[lit-ideas] Re: Radical Islam and Radical Americanism
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 10:07:18 +0000 (GMT)
--- On Wed, 3/11/10, Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>mouthing off in Memphis
on a night that I wish I could go out and shoot a lot of Republicans>
Yeh. You'd be advised not to come to Belfast and voice that wish.
Having admitted that you use fascist as an over-extended term of general abuse,
your post suffers from taking a somewhat naive approach to the unavoidable role
of violence (and the threat of violence) in human society - including
democratic society. Even if we were to accept that the central aim of
civilisation is the reduction of violence in all its forms, (as I am prepared
to) that would not mean that pursuit of this aim did not involve calculating
what acts of violence (or their threat) were necessary and justifiable in order
to pursue this aim. There is no contradiction in Popper's stance, for example,
that the central aim of civilisation is the reduction of violence in all its
forms and yet if we do not use force to oppose those who would get their way by
force, not only will they destroy us by force but destroy our tradition of
opposing 'the use of force to get your way' along with us. That tradition is,
historically, one that has only recently
become dominant and then only in some countries; and in the last century it
faced almost lethal attack from the left [Communists] and right [Fascists]. It
is also a tradition that would never been as successful as it has without the
use of force to back it up - we can forget that democracy as we know it was
often in the not-too-distant-past viewed as a pipe-dream.
The use of force in a way that complies with society's rules in a democracy,
which is based ultimately on the power to get rid of the rulers without force,
may be different ethically from that in a society where the use of force is not
subject to democratic control [I don't think Weber would argue against this]. A
problem in the Irish situation is that, at its root, is a question of
jurisdiction and this means the question of defining the appropriate democratic
unit is problematic. Unionists may be a majority in Ulster but they are a
minority in all-Ireland: so on what democratic principle can they have a veto
on whether the jurisdiction of the island should be a all-Ireland or
partitioned? Of course we might say Ireland is a minority, and England the
majority, within the British isles, so that should give Westminster
jurisdiction over all-Ireland (which is what Unionists wanted; they no more
wanted partition than the Free Staters - it was a
compromise). And so on. But it is impossible, when appropriate democratic unit
is itself what is at stake, to take a view that does not appear to beg the
question. Consequently, Irish republicans can and do claim that their violence
is democratically mandated by the results of the last all-Ireland elections,
almost a 100 years ago, and because it is in defence of the legitimate
democratic unit of all-Ireland.
Of course, and sensible republicans know it, this line of thought is now much,
much weaker in the light of developments since Partition and given the clear
majority in all-Ireland who support the Peace Process. The ones who do not
accept this have indeed a "messianic" or religious attachment to the issue of
Irish unity.
Donal
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
