Re: [OPE] "Parasitism"

From: Ian Wright <>
Date: Wed Feb 18 2009 - 12:09:01 EST

> 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

ope mailing list
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