1. Ruth Gilmore says that capitalism will stop being racial capitalism when all the white people disappear from the story. What’s the connection between “whiteness” and racism, do you think?

Whiteness in this context is related to Western Europeans that founded the concept of capitalism as we know it today.  Because they created the system, they placed themselves into a position of power above not just Africans, but also other Europeans that they deemed lesser than them.  Thus, the power imbalance of whiteness is deeply rooted within capitalism, and so long as that continues, capitalism with continue to be racial capitalism.  To this day, capitalism preys on those who are not white, or are not the correct type of white, because the system, will inherently continue to raise those who are white over those who are not until either white people disappear from capitalism, or capitalism is dismantled and the racism is removed.

2. Gilmore makes the point that criminals are actually being created by the criminal justice and prison system (she says “the category of ‘criminal person’ can be perpetuated”). According to Gilmore, how does that happen, how does the prison system create new “criminals“? Do you agree with her view?

According to Gilmore, the basis started with the creation of more and more prisons over other forms of infrastructure that may have been more beneficial to areas, such as museums, factories, parks, or schools.  In order to keep enough “workers” in these prisons, there needs to be a steady stream of criminals, which can be created through longer sentences, more criminals being sentenced, and more behaviors being listed as criminal in nature.  Essentially, the prison industrial complex relies on there being enough criminals to maintain it, therefore, societies such as the United States with these prison systems, need to create and continue a category of criminals.  I agree with her view because the prison industrial complex in America functions more like a low-cost labor factory system and in order to maintain that, a working class of criminals needs to be maintained.  When also accounting for systemic racism which leads to people of color being more likely to be targeted and more likely to be given longer sentences, that seems to line up with what Gilmore is saying.

3. Describe how you understand what Prof. Gilmore – in the last part of her video – calls “liberation struggle”?

Liberation struggle according to Professor Gilmore is a place-based struggle that is specific to the needs and struggles of the people where they are.  As far as I understand it, liberation struggle is a form of solidarity with the others in your local community where the goal is to come together in order to try to determine how to overcome the struggles that may be keeping your community down.  These struggles can include racism, inequality, and a lack of fairness for certain members of that community.  The goal is to create places where the community can share education and conversation with one another in order to find ways to overcome these struggles together.

1. What did the Supreme Court decide in the Wal-Mart case? And more importantly, how did it justify its decision? (HINT: the key word here is “commonality” (and how it related to “class-action lawsuit”). Try to understand what this legal terms means, as it is key to the court’s decision).

The Supreme Court decided in the Wal-Mart case that 1.5 million women workers were not properly classified in order to sue for damages and did not meet the required “commonality” to count as a class.  First, they argued that classes that seek injunctive relief count as a “b(2)” class, while classes seeking monetary relief should file as a “b(3)” class.  Because of the nature of the case, the class was filed as a “b(2)” class, but the Court decided they needed to reclassify because of the demand for backpay.  Additionally, and more damningly, the Supreme Court argued that the class did not meet the standards set for “commonality,” meaning that the 1.5 million women did not have enough in common for the case to be litigated.  Antonin Scalia argued that commonality meant that a class needed not only a common problem, but a common solution that could be applied to all members.  Because every one of the 1.5 million women were not identically affected and could not be identically compensated, the Supreme Court ruled that they could not file as a class against Wal-Mart. They did not fully confirm or deny that there was any sex discrimination, only that it was not the exact same experience for each of the women who worked at Wal-Mart between 1998 and 2011.  So, even though there were 10 years worth of documentation, studies created, and documents gathered, the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the case for not having enough of their interpretation of “commonality,” in part due to the class being so large.

1. In what ways is the court system better suited to protect the individual, than are the elected branches of government (such as Congress and the President; or the Mayor of NYC and the NYC City Assembly)? Give an example to illustrate your argument.
Because the court system directly relates to an individual, it is better suited to protect individual rights than Congress and the President, or the Mayor and the City Assembly. This is because Congress and the President tend to deal with the overall effects of their actions and trying to take care of the country as a large unit, while the court system deals more with the details and interpretation of those actions. Courts, especially district courts, can focus on much smaller-scale incidents, such as civil disputes between two parties or criminal conflicts. They must consider how the law applies to the specific case in front of them, meaning that they are applying laws and precedents to, most likely, individuals who are directly affected by them. An example of this is that the President and Congress can create laws that make discrimination illegal, while the courts will protect individuals directly by determining through cases what is and is not discrimination through its real-world application. Thus, while the law creates protection for the individual, the court system applies it.

2. Think about how federal judges get to become judges – unlike Presidents, Mayors, and members of Congress (and other legislatures), they are not elected, but rather appointed. Many Americans have thus called the federal courts system, and especially the Supreme Court, anti-democratic PLACES IN OUR GOVERNMENT. Do you agree that the Supreme Court, for example, is an anti-democratic part of our government? What could be the reason for this way of choosing judges in federal courts?
I do not necessarily think that the Supreme Court is anti-democratic, because, while they are not appointed or voted in by the people in the same way that the President or Congress are, they are still selected and approved by the agents that the people have elected into office. So, to me, that seems to fall within the definition of democracy, though I personally would like to see a change where the people could have more direct involvement in who is selected for the Supreme Court.
I believe this was selected as the way of choosing judges because the framers of the Constitution likely wanted a way to appoint a branch of government that could directly look out for their interests and their interpretation of the Constitution. By having it be that the President selected the justices and Congress needed to vote them into office, and with those roles also being filled by the capitalist class, it was more likely that justices would be selected that would continue to benefit the capitalist class. Also, thanks to having life terms after being selected, that meant that even if the working class were to gain the Presidency or a majority in Congress in an election year, the Supreme Court would be unchanged and continue to focus on the rights of the wealthy. In that same example, if the President or Congress were to make moves that benefited the working class at the expense of the capitalist class, the Supreme Court could rule those changes unconstitutional in order to maintain the benefits of the capitalist class. Therefore, it makes sense that the reason for this way of choosing judges in federal court was likely a way to further protect the interests of the capitalist class in a way that would be difficult to change quickly.

1. Describe how you understand the “Establishment Clause” and the related “Lemon Test”.

The Establishment Clause protects the religious freedom of Americans by prohibiting Congress from creating or promoting a state-sponsored religion.  This further means that the government is not permitted to favor one set of beliefs over another, nor is it allowed to favor religion over non-religion.  What this means is that the people are permitted to follow whatever religion or lack of religion they desire without concern about discrimination or exclusion due to their personal beliefs, as there is no “true” American religion and the government cannot create one.  This is ultimately meant to be the separation of church and state.
The Lemon Test was established after a Supreme Court case in 1971 known as Lemon v. Kurtzman.  It is meant to determine whether a law or government action that may promote a religious practice is allowed to exist.  There are three criteria that a law or government action must pass as part of this test.  The first is that the action or law cannot lead to excessive government entanglement, meaning there should be a clear separation between the government and religion.  The second is that the law or action must be neutral, neither limiting or advancing its effect on religious practice.  Finally, the action or law must have a secular, meaning non-religious, justification.  This means that laws or government action must have a non-religious purpose, a clear separation of church and state entanglement and that the law or action must be religiously neutral to be allowed to stand by the criteria of the Lemon Test.

2. Is burning the US flag protected by the First Amendment? Explain by referring to the relevant court case discussed in the reading.

According to Texas v. Johnson in 1989, burning the US flag is protected by the First Amendment.  The case declared the act of burning the US flag as an example of symbolic speech, which was determined to be protected by the First Amendment’s freedom of expression in the same way as written or spoken communication.  Therefore, according to the Supreme Court, burning the US flag is protected by the First Amendment and laws to criminalize the act are unconstitutional.  

3. What does it mean when someone says “I’m taking the Fifth”?

Someone saying “I’m taking the Fifth” means that they are exercising their right to remain silent.  The Fifth Amendment includes protection against self-incrimination, where people have the right to not give evidence in court or to law enforcement that might mean an admission of guilt or responsibility for a crime.  Therefore “taking the Fifth” means that someone is using their right to not speak to avoid self-incrimination.  This is not allowed to be taken as an admission of guilt or played to a jury or other law enforcement as something that a guilty person would do, as it is a right for all Americans to protect themselves.

1. P. Williams writes in her essay, that the war on terror is a new type of a war. What’s new about it, how is it different from traditional wars?

The war on terror is a war primarily against civilian enemies committing acts of terror, instead of a traditional war that would be against a specific body or land.  P. Williams describes it as a “war of the mind” because these enemies are undefined and thus become anything or anyone that we imagine could make us afraid in addition to the actual threats.  This is further different from traditional wars because we needed to find out who might be involved through the civilian population, which led to President Bush overextending his executive power without the ability for Congress or judicial checks and balances.  Government acts and laws were put into place that removed rights from citizens and non-citizens alike who were suspected of terrorism, which in and of itself could have meant behaving in ways that were unsupportive or unpatriotic.  In a way, it could have been seen as a war on the privacy and legal rights of the American people because many rights, such as those that protect freedom of speech or expression, or the rights surrounding a fair trial and self-incrimination, were taken away by the government.

2. In what ways does the “Roving Wiretaps” of the Patriot Act seem to violate the Bill of Rights? Which amendment(s) does it seem to violate and why?

“Roving wiretaps” allow for one wiretap authorization to cover multiple devices, instead of needing individual authorizations for each phone, PC, or other piece of technology a suspect possesses.  This seems to violate the Fourth Amendment because it essentially makes the requirements for search warrants less than what is established.  It allows for one warrant to allow federal officers to track the usage and contents of someone’s property on an ongoing basis, regardless of if that individual is using it or if they are aware it is being tracked.  The items are not being seized and searched, but instead tracked, meaning that it is possible for the rights of those who are not the suspect to be infringed upon if they happen to be in contact with the suspect or use their technology during the time in which the suspect is being tracked. It also is a system based around pursuing self-incrimination, which is protected under the Fifth Amendment, through violating one’s privacy in the hope of discovering evidence of a crime.

3. What about “Sneak and Peek” Warrants?

“Sneak and Peek” warrants let authorities search a home or business without notifying the target that they are the subject of an investigation.  Investigators need to explain why they want the delay notice and argue that it can help to secure information that could otherwise be covered up with having to announce the investigation.  However, this also violates the Fourth Amendment, as it requires for the search to be announced as well as the items that will be seized.  Sneak and Peek warrants skirt around that by allowing for investigators to enter into a suspect’s house unannounced, which violates the privacy that is expected in regards to one’s home.  It creates situations where evidence could be fabricated or planted in order to condemn someone, and makes it so that the exclusionary rule would not apply because it counts these situations as legal. This once again violates the expected privacy one has under the bill of rights by allowing authorities to enter into and investigate your property without anyone being present.

1. Describe the primary differences in the role of citizens in government, among the federal, confederation, and unitary systems.
In a unitary system, the subnational government depends on the national government which has a high concentration of authority. In a Confederation, it is reversed, where the authority is concentrated in the subnational government and the national government’s ability to act is dependent on their consent. In a federal system, however, the National and Subnational governments are dependent on the people for their authority, which is evenly divided between the two governments. The people vote in representatives for both the national and subnational governments and their representatives are meant to act in the best interests of the people.

2. Briefly explain how you understand the system of division of power.
As I understand it, the division of power is accomplished by splitting the government into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, on both the national and subnational levels. Within the three branches, there are checks and balances to make sure that one branch does not have more power than another, such as the President being able to veto legislation or the Supreme Court being able to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. Additionally, there are checks and balances between the national and state levels to make sure that the national government is restricted in its capability to act on behalf of the people.

3. How does the federal government shape the actions of state and local governments? Write your answer based on doing a bit of research on how the federal government has influenced the actions of NY state and local governments, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Federal government shapes the actions of state and local governments by handling larger, overarching aspects of the country while leaving the smaller, individual details for the state and local governments to handle. For example, the federal government may give suggestions based on findings of government agencies, but will ultimately leave it to the state and local governments to determine what is best for public health, safety, and welfare.
In the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government closely monitored the cases and funded agencies to better research the virus, potential safeguards, and treatment options. They passed several bills meant to help stimulate the economy and help those who may have lost work due to the pandemic and various shutdowns throughout the country. The federal government made suggestions based on these findings but did not at any point mandate quarantines, vaccines, restrictions, or curfews, instead leaving that up to each individual state to determine what was best for their citizens.
In the case of NY state, Governor Cuomo declared a state of emergency in early March 2020, and shortly thereafter had the state begin to produce its own brand of hand sanitizer to help with price gouging and lack of supply. The Governor began to set social distancing rules into effect, such as limiting social gathering sizes and closing down CUNY and SUNY campuses, and by March 15th, shutting down NYC schools. The Governor signed an executive order mandating the closure of schools for two weeks to pivot to remote instruction, and within four days declared a state-wide stay-at-home order. When the state ultimately was showing signs of being able to re-open, NY state government ultimately determined when and how that would occur, and made it’s own decisions regarding vaccine requirements. Ultimately, these were measures that were supported by the federal government but were decided upon and executed by NY state’s government itself.

1. Based on the arguments presented in Readings 6.1 and 6.2, which social class wrote the Constitution, and which class was excluded and not allowed to participate in this process? In your comment, make sure you specify the difference between the two classes by giving examples from the readings.
   The capitalist class wrote the Constitution, while the working class was excluded and not allowed to participate in the process. According to reading 6.1, even if ordinary, working-class individuals were permitted, they were not able to take time off of work to go to Philadelphia to argue their positions as the Constitution was being written. Therefore, it was the capitalist class of early America, the merchants, slaveowners, and manufacturers, who assisted with writing the Constitution as they were able to attend and were invited to do so to protect their interests (and those of the Founding Fathers, who also were within the capitalist class). Additionally, when it came to holding office and participating in the government, people had to have a certain amount of wealth before they were able to take part, so once again, there was a strong division between the working class and the capitalist class, where the capitalist class helped to write the constitution in their favor.
2. Would say that the social class structure of early United States society, was the same as ours today, or different? Explain.
   The social class structure of the early United States society seems to be nearly identical to what it is today. The social class structure of today is divided between the capitalist class who owns a lot of wealth and the working class that own some, little, or no wealth, which is the same as it was in the early days of the United States. While the means of production and social climate may have changed, the actual social class structure remains the same, as the Constitution writing had hoped it would.
3. Why were the people who wrote the Constitution so afraid of democracy? Hint: think about how to answer this question by discussing it in terms of social classes.
   According to reading 6.1, the working class wanted to abolish debts (which were to be paid to the capitalist class), and equally divide property (giving more to the working class and thus taking away from the capitalist class), among other things. In a democracy, where all people genuinely had the right to vote, the working class as the majority would be able to better fight for these things and thus remove capital and power from the capitalist class. This is opposed to the situation that the Constitution established, where only the wealthy White men who owned land could vote, who still represented a minority and were more likely to be part of the capitalist class like the writers of the Constitution. Therefore, democracy was a terrifying concept to the capitalist class that wrote the Constitution, as they wanted to maintain their wealth and power and protect it from being taken from them. Democracy was a terrifying concept for them because it would mean that they could lose their footing, power, and money to those that they deemed as less intelligent and less able to uphold the country.

1. What concept that we have already discussed does “faction” remind you of?
   A faction, as I understand it, reminds me of the idea of political parties. Factions are described as a number of citizens who are united and act based on common feelings of passion, or interests, that are against the ideas of other groups of citizens. This seems to match with the idea of political parties, as they are groups of citizens that are bound together by their passions or interests that, in some ways, oppose the beliefs or rights of other citizens by aim of what they believe in.
2. According to Federalist #10 (written by James Madison), what is the source of wealth (private property)? What factor explains why some people get to possess wealth by owning private property, and others don’t (thus remaining poor)?
   In this case, I believe faculties means the intelligence that someone has. Therefore, James Madison is saying that the intelligence of man is where the rights of property originate, and thus is the source of wealth. According to him, highly intelligent people are the ones who are able to gain wealth and those who are less intelligent are unable to gain wealth, thus remaining poor. The intelligence of a man determines how much wealth they are able to accumulate.
3. Do you agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty?
   I do not agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty because, while having an education can increase one’s potential for gaining greater wealth, there is nothing that directly connects intelligence to the ability to own property, a successful business, or to be born into wealth. As previous readings have explained, a large amount of wealth held by a small percentage of the top 1% is generational, meaning it is passed down and grows from one generation to the next. Capitalists come from wealth and continue to build wealth due to being in a position where they can continue to grow it by controlling the means of production. Being born into or inheriting wealth does not require or guarantee higher intelligence. Additionally, there are incredibly intelligent people who do not have access to an education that will further build their intelligence due to being born into poverty, as well as those who do gain access to education but still are unable to build enough wealth to be considered “wealthy” because they were born into poverty. So I do not agree with James Madison’s explanation of wealth an poverty, as the correlation between intelligence and wealth (or poverty) is not as simple as he states.
4. What is the core mission (“first object”) of the US government? Does this surprise you, does it sound different from what our society today seems to suggest the core mission of the government is? Explain.
   According to reading 6.3, the core mission of the US government is to protect the wealth of the capitalist class. This makes sense as, the ones who wrote the Constitution and established the government were capitalists and thus wanted to protect their own interests. I feel that this, to a degree, is still true today. Taxes are a big discussion topic to this day, and the argument comes down to if we should be taxing the wealthy (both individuals and corporations) at all. Some argue that we should because it would be fair as the working class is taxed, especially the wealthy working class, while others argue that we should not in hopes that one day, they will be rich enough to benefit from not paying taxes. This overall protects the interests of the capitalist class as we continue to have these arguments while continuing to give tax breaks and cuts to the rich.
5. Given the discussion in questions 1-4, are you surprised that Federalist #10 is not in favor of democracy, and supports a Republican (representative) form of government? Why would the author dislike a (pure) democratic form of government?
   I am not surprised at all that the writer of Federalist #10 is not in favor of democracy. I believe the writer is in favor of a Republican form of government because restrictions were placed on which individuals could take political office, which in most cases amounted to someone who would be part of the capitalist class. This meant that, even if representatives were elected by the working class, they were more likely to still have capitalist interests at the forefront of their minds, as opposed to if the working class had full access to voting and selecting aspects of the government like in a democracy. A democracy would threaten everything that the capitalist class attempted to put into writing as protections in the Constitution, as the working class would fight for equality and their own interests which directly interfered with the capitalists.

1. Two key concepts in this video are the means of production and labor. In your comment, explain how you understand the means of production and labor. Give an example of each.
As I understand it, the means of production are the tools required to create something new. An example of this would be a digital editing program that is used to transform raw camera footage into a finished video. This is an example of means of production because it allows a user to take their own item (raw camera footage) and transform it into something new. Labor is the act of taking something and transforming it into something else. An example of this would be the act of crocheting yarn into a blanket. The act of crocheting itself is labor that transforms yarn into a new form that has value, in this case a blanket.

2. Another important concept in understanding social class is value. Based on the ideas presented in Video 5.1, what is value? What gives “value” to value, what makes something valuable?
Value is the amount of worth something has. This is not the same as price, which is the amount charged for an item that may or may not be influenced by the value of the item. Labor time gives value to value, as the amount of labor put into something creates value.

3. How are labor and value related? What’s the relationship/connection between the two?
The relationship between value and labor is that the amount of labor put into a product under normal circumstances increases the value of the finished product. The value of a product can be measured in labor time.

4. How do you understand the difference between labor and labor power? Hint: this is a key difference, give it your best shot based on what the video says about it, and your own ideas. We’ll clarify and develop it in our discussions, and in my video comments.
Labor is the act of taking something and transforming it into a product, while labor power is how much a person is able to do that labor. This means that labor power is a measure of how much labor a person can complete, while labor itself is an act that a person does.

5. Surplus Value: what is it? Why is it important to know about, in our study of social classes? Think about an example of surplus value?
Surplus value is the excess value generated after a person’s labor produces enough to maintain a day’s worth of work. Usually, this is in the form of profits that go directly to the capitalist who has hired the laborer, either directly or through selling the excess products that the worker has produced. It is important to know about because it is why capitalists are inherently exploiting the working class, as they do not pay the working class equal to what they produce, otherwise, they would not continue to profit. An example of surplus value would be that a factory worker could have their needs met after working 6 hours out of an 8 hour work day, so the final two hours are labor that create extra production for the capitalist. Because it is surplus, it goes to the capitalist directly and is able to be turned into profit for them.