Ask a Red, Second Edition

[countrygrl]

I just came up with a nice Marxist sound bite: Money is why we can't have nice things.

How much do merit do you guys think this purposively vague statement has?

Very little. If you don't have nice things, then obtain new skills, use your imagination, create a new product, take a chance, open a business, and get some more money so you can have nice things.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You aren't a Marxist so you can't answer!

Notice that I haven't answered either, as I'm not a Marxist. The question was asked to Marxists...

 

[emzie]

Very little. If you don't have nice things, then obtain new skills, use your imagination, create a new product, take a chance, open a business, and get some more money so you can have nice things.

Seems easier just to tax people who do that and use their money to buy nice things.

 

[aelf]

Very little. If you don't have nice things, then obtain new skills, use your imagination, create a new product, take a chance, open a business, and get some more money so you can have nice things.

You aren't a Marxist so you can't answer!

Notice that I haven't answered either, as I'm not a Marxist. The question was asked to Marxists...

'kay, let me explain why. The statement has to do with Marx's theory of money, as well as the general Marxist critique of capital. It certainly does not take for granted today's socio-economic system or, in other words, it is not predicated and built on the present system as a working base. However, like most Marxist stuff, it does offer a salient critique of the present system, which is why it is of some interest.

If you don't get it, then you clearly need not answer.

 

[countrygrl]

Oh, I fully understand it. Marx believed that capitalists robbed by selling the labor of those that worked under them. As raw products make it through various logistical production lines the labor of each piece of the puzzle is sold off for a bit more profit until it finally lies in the hands of rich greedy capitalists. And, of course, the mechanism for this machinery is money. And this results in a situation - according to Marx - where workers are kept in a minimalist position where the supply of labor is polluted to reduce the value of labor to an extent where they are just healthy enough to work. Therefore, the reason the workers cannot have nice things is because of money.

It is a defunct theory. A more appropriate theory is to realize that capitalists do work to. And that there is an immense value placed on the activities that they are involved in. The "profit" sold by the workers labor isn't exactly that - it is the price of owning and operating a business. It is the price of doing business sewn into the fabric of the product that results in a salary or wage to those who own or operate the business.

Capitalists have no interest in keeping the working class in a destitute position. In fact, capitalists are responsible for the incredible improvement of the condition of the poor. Capitalists want as many people to succeed as possible. The more money that people have to buy nice things, the more products will be purchased from the capitalist, and the richer he becomes. The egoist mentality foisted onto capitalists by Marx is off the mark and slanderous at best. Everyone benefits when everyone benefits.

 

[aelf]

Oh, I fully understand it.

No, you don't. The rest of your post proves it.

 

[countrygrl]

No, you don't. The rest of your post proves it.

"Money is the universal, self-constituted value of all things. Hence, it has robbed the whole world, the human world as well as nature, of its proper value. Money is the alienated essence of man's labor and life, and this alien essence dominates him as he worships it.: - Marx

 

[aelf]

So? You provide one quote from Marx and that is supposed to prove your in-depth knowledge? You don't even seem to know how he meant what you quoted. And most of the stuff you posted earlier is simply half-assed pop philosophy understanding of Marx. You probably know as much about the real thing as you know about how your parents begat you, possibly less.

 

[countrygrl]

So? You provide one quote from Marx and that is supposed to prove your in-depth knowledge? You don't even seem to know how he meant what you quoted. And most of the stuff you posted earlier is simply half-assed pop philosophy understanding of Marx. You probably know as much about the real thing as you know about how your parents begat you, possibly less.

Oh good Lord...

1.) No, it's not supposed to prove my "in depth knowledge" of Marx or Marxism. Merely that one sliver of Marx's ideology.
2.) No, I knew exactly what he meant, and proved it with his own words. And if you'd really like to go into an in depth discussion I'm down with it.
3.) Of course it was half assed. I don't know what time it was when you were posting where you were, but it was running close to midnight on my end. I spent the day taking care of a horse, volunteering at a school in DFW, did some homework, then went to work.
4.) Plus, I don't know if you're paying attention, but this is the internet, and I don't see a lot of non-half-assed commentary streaming away from your fingertips either.
5.) Additionally, have you read this thread?
6.) I'm plenty ready and willing to have in depth discussions about Marx and Marxism. We can discuss Hegel's philosophy in relation to Marx, the young Hegelians, dialectical materialism, Marx's view on money, private property, and it's extension into religion, it's relationship with the workers, the alienation of the workers and it's relationship to dialectical materialism, objectified labor, labor value theory, rent seeking, or even exchange value versus use value. Hell, if you want we can talk about how deterministic Marx really was at any given point of his life.
7.) The sad part is that I'm probably more well versed than you. So sit down, and take your stuffing with a little bit of pride. The least you could do is explain how I'm wrong instead of dictatorially declaring that I was wrong without an explanation justifying myself. But then again, you know I hit the nail on the head, so it's better for you to try and troll me.

 

[aelf]

Oh good Lord...

1.) No, it's not supposed to prove my "in depth knowledge" of Marx or Marxism. Merely that one sliver of Marx's ideology.
2.) No, I knew exactly what he meant, and proved it with his own words. And if you'd really like to go into an in depth discussion I'm down with it.
3.) Of course it was half assed. I don't know what time it was when you were posting where you were, but it was running close to midnight on my end. I spent the day taking care of a horse, volunteering at a school in DFW, did some homework, then went to work.
4.) Plus, I don't know if you're paying attention, but this is the internet, and I don't see a lot of non-half-assed commentary streaming away from your fingertips either.
5.) Additionally, have you read this thread?
6.) I'm plenty ready and willing to have in depth discussions about Marx and Marxism. We can discuss Hegel's philosophy in relation to Marx, the young Hegelians, dialectical materialism, Marx's view on money, private property, and it's extension into religion, it's relationship with the workers, the alienation of the workers and it's relationship to dialectical materialism, objectified labor, labor value theory, rent seeking, or even exchange value versus use value. Hell, if you want we can talk about how deterministic Marx really was at any given point of his life.
7.) The sad part is that I'm probably more well versed than you. So sit down, and take your stuffing with a little bit of pride. The least you could do is explain how I'm wrong instead of dictatorially declaring that I was wrong without an explanation justifying myself. But then again, you know I hit the nail on the head, so it's better for you to try and troll me.

That is so funny after you've admitted that your post was half-assed. But, see, there's no way you're more well versed than any of the Marxists in this thread 'cause your account was just so bad. Maybe you learned it from somewhere, but you're clearly not familiar with the actual content, relying instead on trying to make the usual points (Marx thought capitalists were robbers, etc) to make it sound like you know something. And whoever you learned it from probably don't like Marx in the least bit, hence the rather skewed and limited view.

Let's dissect it a bit:

Oh, I fully understand it. Marx believed that capitalists robbed by selling the labor of those that worked under them.

"selling the labor"? Are they slave traders?

As raw products make it through various logistical production lines the labor of each piece of the puzzle is sold off for a bit more profit until it finally lies in the hands of rich greedy capitalists.

What the heck does this mean? This betrays a clear ignorance of the notion of surplus value, 'cause, you know, that's Marx's exact explanation for how the workers are exploited.

And, of course, the mechanism for this machinery is money.

"mechanism for this machinery" sounds smart, but it actually doesn't mean anything. What is a mechanism supposed to mean here?

And this results in a situation - according to Marx - where workers are kept in a minimalist position where the supply of labor is polluted to reduce the value of labor to an extent where they are just healthy enough to work.

What does this mean? "the supply of labor is polluted"? Are you talking about mechanisation? Where's the account of capitalist competition that is so relevant to this bit? Are you mixing everything up?

Therefore, the reason the workers cannot have nice things is because of money.

We can't have nice things because the logic of capital is money begets more money. Neither the process of production nor the things produced really matter, as long as money begets more money. That's my simple explanation. Now, where are the reds? I need better conversation.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

This is not a discussion thread. Stop discussing things in it. Propose inquiries in a question and answer format, or kindly take your discussion to a new thread.

 

[countrygrl]

Oh dear. Well, since you take such offense to paraphrasing, I'll just use Marx's own words, like I did last night, to elucidate exactly what I meant last night, as well as what Marx meant. I've learned about Marx a little bit at school, but primarily through his own writings and biographies by Marxists. So yeah, you can persist at your vein attempts to belittle me, or you can treat me as an equal.

relying instead on trying to make the usual points (Marx thought capitalists were robbers, etc) to make it sound like you know something. And whoever you learned it from probably don't like Marx in the least bit, hence the rather skewed and limited view.

Let's start here: In the quotation I provided last night, doesn't Marx articulate an idea that capitalism is robbing from the workers, nature, and humanity? If not, explain your position.

"selling the labor"? Are they slave traders?

No, I did not say they were "slave traders," but: "The handmill gives you society with the feudal Lord; the steam mill, society with the industrial capitalist.

Marx's view may be clearer if made more specific. Productive forces are things used to produce. They include labor-power, raw materials, and the machines available to process them. If a miller uses a hand mill to grind wheat into flour, the hand mill is a productive force. Relations of production are relations between people, or between people things. The miller may own his mill, or may hire it from its owner. Owning and hiring are relations of production. Relations between people, such as "Smith employees Jones," or "Bob is the serf (slave) of the Duke of Earl," are also relations of production.

So we start with productive forces. Marx says that relations of production correspond to the stage of development of productive forces. In other words, when the productive forces are developed to the stage of manual power, the typical relation of production is that of the lord and serf. This and similar relations make up the economic structure of society, which in turn is the foundation of the political and legal superstructure of feudal times, with the religion and morality that goes with it: an authoritarian religion, and a morality based on the concepts of loyalty, obedience, and fulfilling the duties of one's station in life.

Feudal relations of production came about because they fostered the development of the productive forces of feudal times - the hand mill. These productive forces continue to develop. The steam mill is invented. Feudal relations of production restrict the use of the steam mill. The most efficient use of steam power is in large factories which require a concentration of free laborers rather than serfs tied to their land. So the relation of lord and serf breaks down, to be replaced the relation of capitalist and employee. These new relations of production constitute the economic structure of society, on which a capitalist legal and political superstructure rises, with its own religion and morality: freedom of religious conscience, freedom of contract, a right to property, egoism, and competitiveness.

What the heck does this mean? This betrays a clear ignorance of the notion of surplus value, 'cause, you know, that's Marx's exact explanation for how the workers are exploited.

How? Marx held that the capitalist economic system, regarded by the classical economists as natural inevitable, was an alienated form of human life. Under capitalism workers are forced to sell their labor, which Marx regards as the essence of human existence, to the capitalist, who use this labor to accumulate more wealth, which further increases the power of the capitalist over the workers. What is your specific complaint?

"mechanism for this machinery" sounds smart, but it actually doesn't mean anything. What is a mechanism supposed to mean here?

Does this really require further discussion? The quote I posted last night articulates the idea quite well that money - as defined as the worth of all things - is the mechanism that results in the situation we are discussing.

What does this mean? "the supply of labor is polluted"? Are you talking about mechanisation? Where's the account of capitalist competition that is so relevant to this bit? Are you mixing everything up?

It's quite simple really. To Marx, Capitalists become rich, while wages are driven down to the bare minimum needed to keep the workers alive. Quite simply, wage labor "produces the wealth that rules over it."

We can't have nice things because the logic of capital is money begets more money. Neither the process of production nor the things produced really matter, as long as money begets more money. That's my simple explanation. Now, where are the reds? I need better conversation.

Marx says that labor is, "the worker's own life-activity, the manifestation of his own life." Yet it becomes, under capitalism, a commodity the worker must sell in order to live. Therefore his life-activity is reduced to a means to go on living, not part of his life, but a "sacrifice of his life." His real life only begins when his work ceases, "at table, in the public house, in bed." His labor and his life become objectified, a position accentuated by the accumulation of wealth within the hands of capitalists.

But of course, this was a simplistic and short sighted line of thinking.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Oh, I fully understand it. Marx believed that capitalists robbed by selling the labor of those that worked under them. As raw products make it through various logistical production lines the labor of each piece of the puzzle is sold off for a bit more profit until it finally lies in the hands of rich greedy capitalists.

You seem to be combining two different ideas here, such that it makes no sense.

Where Marx said the capitalist was wrong was in two cases. First, because he elevates the price of the product he sells beyond what it's true value is (which is dictated by the price of all ingredients, including the most important - the physical labor used to combine them), and then in turn does not reflect the labor used to make the profits created by that sale when he pays his workers. Second, because, through the use of machinery, he lowers the amount of working time required of each person each day to reproduce the same amount of value in products, yet keeps extending the working day even further, or at the least argues against allowing it to diminish. What this means is that the worker is kept for a longer period of time than he needs to, as reflected by his wages, to be correctly compensated for the labor-value he has produced, because the machinery now allows him to produce more product in less time, and thus a larger percentage of his working day is dedicated to producing surplus-value for the capitalist. He essentially works for free at that point, whence the term "wage-slavery" largely cometh.

The second idea you seem to have merged with this and perverted is a partial understanding of the source of value. Value comes from three places: first, from the raw material's agreed-upon value, second, from the labor-power used to craft the product, and third, from the amount of value deprived from the machinery through wear and tear while it was used in the creation of that specific product.

Through the combination of these two ideas, and with a gross misunderstanding of both, you seem to have arrived at the above, which is a wholly wrong interpretation of Marx's words.

And, of course, the mechanism for this machinery is money. And this results in a situation - according to Marx - where workers are kept in a minimalist position where the supply of labor is polluted to reduce the value of labor to an extent where they are just healthy enough to work. Therefore, the reason the workers cannot have nice things is because of money.

Erm, you wouldn't pollute the labor pool to reduce the price of labor, you would inflate it.

It is a defunct theory. A more appropriate theory is to realize that capitalists do work to. And that there is an immense value placed on the activities that they are involved in. The "profit" sold by the workers labor isn't exactly that - it is the price of owning and operating a business. It is the price of doing business sewn into the fabric of the product that results in a salary or wage to those who own or operate the business.

Sure, they work, but do they work on the product? Being an administrator is great, and sure, logistics are necessary for any kind of organization. But there are several things you are missing. The argument that the workers ought to get more money is not a bleeding heart, it is a question of origins of value. But first, I think I should explain price, so that you understand value's constituent part.

Price is composed of two things: value and surplus value. Value's source is the aggregate of all costs that went into making that specific product: the raw materials, the wear on the machinery used, and most importantly: the human labor used to make their assembly possible. Surplus value is the difference between the price and the value. It is speculation on the part of the seller, because he requires some sort of profit, so that at least he will have invested in the future of his company, but more likely so that he will have invested in the future of himself. So composing the total amount of money (or other commodity, if we speak of a barter system) obtained by selling that product is the amount of money equaling the sum of labor spent, raw materials spent, machinery spent, and speculation gotten away with.

The argument goes that the laborer has a right to his portion of this money; that is, an amount of money equal to the amount of labor-power he expended in creating that product. The capitalist argues that he has the right to distribute his money as he wishes, because in hiring the worker he has bought his labor, which has become just another piece of property to him. Thus, he owes the worker only what he feels compelled to part with. For the miser, which all good capitalists necessarily are, this is not very much! A good businessman shaves costs wherever possible, and labor is by-far their biggest expense. The point Marx made here was that the productive labor-power of the worker was unique because it's origin was human; you don't pay a machine for it's work, you pay for the bare minimum upkeep of a machine so that it can continue to produce. By treating the worker in this same way, as an animated machine, he only provided for the bare minimum required to keep him producing products, and nothing more. Because the origin of this labor is human it is unique, because the human is unique. He is not only alive, as a mule also is, but he is sentient. Sapient. He is in every way identical to the capitalist, save for his destitution. That is why he deserves his fair share in spite of property, because humans ought to treat each other humanely, and not merely as machines.

But the point was further still: you allege that the capitalist is necessary, because he is responsible for the administration and upkeep of the business. And rather uniquely so, because the workers cannot! Except that history has proven this wrong, time and again. Man requires no master, no overlord, the only people who say that are the overlords, attempting to justify their tyranny! Today we have many successful cooperative enterprises to appease your allegations, and history has many more examples of an-archy. The argument for democracy in the workplace is identical to that of democracy in politics. A defender of despotism in the former by logical necessity defends the latter also.

Capitalists have no interest in keeping the working class in a destitute position. In fact, capitalists are responsible for the incredible improvement of the condition of the poor. Capitalists want as many people to succeed as possible. The more money that people have to buy nice things, the more products will be purchased from the capitalist, and the richer he becomes. The egoist mentality foisted onto capitalists by Marx is off the mark and slanderous at best. Everyone benefits when everyone benefits.

What's off the mark is your understanding of social class. Capitalists are afforded power by their wealth. And their power affords them more wealth. If more people became wealthy, they would have more power. Thus the capitalists' power would diminish, both relatively in the case of money, and absolutely in the case of politics. Because of his position of power, he is afforded the ability to protect his right of private property, and provided the tools to defend and enforce it with: the military, the courts, and the police. So ask yourself: why would he want everyone to become wealthy? Why would he want anyone to become wealthy? Why would he want anything to happen that might jeopardize his power and privilege? The answer is quite obviously that he does not.

You seem to have quite the idealistic interpretation of these noble businessmen. Fortunately you have Asked a Red, so that we can should you that all that is just your imagination.

 

[aelf]

This is not a discussion thread. Stop discussing things in it. Propose inquiries in a question and answer format, or kindly take your discussion to a new thread.

I did. Did you see my question?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I did. Did you see my question?

That post was not directed at you, my friend.

 

[aelf]

Oh, no, I'm asking a genuine question when I asked if you saw it. I do want to know if it's a good sound bite, though on hindsight it might not be serious enough a question to ask here.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I'm reminded of some arguments for serfdom in pre-1861 Russia. Some apologists argued that prosperity of the peasants is in their landowners' best interest, since the richer the peasants, the richer the landowner, who can take more in absolute numbers in feudal rent. Thus, serfdom is a fair system that doesn't need any reform.

I don't think that the position of a capitalist is morally equivalent to the one of a feudal landholder, but the above argumentation is equal in simplicity to what Countrygrl posted.

Another question: to what extent do you think large groups people can be motivated by non-financial or class reasons? Soviet school historians liked to explain every historical phenomena as having roots in class struggle and desire for profit and power on part of various social classes. To what extent do you agree with that concept?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Oh, no, I'm asking a genuine question when I asked if you saw it. I do want to know if it's a good sound bite, though on hindsight it might not be serious enough a question to ask here.

Oh. I dunno, it seems a bit...overly simplistic. I mean, money is simply a universal medium of exchange, it's not the money that does us wrong, but the people who hoard it and control its value.

 

[countrygrl]

Through the combination of these two ideas, and with a gross misunderstanding of both, you seem to have arrived at the above, which is a wholly wrong interpretation of Marx's words.

Um, all you did was articulate exactly what I thought. If I were to write an essay I'd write what you wrote. If I'm on the internet and tired, I'm going to be as concise as possible.

Erm, you wouldn't pollute the labor pool to reduce the price of labor, you would inflate it.

No, I don't think you understand what I mean by pollute. What I mean is, you will increase supply. You already explained all that. Through the technological advancements Marx believed that this would increase the supply of labor and drive down wages to a point where people were only able to survive as needed in the capacity of a laborer. That is what I meant by "pollute it." Pollute = dilute, increase supply, etc.

A good businessman shaves costs wherever possible, and labor is by-far their biggest expense

I have no ideological qualms with what you wrote. I was going to discuss exchange value versus surplus value in my last response to aelf, but in the end I didn't feel it was necessary. But I will knit-pick, if I may. Labor is not "by far" our biggest cost in any of our businesses. It's around 15% in our restaurants. In our manufacturing businesses we have single automated machines that total upwards of 3 months of labor costs.

But the point was further still: you allege that the capitalist is necessary, because he is responsible for the administration and upkeep of the business. And rather uniquely so, because the workers cannot! Except that history has proven this wrong, time and again. Man requires no master, no overlord, the only people who say that are the overlords, attempting to justify their tyranny! Today we have many successful cooperative enterprises to appease your allegations, and history has many more examples of an-archy. The argument for democracy in the workplace is identical to that of democracy in politics. A defender of despotism in the former by logical necessity defends the latter also.

I appreciate yours, and Traitorfish's cooperatives. I've said before that I respect these establishments and have no problem with them. But you guys need to understand that these are microcosms in the Pacific Ocean. You have a few hundred thousand people out of billions that can function in this manner. It's like I've said before, if the entire western world were to suddenly function like a cooperative without the guidance of managers, management, and owners, the world would implode upon itself because the vast majority of people are incapable of carrying out these responsibilities.

The more I learn about starting a small business in modern capitalism, the more I do not sympathize with what you espouse here. If people are capable of managing their own lives, and managing businesses, and if the situation foisted upon the worker is so terrible, then it is plenty easy to acquire a line of credit, start a business of your own, and escape the shackles of the Overlord. But again, our problem in the modern world is a direct result of our inability or desire to NOT do things on our own. It's because we expect to be hired for a "fair wage" instead of opening our own business. If we had more people willing to open a business, and less people reliant on others for employment, we wouldn't be in this protracted, chronic stage of malaise.

And their power affords them more wealth. If more people became wealthy, they would have more power. Thus the capitalists' power would diminish, both relatively in the case of money, and absolutely in the case of politics.

It is my opinion that history has not been kind to this sort of Marxist philosophy. My family isn't insulted, or offended by people who enter into the productive class. We're not offended by Bill Gates, or Paul Allen, or the Google managers, or that turdy looking guy who invented Facebook. These people don't bother us in the manner you declare. We are concerned with our own condition, and that is about it. I've met lots of rich people, and spent time in the homes of lots of rich people, and never not once have I ever heard anybody talking about how they want to keep the people down so they can centralize their own power and wealth. In fact, I can only recall a universal desire to improve the condition of everyone - without conditions.

So ask yourself: why would he want everyone to become wealthy? Why would he want anyone to become wealthy? Why would he want anything to happen that might jeopardize his power and privilege? The answer is quite obviously that he does not.

Because, as history has pointed out, the wealthier everyone becomes, the faster we become wealthier (if we choose to pursue that course.) My privilege isn't hurt by someone else's privilege. If anything it is helped! History shows that the more wages rise, that faster the wages for the rich rise. If you're rich, and other people begin to earn more money, that's good for you as you will grow richer still! (If that's what your pursuit is.)

 

[aelf]

I'm sorry if this is further derailing the thread, but I'm bored, so...

No, I don't think you understand what I mean by pollute. What I mean is, you will increase supply. You already explained all that. Through the technological advancements Marx believed that this would increase the supply of labor and drive down wages to a point where people were only able to survive as needed in the capacity of a laborer. That is what I meant by "pollute it." Pollute = dilute, increase supply, etc.

Technological advancements increase the supply of labour how?

I have no ideological qualms with what you wrote. I was going to discuss exchange value versus surplus value in my last response to aelf, but in the end I didn't feel it was necessary.

Surplus value is absolutely essential in any reiteration of Marx's account of exploitation. It's not unnecessary, unless you don't understand what it is.

The more I learn about starting a small business in modern capitalism, the more I do not sympathize with what you espouse here. If people are capable of managing their own lives, and managing businesses, and if the situation foisted upon the worker is so terrible, then it is plenty easy to acquire a line of credit, start a business of your own, and escape the shackles of the Overlord. But again, our problem in the modern world is a direct result of our inability or desire to NOT do things on our own. It's because we expect to be hired for a "fair wage" instead of opening our own business. If we had more people willing to open a business, and less people reliant on others for employment, we wouldn't be in this protracted, chronic stage of malaise.

Err, think about what you wrote for a second. How does it follow that capability = easy credit? How is the capability of someone without a personal history of investing going to make credit so easy to get?

Also, I fully support, in spirit, your argument that more people should own businesses instead of working for them. That's how cooperatives work, yes? Everyone's an owner. Otherwise, in the way that you meant it, you'd get plenty of one-man/woman businesses. I wonder how the economy would operate with that.

Because, as history has pointed out, the wealthier everyone becomes, the faster we become wealthier (if we choose to pursue that course.) My privilege isn't hurt by someone else's privilege. If anything it is helped! History shows that the more wages rise, that faster the wages for the rich rise. If you're rich, and other people begin to earn more money, that's good for you as you will grow richer still! (If that's what your pursuit is.)

Sure, that really explains the growing wealth disparity in and between many countries.

Serious business now...

Another question: to what extent do you think large groups people can be motivated by non-financial or class reasons?

Not sure (who would be?), but the OSS movement and the notion of gift economy should provide an interesting contemporary framework for thinking about this.

Soviet school historians liked to explain every historical phenomena as having roots in class struggle and desire for profit and power on part of various social classes. To what extent do you agree with that concept?

IMO, that's quite oversold. But this doesn't mean the whole premise of materialism is false.