Corporatism with integrated distributist principles

I'm not too familiar with actual corporatism under this definition really. What separates it from fascism?

They often go hand in hand, but Mussolini was the only one to really try to integrate it. Franco was more capitalist and Hitler was more socialist.

He speaks about it at length in the Doctrine of Fascism. It essentially seeks to break down the conflict between social and economic class by uniting the people in the single purpose of the State.

When you can see your poorer or richer brother as a fellow citizen and brother in Christ, it's easier to sympathize with him and not despise him.

The other benefit of the system is that it allows for a union of far right and far left forces to form a gov't. The socialists, syndicalists, and anarchists are appeased by the attention and representation given to the production class and nationalists are appeased by the unified mobilization of the economy for the national interest.

Additionally, corporatism is spoken of highly in Catholic Social Doctrine as an appropriate and moderate measure to ensure the fair treatment of workers in the modern system without ceding ground to the communists or socialists. Indeed, such ideologies were very successful at unifying and invigorating the people in the past.

My favorite part is certainly that small business interests would be protected to ensure the social fabric be preserved in local communities, a beneficial goal of the state that large corporations would typically ignore in favor of pure profit. They don't care if the community falls apart as long as they get their paycheck.

So yeah that sums it up.

Fascism is the political dimension, Corporatism is the economic dimension. They operate on the same principle of unification and effective and charitable collectivism, but they operate in different spheres.

@Deleted User well, you should know better than us that there is no reason to believe the theologically bankrupt claims of a pedophile warlord who thought Mary was part of the Trinity and the sister of Moses

She cant win you back, just state how while there is no reason to believe any of the claims of an ignorant fool hwo got a huge army and harem, there are plenty of witnesses and prpphecoes for us

You can also show her how much she knows about islam. Ask her how many wives Muhammed had, or how he died, or what did he say about the Bible for example. Or what Islam says about Jesus' death

Muslims seem to think those facts and more come from some inferencr of shady sources, while they come from the earliest muslims

@Deleted User that's pretty much what I assumed it was

I don't see how that would actually be efficient at allocating resources

And I don't mean efficient as in quick or gets from point a to b quickly

I mean efficient as in maximizing welfare

Presumably it would allow for corporate entities (guilds, unions, collectives, communities, locales) to make direct economic decisions but the State would control the type of production. If steel is over-produced and food under-produced, the state has an incentive to direct economic forces in the proper direction for the collective good.

So, no, efficiency would not be maximized. Free markets obviously are better for efficiency. Efficiency doesn't necessarily equal general welfare however.

Are we talking about refutations on islam?

Cause i have some.

Two different convos

One on Islam, one on economics

@Deleted User efficiency in economics terms means welfare though

Or, it means maximized social surplus

Which is welfare

I think that's a fallacy and myth of free market capitalism

Because social surplus is based on utility functions

Mainly from reading Old Testament theology books and a book on the history of the arabic people's by Albert Hourani.

It's usually a bigger composed argument but basically Mohammed cannot be a prophet by abrahamic standards.

No, I think you're misunderstanding the definition of surplus

Let's move to <#452069937305878530> so they can talk

I don't believe that economic efficiency equates to social welfare. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

Okay, i'm going to make it as breef as possible without letting the heavy parts of the argument out.

According to theological observations on the rise of prophet figures in the old testament, Prophets are oftenly seen with the vocation already, but at somepoint they got it directly from God, when he requires them to speak in his name, sometimes, certain "missions" they are to accomplish are announced by "the Angel of Yhwh" these ministries, according to theologian Gerard Von Rad, can only be observed as a confirmation of pre-prophetic hebrew religious tradition, wich means that the prophet's have to bring those clean as they are, to be a true revival of the tradition, it cannot be a new covenant, or a new law that it's not truly fundamented in principles of that pre-prophetic period, and such we can observe with Moses, for example, wich is not a new Covenant, but commandments, a form of practice that we know already from pre-Mosaic times.

So the prophets cannot add new principles, nor invent or be harbingers of completly new laws, nor could the patriarch's

To try and ease this disctintion, Islam usually gives the title of prophet "Nabawi" to many figures in the old testament, such as King Solomon, Patriarch Noah and Patriarch Ibrahim, etc.
This way they make it impossible to distinguish what a prophet can do or do not or who can be one.

Problem is, in the hebrew text's the word "Nabi" wich is associated with prophethood, is never reffered to Solomon, Ibrahim, Noah, or any of these figures wich they (the muslims) claim to be "prophets"

Mohammed takes advantage of this somewhat clever way to make the figure of the prophet blurry, and claims a rather curious way to claim himself a prophet, as instead of being announced as the prophet's of the old law, he goes for a more christological approach, he doesn't claim a celestial messenger of Allah to be the one to call him, nor does he claim that Allah himself has called him, but rather that Gabriel (Angel of Annunciation that also announced Christ) has done so, but he does not have enough with that, he also claims with the help of a historian known as Al-Tabari, that when he was a child he was warned by the apostate monk Bahira, that he saw the simbol of the prophets in Mohammed's back, and that the natural element's behaved as if they were greeting him. To wich we know there is not a "simbol of the prophecy" like a literal simbol for the ancient prophets, rather the signs of the prophet's are meant to be miracles they can make under certain considerations that make them stand up from common sorcery.

So, we can see Mohammed want to claim himself as a Christological figure so he can be a special sort of prophet himself, enough to break the old laws of Christianity and Judaism, and give legitimacy to his new law wich he is about to impose.

But considered the facts, Mohammed can simply not be a prophet by abrahamic standards, as he had to modify the Old law understandings, and later he claims that the ones to corrupt those are the Christians and the jews.

On top of that, we know that Islam cannot be a continuation of the earlier laws, as both the ancient hebrew faith and christianity, have a liturgical-invocative character.

While Islam has a worship character with no liturgical practices whatsoever.
Worship character that of course, we know comes from the fact the pilars of islam are just pre-islamic arabian practices that Mohammed took and said "I like this, Allah likes this too"

And that is pretty much it.

TL;DR
Mohammed cannot be a prophet coinciding with the old laws because:

He does not reafirm them, he breaks them and brings a completly new one, and of different nature to that of the previous laws.

It's not the way of the prophet's to do that.

He is not annointed as the prophets usually were annointed.

Instead he blurs the understanding of prophet, and gives himself a christological aura to himself so he can claim to be able to make a rupture of traditions.

I don't understand how there can still be freethinking Muslims in 2019.

I know "it's the current year" is an utterly stupid argument, but, I mean, come on...