ABSTRACT: On 28th April 1963 elections were taking place in Italy, in which the Radical Party, just come out of a crisis, did not participate. However it distributed a pamphlet containing the evaluations of several intellectuals on the crisis of the Lefts, and on the ways to overcome that crisis with a "truly revolutionary" process capable of renewing the Lefts of the "Milan-Paris-Düsseldorf triangle", that is, of Europe. Among the intellectuals called to give their opinion, apart from Pasolini, there was Elio Vittorini, who had just re-entered the Radical Party. The pamphlet is a rarity today; Pasolini's text is therefore practically unpublished.

Dear friends, I cannot answer you as a politician, nor as a citizen who makes politics the practical side of his life. I can answer you as a sensitive, naive person, by nature and also for the circumstances that drive me back, to the borders, where a man is alone with his fears. A wave of irrationality is therefore sweeping over the rational construction which I tried to build myself, through reading and public life, during the '50s. Which "truly revolutionary" indications can I give the "lay and democratic forces of the Western world" (that is, to the bourgeois who have not forgotten they are human beings)? I believe there is no way, no revolutionary possibility, no alternative other than the traditional ones of the labour struggle. Today more than ever. The question is understanding what has been lost in these years, in the "internal forms" of this battle, giving us a feeling of deception or dissatisfaction, etc.

Stalin, it is obvious. The only way - as far as I'm concerned - to "repropose truly revolutionary indications" is to historically clarify, with a a stubbornly exhaustive energy, this "error". This is the reason for all the unrest in the European communist parties, and therefore all the dissatisfaction in the "Left-wing independents", and finally, for so many neo-liberal, radical temptations: because no one, to this moment, has understood and explained the reasons for that error with that historical exactitude which exhausts and desecrates facts. Thus, we continue dragging this error behind us in thaws that are no thaws, in overcomings that are no overcomings, in new courses that are no new courses. Tactics, diplomacies in the official field - because unfortunately, even a revolutionary party has its official character - noble crises in the ideological field, etc. As for me, I would envisage a sort of "Diet", with the participation of all the communist parties, to find a historical, ideological, philosophical

explanation for Stalin, all together. Until Stalin is not understood, he will live on, and until he will live on, communism in the world will lack the force to "repropose itself as a real revolutionary indication". As I said, I cannot see any other indications. And with this, I'm also answering your third question: negatively.

I do not believe in bourgeois oppositions, I do not believe in bourgeois pacifist movements and in the "new Lefts", even though I have all the possible sympathy for them that a civilized person (and a sensitive and naive person, as the bourgeois I am) can feel. I don't like playing the part of the practical, realist and pessimist man: but I must honestly say that I do not believe in the transformation of the "military structures into civil service", through the battles of the bourgeois pacifists (I was about to say: activists).

The second question is the most difficult one to answer: but it is also one that goes beyond my competence...I could interpret the replacement of the "Genova-Milan-Turin triangle with the "Milan-Paris-Düsseldorf" triangle as the practical, factual equivalent of the replacement of capitalism with neo-capitalism. The ideological and terminological earthquake that this updating implies doesn't seem, in my opinion, to be dominated as yet by the European communist parties. There is something obsolete about them: their language reminds me of...the fifties. Take a look at the statistic, propagandists, terminological fervour of the parties in power: what a new, optimistic, smart look...They are the masters of the change from province to Europe. And it is exactly here that a dialogue, a relationship, a synchrony in battle among the communist parties and the "bourgeois at the opposition" would come extremely useful: the latter could have the force, in a freer way, to update things, to formulate them in a more modern a

nd unconventional manner. The workers' class-based movements run the risk, as I said, of being rather "classic", and need an internal renewal battle; they need to "name" things, somewhat altering those meanings, the achievement of which has cost such a great effort, such a battle and so much blood.

Yours cordially