>
>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.
the stereo analogy still suX
kelley