Re: a better basis for global analysis

1/4/2001, Richard N Hutchinson wrote:
    > Arrighi thus concludes (echoing Abu-Lughod 1989) that the
    world is most likely to move, not to a world empire, but to
    a system of multiple centers, with different rules of the
    game, which he encourages us to try to imagine.
       > it provides a much better systemic basis for thinking
    about global change than one that focuses exclusively on the
    details of IMF/World Bank/MAI/etc agreements, let alone on
    fascinating but unverifiable conspiracy theories


Dear Richard,

This is the WSN list, and it comes with the built-in premise
that the line of analysis you subscribe to is the correct
one.

I know that.  You know that.  We all know that.

My purpose in joining this list is to ENGAGE that premise
and get some useful discussion and mutual englightenemnt.

You simply restate your premises, and cite authorities and
offline sources. That is not discussion.

What are you afraid of?  Don't you have any arguments to
back your case?

It is a sign of desperation, and a lack of arguments,
when one descends to cheap shots and trivializes another's
position, as you do above.

My analsis is not based on unverifiable conspiracy theories,
and it does not focus exclusively on the details of the WTO
et al.  It includes a discussion of the dynamics of
capitalism, the history of capitalism, the historical
relationship between the state and capitalism, and the
historical dynamics that have caused that relationship to
shift.

Why are you unwilling to discuss the issues?

rkm