Prime Minister Meloni caused a massive controversy in Parliament when she stated that she did not at all agree with the Ventotene Manifesto as the foundation for the Europe that is being built today.

We will not delve into the political debate her statement sparked—some say it was a political trap set by Meloni, others see it as a sign of fascism, and there are countless other interpretations.

Here, we simply aim to examine what the Manifesto actually stated. It is often cited as the foundation of European unity, yet few have truly read it. Hopefully, the controversy has at least prompted more people to do so.

The primary author of the Manifesto was Altiero Spinelli, who wrote it while exiled on the island of Ventotene in 1941. At the time, Europe was engulfed in World War II, though the conflict had not yet reached its most tragic peaks. The Manifesto envisioned a European union that would permanently overcome nationalism, a force historically responsible for countless tragedies.

The issue raised by Meloni is whether the European model proposed in the Manifesto is still relevant today.

Spinelli was a non-Stalinist communist, critical of the Soviet Union and searching for a new path to establish communism. However, he remained a staunch communist and presented a Marxist project—what else could he have done?

Yet today, no major European political party identifies as Marxist. How, then, could a communist vision serve as the foundation of the European Union?

We are not debating whether Spinelli’s project would have been better or worse than the current one—the objective fact is that it is no longer feasible. In reality, it never was.

Despite the uproar in Parliament (one MP was even seen crying!), no one has actually advocated implementing Spinelli’s ideas.

Let’s briefly examine what the Manifesto actually stated.

Its historical perspective is explicitly Marxist: it views history as a class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Nationalism is seen merely as a bourgeois deception designed to distract the proletariat from its true interests. European unity, therefore, is framed as the affirmation of proletarian internationalism—essentially, nationalism would only be truly overcome in a communist society. As long as capitalism exists, nationalism will inevitably resurge.

More importantly, in the very words cited by Meloni, the Manifesto argues that the people are not yet mature enough to make real choices. Therefore, true freedom would only come after an unspecified period of party dictatorship, with the party serving as the proletariat’s self-awareness. Only then could genuine democracy emerge.

Spinelli’s vision was what communists at the time called “popular democracy” (meaning communist regimes), as opposed to what they referred to as “bourgeois democracy” (representative democracy).

No one—neither then nor now—believes that a united Europe could be based on the first model. Instead, everyone takes the second model for granted.

This is not a question of whether the Manifesto’s ideas were right, wrong, or viable—it is simply a fact that they no longer exist in today’s Europe.

Some argue that the Manifesto proposed an alternative (albeit flawed) path to European unity. However, it is not merely a different approach—it is a model that no one supports anymore.

So why, then, is Spinelli still widely referenced, even in institutional settings?

In reality, alongside scientific history, there is also what we might call national history, which is shaped by myths.

It often happens that certain figures are considered the founders of political systems that ultimately turned out to be radically different from their original vision.

For example, Mazzini is hailed as the apostle of Italian unification, yet the Italy that actually emerged was entirely different from what he envisioned. Similarly, it is practically taboo to criticize Garibaldi, yet he ended up exiling himself to Caprera. Nevertheless, in the post-unification period, every Italian town rushed to name streets, squares, and monuments after them.

Likewise, independent India regards Gandhi as its Mahatma (great father), yet modern India has little in common with his dream.

During the Italian Risorgimento, events such as the Challenge of Barletta, the Balilla uprising, and Pietro Micca’s sacrifice were celebrated as symbols of national consciousness—even though they had little to do with it in reality.

In a broader and more pervasive sense, the Spinelli case is linked to that of the Partisans.

It is often said that the partisan movement is the foundation of the Italian Republic. While it included diverse factions—from monarchists to anarchists—the strongest and most dominant group was the communist faction. Their primary goal was to establish communism and overthrow capitalism, which they equated with fascism.

However, what actually emerged was a capitalist (or liberal, if you prefer) society—a so-called “bourgeois democracy” aligned with the capitalist West.

In truth, Italy’s democracy was primarily shaped by the Yalta agreements and the American occupation, which shattered the prevailing partisan dream of a proletarian dictatorship.

Ultimately, every nation needs its myths.

Challenging these myths is not politically convenient—national history often holds more weight than scientific history.