> A dance, for example, is a material activity with material effects, but does not constitute wealth, > since it's not separable from the dancer and/or the spectator; while the dancer's shoes and attire > do constitute wealth. (One may argue that a dance constitutes some other kind of wealth, eg
> cultural or spiritual wealth; but we are here only concerned with economic wealth).
So a dance cannot add to "wealth" but a movie of that dance can?
Why should information stored in the form of a movie constitute
"wealth" but not the information stored in the form of memories and
thoughts of the audience?
Sorry to say that I think your distinctions:
- that "wealth" must existent as an independent object
- for an (unspecified) period of time
- and can be exchanged more than once
are not needed and lead to incoherence. Plus the political result is
downgrading a section of the working class to the category of
"unproductive".
-Ian.
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Wed Feb 18 12:12:22 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 24 2009 - 20:30:37 EDT