r/romrep

[Post approved by the mods (rule #3)]

Hello everybody! So, I recently published a book on world federalism, and this is a post to advertise it. Here's an introduction.

The union of mankind in a global federation is a good and probably necessary goal, that I don't think needs advocating in this sub. But how do we realize that in practice? Once we have defined the goal, it seems abstract, far from the practical, concrete state of the world. How can we do concrete steps in that direction?

We have around 200 sovereign states in the world now. Many of them are divided by bitter enmity. It seems unlikely for all these countries to agree to form a federal world union at the same time. It seems more reasonable to begin with just some volunteering founder states, to create a core that other countries will join, one by one, when they feel ready.

Does this sound familiar? Yes, it's exactly what the European Union has been doing for almost a century, going from 6 founding states to 27 full members. Already 14 % of world countries! Plus a number of variously associated countries, "half-members".

I'm a European, I've always been interested in politics, and I've always been a strong Eurofederalist. A thing I noticed is that in the federalist field (Euro-federalist, but I think also world-federalist) the force of emotions beyond reason seems greatly overlooked. The federalist idea convinces reason, but it's often lacking on the side of emotions: it is often not liked, or it is even actively disliked, by great masses of people, for "emotional" reasons. Since we humans are rational but also very emotional creatures, this is not a fact that can be overlooked. If we really want to achieve this goal, not just talk about it at the reading club, we must think and act strategically.

The federalist/globalist idea often feels "disconnected from history", while the great majority of people like the idea of having "roots", having a history behind their back to look at, to inspire them with glorious deeds and a sense of shared past.

From a Euro-federalist POV, this yearning is particularly interesting. Because the most glorious thing we have in our shared past, that all Middle Ages looked back to, and that still amazes us for a number of good reasons after two millennia, is ancient Roman history. And the golden peak of the Roman Empire was, in fact, not an epoch of many fragmented opposed nationalisms, but something much more akin to the idea of a world-state of all nations. Athenaeus of Naucratis, a Greek-Egyptian author, wrote at the end of the second century:

>Rome may fairly be called the nation of the world. And he will not be far out who pronounces the city of the Romans an epitome of the whole earth; for in it you may see every other city arranged collectively, and many also separately; for instance, there you may see the golden city of the Alexandrians, the beautiful metropolis of Antioch, the surpassing beauty of Nicomedia; and besides all these that most glorious of all the cities which Jupiter has ever displayed, I mean Athens. And not only one day, but all the days in an entire year, would be too short for a man who should attempt to enumerate all the cities which might be enumerated as discernible in that uranopolis of the Romans, the city of Rome; so numerous are they.—For indeed some entire nations are settled there, as the Cappadocians, the Scythians, the people of Pontus, and many others. [...]

So, here comes the very interesting thing. The European Union is, as its name says, limited (in theory) to geographical Europe, with just little extensions here and there; and that is only a very small part of the world. But by putting an ideal of modern "Romanism" at its core, an ideal of peaceful grand order, progress and unity of humankind, it would logically be open for all countries to join, wherever they are in the world. So a "rebranded" EU, very similar to what we already have today, with just little changes to its structures could concretely initiate the political union of humankind. This is no minor thing, and needs to be explored in detail.

Of course this idea comes with various kinds of problems and shortcomings, that also need to be discussed. I do that in the book.

There would be many other things to say, but this is just an introduction, I don't want to write a monster-long post. For any questions, I'm here. ^ _ ^

————————

The book is available on Amazon, both as ebook (very inexpensive, code B0GZR47C8Q) and paperback. It is also available in Italian (La Repubblica romana, B0GX312KB4). I'm working to have it translated also in Spanish (I hope it arrives before the end of May), and maybe, after that, in Esperanto too...

————————

I don't want to spam other communities, so I created a dedicated subreddit, r/romrep, to discuss and develop this idea of "Romanism". I'll be posting news, excerpts from the book, funny jokes and various other contents. Feel free to join and contribute.

I hope you found this interesting! Thanks for reading this far.

A little-known fact is that the Italian poet Dante Alighieri, the world-renowned author of the Divine Comedy, was what in modern terms we may describe as a world federalist.

In his Latin treatise Monarchia, he argued that the best condition for the progress of humanity lies in a peaceful union of all kingdoms into a single jurisdiction.

Dante wishes for all the known world to be united in peace, with a set of common rules valid everywhere, and then special rules to allow the specificities of "nations, kingdoms and cities", from subsaharan Africa to Europe to the frozen wastes of northern Asia: in modern terms, pretty much a "world federation".

>[...] 5. Habent nanque nationes, regna et civitates intra se proprietates, quas legibus differentibus regulari oportet: est enim lex regula directiva vite. 6. Aliter quippe regulari oportet Scithas qui, extra septimum clima viventes et magnam dierum et noctium inequalitatem patientes, intolerabili quasi algore frigoris premuntur, et aliter Garamantes qui, sub equinoctiali habitantes et coequatam semper lucem diurnam noctis tenebris habentes, ob estus acris nimietatem vestimentis operiri non possunt. 7. Sed sic intelligendum est: ut humanum genus secundum sua comunia, que omnibus competunt, ab eo regatur et comuni regula gubernetur ad pacem. Quam quidem regulam sive legem particulares principes ab eo recipere debent, tanquam intellectus practicus ad conclusionem operativam recipit maiorem propositionem ab intellectu speculativo, et sub illa particularem, que proprie sua est, assummit et particulariter ad operationem concludit. [...]

>[5] For nations, kingdoms and cities have characteristics of their own, which need to be governed by different laws; for law is a rule which governs life. [6] Thus the Scythians, who live beyond the seventh zone and are exposed to nights and days of very unequal length, and who endure an almost unbearable intensity of cold, need to have one set of laws, while the Garamantes require different laws, since they live in the equatorial zone and always have days and nights of equal length, and because of the excessive heat of the air cannot bear to cover themselves with clothes. [7] It is rather to be understood in this sense, that mankind is to be ruled by him in those matters which are common to all men and of relevance to all, and is to be guided towards peace by a common law. This rule or law should be received from him by individual rulers, just as the practical intellect, in order to proceed to action, receives the major premiss from the theoretical intellect, and then derives the minor premiss appropriate to its own particular case, and then proceeds to the action in question.

In his medieval point of view, he imagines an "emperor" at the top of this polity, but for our days, in more modern terms, we may imagine in that place a democratically nominated government and parliament, similarly to what we find in the European Union.

Dante's treatise is particularly interesting in showing how the ideas of a brilliant mind remain intellectually relevant for the organization of mankind even after seven centuries.