Too hand wavy. On a related note, "On the Plurality of Civilizations"[0] by Feliks Koneczny offers interesting insights. Koneczny, too, wrote this book in the

Too hand wavy. On a related note, "On the Plurality of Civilizations"[0] by Feliks Koneczny offers interesting insights. Koneczny, too, wrote this book in the 1930s, but I have no reason to think he falls into the same camp(s) the article mentions. For instance, while he classifies civilizations according to a set of criteria he develops in the book, he does not believe that any society is civilizationally "pure". However, he does believe that any self-respecting civilization does spread and "wants" to spread. Spreading, of course, may be accomplished by sharing ones civilization with others, confident that it is good and right. It may be spread by the sword. I may also be spread in incidental ways, such as the way laws governing marriage may require e.g. that children in interfaith marriages be raised in the faith of the father or the mother which I believe is how Islam spread in Egypt (Muslim women are forbidden from marrying non-Muslim men but Muslim men may marry non-Muslim women but must raise their children in the Islamic faith). In any case, economics suffers from problems, too, when it begins with a false understanding of Man and society. The hyperindividualistic, atomistic extreme on the one hand (e.g. libertarianism) and the collectivist, individual-denying extreme on the other (e.g. socialism) both completely botch the proper comprehension of man and society and how they relate. FWIW, Koneczny avoids both. [0] https://www.scribd.com/doc/4464979/ON-THE-PLURALITY-OF-CIVILIZATIONS-Feliks-Koneczny-Entire-Book https://www.scribd.com/doc/4464979/ON-THE-PLURALITY-OF-CIVIL...