Re: [WSDG] Napoleonic Right and World-Empire?

I disagree with the comparison you make, Elson.  In a talk that I gave in a 
Conference titled "The Real Situation" on the 29th of January, I compared the 
current empire-making bid of the US to the Hapsburg bid for European empire.  I 
think that is the correct comparison.  In both cases the terms of the bid are 
similar, the religious wars of Reformation (Catholics vs. Protestants), 'good 
vs.evil', in both cases also, a clear case of 'overstretch'.  For more 
elaboration on this you may want to read my "The Current Conjuncture".  Ganesh 
K. Trichur.

Elson Boles wrote:

> This is a question I wish Boris had put to Wallerstein:
>
> While there is no comparison between Bush and Napoleon as individuals, is 
>there a reasonable comparison between the US hawks "pre-emptive" polices 
>toward an American Empire and France's Napoleon era?
>
> Wallerstein in several pieces on the three hegemonies refers to counter- 
>hegemony: attempts to create world-empires and the second before last being 
>Napoleon.  If we accept the general comparison, one could contend that there 
>is more in common between the US hawks and Napoleon than with Nazism.  There 
>are the stated aims of world dominance but also "democratization" (and the 
>contradiction is consistent with Napoleonic Europe), and liberalism.
>
> But of course, as Arrighi also stresses, cycles don't repeat, but evolve.  
>And in this case, what is obviously different is that the old hegemon is 
>making the attempt based on its superior military, while the new center(s) of 
>the world-economy don't have the military edge.  That means that the pattern 
>of successive hegemons ended with the US and it seems unlikely that there will 
>be another hegemon.  But that seems to jibe with the oddity of the US (the 
>last hegemon) making the effort toward world-empire since, in the current era 
>of bifurcation, the old rules are off, strange things happen, and the future 
>is difficult to predict (but impossible?).
>
> The US seems much less likely to succeed by comparison to Napoleon, for all 
>the reasons that Wallerstein and others have stated.
>
> So, to elaborate, one of the question is, is the attempt comparable?   
>Another is, if the US does fail, what are the chances that Europe will succeed 
>through a de Lampedusa scheme?  (I think the chances are higher than 
>Wallerstein suggests though he claims that prediction is nearly impossible - 
>and predictability is another issue I'd like to take up).
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Get a FREE REFINANCE QUOTE - click here!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/2CXtTB/ca0FAA/i5gGAA/4JYolB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WSDG-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/