality is compatible with even millenary ideological residues, for the reason that a magical and superstitious residue is inevitable, indeed vital, for the very survival of certain groups in decline.