RE: Free Will (or Free Willy)

please, i beg of you, someone do the kindhearted thing and take me off this 
list.

thank you


>From: "Boles (office)" <facbolese@usao.edu>
>To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
>Subject: RE: Free Will (or Free Willy)
>Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 16:05:14 -0800
>
> > 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
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.