Re: Praxis

Steve,

With regard to new hegemons eroding previously constituted sovereignty,
which hegemony dispensed with the inside/outside dialectic altogether,
rather than merely transposing it to a new set of variables?

With regard to hegemonies being products of chaotic conditions - sure, but
chaos can easily (and has historically) had a variety of different
outcomes.  On Arrighi's own evidence, this transitional period is highly
anomalous, since the previous hegemon has retained (overwhelming) military
predominance (and I remain skeptical of projections of "intercore"
conflict - tensions there are, but any more so than in the age of Johnson,
De Gaulle and Mao?  Furthermore, the key agency fostering instability this
time around is the previous hegemon, rather than a purely territorialist
hegemon, as in Arrighi's three previous transitions.

Finally, with regard to the unfeasibility of what you characterize as a 
unitarist centralism at this juncture - I refer you to Negri's actual
theorization of the imperial constitution.

-- 
Boris Stremlin
bc70219@binghamton.edu