What I tried to say, but didn't come over apparently, is that if you say that it has been impossible to wage a revolution in the imperial core so far, that implies that the relative weakening of the core makes revolution possible again. When for example China surpasses the US and becomes the new hegemon, the US is, by definition, no longer the core. Thus revoltion becomes possible again. But, this rests on the premisse that you were talking about relative power (in comparison to other countries). If, on the other hand, you say that absolute power prevents revolution, then it doesn't matter that China overtakes the US, because in absolute terms the power of the US remains the same: the CIA is just as efficient as before, and firepower of the US military is just as potent. Thus, revolution in the former core remains impossible. The logical implication of reasoning in terms of absolute power instead of relative power is that because of the endless growth which capitalism implies, all capitalist nations have a growing absolute power, and thus, it would logically follow that as time progresses revolution becomes less likely everywhere.
Edit: My point is that by your logic you have to accept one of the following statements: (1) revolution is becoming more likely in the core, because it's relative power shrinks (2) revolution is becoming less likely everywhere in the world, because the absolute power of the capitalist class and their states grows.
What I tried to say, but didn't come over apparently, is that if you say that it has been impossible to wage a revolution in the imperial core so far, that implies that the relative weakening of the core makes revolution possible again. When for example China surpasses the US and becomes the new hegemon, the US is, by definition, no longer the core. Thus revoltion becomes possible again. But, this rests on the premisse that you were talking about relative power (in comparison to other countries). If, on the other hand, you say that absolute power prevents revolution, then it doesn't matter that China overtakes the US, because in absolute terms the power of the US remains the same: the CIA is just as efficient as before, and firepower of the US military is just as potent. Thus, revolution in the former core remains impossible. The logical implication of reasoning in terms of absolute power instead of relative power is that because of the endless growth which capitalism implies, all capitalist nations have a growing absolute power, and thus, it would logically follow that as time progresses revolution becomes less likely everywhere.
Edit: My point is that by your logic you have to accept one of the following statements: (1) revolution is becoming more likely in the core, because it's relative power shrinks (2) revolution is becoming less likely everywhere in the world, because the absolute power of the capitalist class and their states grows.