Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts) Mon Feb 6, 2012, 12:17 PM Feb 2012

As an agitational analogy, how about this.............

RE: austerity and the working class paying for the criminal greed of the wealthy capitalists. It's like an ex running up debt on joint accounts before the divorce is finalized. Sure, you MIGHT be legally required to pay for those debts, but morally should you be required to pay for the ex's debt?

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

As an agitational analogy, how about this............. (Original Post) socialist_n_TN Feb 2012 OP

By definition, morality cant live within capitalism. nm rhett o rick Feb 2012 #1

True. At best capitalism is an AMORAL socialist_n_TN Feb 2012 #2

This has been on my mind ever since I read socialist_n_TN Feb 2012 #3

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)

1. By definition, morality cant live within capitalism. nm

Reply to socialist_n_TN (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 12:35 PM

Feb 2012

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)

2. True. At best capitalism is an AMORAL

Reply to rhett o rick (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 12:39 PM

Feb 2012

system, if not actively immoral.

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)

3. This has been on my mind ever since I read

Reply to socialist_n_TN (Original post)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 12:43 PM

Feb 2012

Shock Doctrine, when the RW Argentinian government ran up debt to pay for training and equiptment (mostly to US capitalists) to repress, torture, and kill their own people. Then after the RW government was thrown out, the replacement government was STILL expected to pay for their torturers.

That is morally not right at all.

Reply to this discussion