Re: "Rise of China" and WST

Some very interesting comments:

1) On nations as unit

Isn't Wallerstein's definition of a world-system, as opposed to
world-empire, that the core is defined by "multiple sovereignty"?  The
fact of the system core including not just the U.S., but also the various
W. European nations, Japan, etc, seems basic then, and we are indeed
talking about nation-states as components of the theoretical framework.

Hegemonic cycles involve the rise of nation-states (within the
core? always? relevant to China question...) with not just economic, but
political/military dominance.  (Of course not all world-system theorists
agree on the existence of such cycles.)


2) On sub-national regions in different WS zones

The idea that nation-states could subsume internal regions that are in
DIFFERENT WORLD-SYSTEM ZONES (core/semi-p/periphery) is superficially
plausible, but one that I haven't heard before.  Doesn't it contradict the
"orthodox" theory?  Analyzing China as part semi-periphery (the Northeast
and Southeast Coast) and part periphery (the rural/agrarian interior) is
one way to solve a conceptual difficulty, but do we really want to play
that game?  Do the zones still have validity when the game is over?


3) On "the core shifting west"

Relevant to the "China question," core shifts have usually (invariably?) 
taken place via core wars.  So if the core is going to shift across the
Pacific to China, that will happen via a world war, just as Germany fought
Britain twice, right?  Isn't that what the theory predicts?

I'm not yet convinced that this scenario is a likely one.  I don't see
China as one of the rivals in the (presumed) next CORE war.  Exactly what
the role of China would be in such a core war, I'm not sure -- part of a
coalition on one side or the other, probably.  

RH