"rise of china" or systemic chaos?

On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Boles (office) wrote:

> As a former grad student of Arrighi, I can say with some confidence that he
> is fairly clear that the rise of EA is not another hegemonic transition.  It
> is more likely a period of systemic chaos.  In fact, this current shift in
> the center of the w-e is likely to spell the end of capitalism and may usher
> in a world empire (1995:354, 1999: 288-89).  
> 
> Further, Giovanni often characterizes the systemic chaos of hegemonic
> decline (except Holland of course which was not preceded by a hegemon), as
> the "re-making" of capitalism, that is, as a systemic breakdown.  However,
> as noted, the present structural conditions/anomalies of capitalism in the
> era of US hegemonic demise prevent the rise of a new hegemon that could
> guide the remaking capitalism in ways analogous to past hegemons.  The
> center is shifting, but hegemons of old are not being recreated and so a
> fundamental structural pattern of capitalism has ended.

Thank you, Elson.  Finally, someone has stepped up to make the case for a
scenario including the rise of China/East Asia, to hegemonic status, or
even grander, to center of a new social structure replacing the capitalist
world-system!

This is awesome stuff, apocalyptic!  But it would be much appreciated if
the logic that leads to these conclusions was spelled out, if only in the
form of citations (to Arrighi?  from what I recall, this sort of
projection is very sketchy).  

This sounds like an alternative plan to save the world to that presented
by Boswell & Chase-Dunn in "The Spiral of Capitalism & Socialism," which
is based on uprisings in the semiperiphery and the emergence of a social
democratic power bloc in Europe which combines to seize control of the
incipient world government.

But this (Arrighi authored?) plan seems entirely vague as to whether it
might be progressive or just an Asian-centered world empire.  

What I really want to know is, why systemic chaos (I understand the
"rise of Asia" scenario is only presented as a possibility), rather than
hegemonic transition?

RH