by Marcello Veneziani

Once upon a time nationalism. Then after the Second World War the nationalists also changed. The myth of Europe as a Nation emerged (launched by Filippo Anfuso), which was the flag of us kids in the early seventies, Adriano Romualdi wrote a short pamphlet on European nationalism, Maurice Bardéche was co-founder of the European Social Movement, the national right was inspired by the Europe of De Gaulle's homelands, the revolutionary right followed Jean Thiriart of the European Nation who founded Young Europe, like Mazzini.
In short, nationalism for the right was a thing of the past, glorious memory for some, historical moment for others. Then came the European Union which, after the initial enthusiasm, created inconveniences, mortifications and rejection. And it fueled, especially in the east that has emerged from communism, the desire to renationalize. Identity, sovereignty, patria. But it would be a mistake to become anti-European just because we hate this kind of Non-Europe. Even before the European right in the wake of the French Front National, it was Europe itself that raised the ghost of the return of nationalism. Indeed, according to the dominant media story, European parties and powers, Europe is only in danger: that nationalisms reappear.
Now I would like to look back the problems that Europe suffers today. To begin with, that the global and national economic crisis that we have been experiencing for years has to do with it, the expansion of debt, the black hole of finance, unemployment and new poverty, with nationalism which has waned many decades ago or which today appears in opposition? Rather, they are not the result of governments, policies, global economic choices and transnational markets? And then, the corruption of the ruling classes, their widespread inadequacy, their blindness and inability to guide and represent the real interests of the people, the abyss between the governed and the rulers, between institutions and citizens, they are caused by nationalism or rather arise from parties, regimes, powers, establishment, opposing political models prevailing in Italy, in Europe and globalization? And the present degradation of public life, of our historic centers, of the culture and education of peoples, environmental emergencies, structural, the family crisis, of work and the south, sexual violence, social injustices are the fruits of nationalism or rather of processes, mentality, governments, ideology, permissive models that are its antipodes? And the decline of countries like Italy, where the dead exceed the born, the old outnumber the young, it is a product of nationalism or rather a complex involution of our global societies in which there is everything but nationalism? Selfishness, dictatorship of the present, refusal of sacrifice and any projection into the future, sense of decadence, loss of identities, eradication, global consumption horizon… O, on the contrary, the demographic bomb in the South of the world has some connection with the alleged nationalism of our country? And the inconveniences, insecurities, the chaos resulting from the uncontrolled flows of illegal immigrants, they were caused or favored by nationalism or the opposite, if anything, nationalism is invoked – rightly or wrongly, everyone will then have their say - as a remedy to stem it, check, reject such flows?
The malaise of our societies and our times has no relation to nationalism. And not even with religion, indicated as the complementary cause of all troubles. If the Europe of seventy years ago, as you say, turned his back on nationalism means that our present is not the child of nationalism.
Let us rather ask ourselves whether the present sovereignism can truly be defined as nationalism, until it merged with fascism, in Nazism and racism. Nationalisms actually belong to eras that are no longer ours, they had a reason to exist in a time and in a situation still characterized by nations and empires in the process of decomposing, they had rival nations as antagonists, certainly not the global system, they dreamed of records that would be impossible today. Nationalisms were born on the brink of announced or suffered wars; they belonged to societies that were modernizing but still strongly linked to their history; they presupposed young and expansive societies, in which the problems were not those of our old and defensive societies. Nationalisms also had plenty of interventionist cultures behind them, today's populisms arise instead from the collapse of cultures, on the dissolution of classes.
Nationalisms arose in the era of the "nationalization of the masses" while we live in the era of the globalization of the masses reduced to the molecular state, that is, atoms, individuals. Nationalism had its history and its reasons, but ours is another time, it has other problems and other prospects.
Sovereignty responds to three current needs: the centrality of the people compared to the dominant oligarchies, as democracy rules; the sovereign decision, the primacy of politics, with respect to finance and technology, to the impotence and inconclusiveness of the apparatus with respect to the processes in progress; finally the protection of identities, of the borders, of local economies and cultures, from the siege of supranational potentates from above, from global competition from the flanks and migratory flows from below. It is a different scenario compared to the era of nationalism. Now one can also oppose sovereignism and consider it a wrong or inadequate response that simplifies too much and is not able to solve problems or if it solves some it generates others. But it cannot be pushed back into the past, relate it to the old ghosts of the twentieth century (except one, the largest, communism that disappeared as if it had never existed) and then conclude that today's evil is nationalism. If Europe is sick, it is certainly not the fault of old nationalism.
MV, The Borghese May 2019