What we still call Left, even in our days, draws from the same, exactly, philosophical source as modern liberalism. The existence, exactly, of this primordial matrix, common in the thought of the Left and in the Enlightenment Liberalism, explains, in my opinion, the reasons that led the former to essentially endorse the spirit of the latter. These reasons are fundamentally "ontological", they are connected with the very nature of the Left.

Therefore, the very demands of a substantial struggle against liberal utopia, and the emerging class society that inevitably generates, currently make a radical rupture with the ideological fantasy of the Left politically necessary. I fully understand that the idea of such a rupture poses serious psychological problems for many, because the Left, since the 19th century, has mainly functioned as a substitute religion (the religion of "Progress"); and we know well that the primary function of all religions is to offer their faithful an identity and to ensure peace with themselves.

Indeed, I have no difficulty imagining that many readers will consider this attempt - to radically confront the philosophical proposal of primitive Socialism with the various programs of existing Left and Far Left - as a useless paradox, if not an irrational and dangerous provocation, which aims to serve the interests of all enemies of the human race. On the contrary, I believe that this way of thinking is the only one that gives a logical explanation to the cycle of successive historical failures and defeats that marked the past century; failures and defeats whose causes remain obscure to many, in this strange era of ours. In any case, it is the only, almost, possibility that remains for us, and that has not yet been explored, if we truly want to help humanity escape, while there is still time, from the impasse of Adam Smith.