--On Thursday, September 20, 2001 7:39 AM -0500 Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > > However,
> > >the logic that "US imperialism is to blame for the acts of terrorism
> > >visited upon it"
>
> That sentence is incoherent. Imperialism is not a person but a huge
> complex of institutions and practices which constitute the mode of
> existence of capitalism. One does not commit acts of terrorism on a such
> a complex. One commits acts of terrorism on people. That is what is
> wrong with terrorism. Imperialist practices (probably in this case the
> utter crushing of all other modes of political activity in the mideast
> and much of south asia) generate terrorism. "Blame" is not a very useful
> category in this context.
>
> Carrol
We probably agree to a far greater extent than you would imagine. You're quite correct about the incoherence of the sentence, "US imperialism is to blame for the acts of terrorism visited upon it." Lucidity was sacrificed at the alter of expediency. It should've read something like this, "the imperialism of the US is to blame for the terrorism perpetrated against some of its citizens."
I also agree that blame isn't a useful construct in this context, or any other. The deterministic or indeterministic nature of the world sees to that end. However, when assignations of blame are made, it makes perfect sense to examine whether or not they're rational on their own terms.
-- Luke