by americandream » Fri 07 Aug 2015, 02:40:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'I') do understand it. The way I see it though your concern for the semantics comes across as dismissive or undermining without taking note of the point of the thesis, which I iterated on further, as I believe it contains a fundamental truth. Using the loose term manufacturing, as Tanada obviously intends, is apt to the point, which is not at all about semantics, but basic human nature & how skill & mobility are the real basis of development, not the sickness of consumption angle so often trumpeted around here.
You see a part of the picture and not the whole. Yes, mobility is and has been central in some instances in advancing empires and other human social forms but not the sole determinant. Certainly, mobility alone does not account for the resilience of the Islamic Empire nor the swift rise of the Romans, nor the co-opting character of capitalist culture.
These are subtle concepts but not insurmountably so.