@Typo-MAGAshiv

You are technically correct.

We've stumbled on a technical issue, that is. There is, of course, a moral dimension in sexual strategy. We've agreed, in TRP, not to engage in it, because it would bog down the discussion.

The thing is that politics doesn't lie on an abstract moral ground. It has practical implications, just as marrying the wrong woman. Maybe the arguments against capitalism are about those implications (i.e. war, "poverty" i.e. inability to live and reproduce etc), but the counter-arguments are wrapped in a moral coat, to anchor themselves in a moral outrage.

The philosophical -yet-very-pragmatic principle behind all this is that you have to stand outside a system in order to be able to see it clearly. Therein lies the value of utopias: they provide Insights. On the other hand, when TINA (There Is No Alternative), as Thatcher put it, every attrocity can be justified.

So, to get back at Lennon's case. It's not that you won't take his viewpoint because he was rich. You won't take Marx's viewpoint either, in spite of him being poor. So basically I'm just arguing about the obvious, i.e. that you are closed to that perspective.