We were talking about whether trademarks were capital. DH channeled Naomi K to make the point that the consumption benefits of brands were 'collective hallucinations,' or in his words 'wacky,' which fit my point that what was involved was criticism of the consumption habits of the masses, and any such criticism ought to be measured carefully for elitist or austerity policy implications.
I pointed out that 'wacky' needn't be limited to certain pastimes of the working class, but could include things like $2K stereos, depending on one's personal taste. So there is really no reason to discount the value of 'trademark capital' from the standpoint of market processes. Whatever people are willing to pay for is valuable, so if a trademark acts as some kind of social trigger for a 'collective hallucination,' it's capital in the narrow, capitalist sense. What it is from a marxist standpoint I'll leave to others. One could imagine progressive trademarks too. If DSOC had had millions of dollars to spend, maybe their rose-trademark would have become a brand and we'd be complaining about President Paul Wellstone.
mbs