RE: Free Will (or Free Willy)

> if you think i'm mistaken, i'd very much like you to point
> me toward some writing that would help me see my error.

Well, actually, I did, by paraphrasing and citing pages of relevant works.

I don't like to be pedantic, but by taking the time to cite, I guess I'm
going to be:

"On the one hand, the state and war-making capabilities of the traditional
power centers of the capitalist West have gone so far that they can increase
further only through the formation of a truly global world empire.  With the
collapse of the USSR and the revitalization of the UN Security Council as
global "monopolist" of the legitimate use of violence in response to the
increasing systemic chaos, it is possible that over the next half-century or
so such a world empire will actually be realized....On the other hand,
...why not, in other words, let East Asian capital dictate the conditions
under which  it would assist the West to power? ...[But] Again, the limited
research agenda of this study enables us to raise these questions but not
answer them meaningfully"   (p. 354-55).

He then goes on to summarize these two possibilities and add a third, each
of which refer to the end of historical capitalism: 1. world empire, 2. some
kind of anarchic market order, 3. self-destruction or systemic chaos.

In addition, he and Beverly it seems to me, say essentially the same thing
in Chaos and Governance in the Modern World System, but they add the proviso
that the movements may or may not be able to "effectively work toward
containing systemic chaos" (p. 289).  (Which itself brings us back to the
issue of agency in a manner quite consistent with IW, but not quite as
open-ended.)   Nonetheless, as with LTC, it is stated that "US adjustment
and accommodation to the rising economic power of the East Asian region is
an essential condition for a non-catastrophic transition to a new
world-order."

In short, there will not be a shift to East Asian hegemony in Arrighi's
scheme.  Rather the current shift in the center of the world-economy is
bringing an end to historical capitalism or capitalism as we've known it.
And again, I find this argument convincing.

I note that on the WSN list there seems to be some consistency in the
contradictory positions of former Bingo grad students: those who take
position #1 above, and those who take position #2.  One might associate
Wagar (who teaches at Binghamton) with #3.  Or perhaps this observation is
too simplistic.

Elson E. Boles
Historical Sociology