1. As we learned thus far, the capitalist class consists of people who own wealth, as well as the means of production in American society. An important question in understanding how this class works is to ask: how does a capitalist remain wealthy? The answer to this question depends largely on understanding the diagram M-C-M’. So, let’s practice by explaining what happens in this diagram in our own words (but basing our ideas on Reading 5.1). Respond to the following question: Explain M-C-M’ to show how capitalists maintain and increase their wealth. (hint: your answer should weave a summary that includes what you reviewed in the self-assessment exercise question 1-7)

M-C-M’ means Money is exchanged for Commodities, which are then sold for their original value, M, plus their surplus value, m, which together create M’.  In the case of capitalists, the first M stands for the money that is invested into a production.  This includes, but is not limited to, the buildings, tools and equipment, raw materials and other supplies, and labor power that is paid for in order to create goods or services, in this case called a commodity.  A commodity is the good or service that is produced by the workers through their labor power and is what the middle C stands for. For the system to function properly, the worker needs to labor for longer than it takes to create a value equal to their necessary labor time, which creates surplus labor that becomes surplus value.  The commodities created by the workers are then sold by the capitalist in order to make M’, or the money they invested initially to produce the commodity plus the surplus value created from the worker’s surplus labor power.  This process allows capitalists to maintain and increase their wealth as the money they make at the end of the diagram is always more than the initial money invested, meaning that the capitalist leaves with a profit.

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.

1. What is the distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees? Give an example of each.

The distinction made between owners and employees is that the employee class must work hard in order to create value while owners produce nothing and gain money off of the employee class.  For example, an author writes a book and editors, proofreaders, printers, and salespeople all provide additional labor to help a book sell.  All of them are considered to be part of the employee class.  However, the profits of the book go to the owners of the publishing house, who provide no labor to the creation or sale of the book at all.

2. How do you understand the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28? What is it saying about labor?

I understand Adam Smith’s quote to mean that labor is the true value of something because it is what transforms a thing into something of value.  Without labor, profitable items could not exist because the labor is what creates value.  Labor is necessary for products to exist, whether it is from the person physically creating the items or the executive that is organizing the other employees in order to more effectively work.  Labor is the true value of things, not the monetary value that is assigned to them.

3. What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is NOT an identity?

I think there merit to the idea in how the idea that class is NOT an identity is argued in this paper.  The paper expresses that liberals may see class as an identity because it can be seen as a combination of wealth, income, and education, and as class is divided into different levels, this could create the image of having a common identity.  This is actually the view that I held coming into this paper, as I believe that there can be a community based around social class that is based around those factors.  However, the paper argues that there are instead two classes in the socialist view of class: capitalists and workers. And while they can be perceived as an identity, the dependency and power imbalance makes it unable to be an identity.  This argument makes sense to me, and highlights that the power of one’s social class position is very different than the power inherent to one’s race or gender.  Like the example used in the reading, someone is not more or less white dependent on someone else’s blackness, or vice versa.  The concept of race as an identity is based solely on you and how you identify, whereas social class is defined by the power that capitalists hold and their dependency between both classes.  A worker is dependent on a capitalist for their job, and a capitalist has the power to exploit that worker in order to remain a capitalist.  So, there is too much power at play for one’s class to be an identity.

4. How do you understand the argument Reading 4.4. makes when stating that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency”? What is this close form of dependency, and can you think of an example?

I understand it to mean that the working class is dependent on capitalists for their job, which leads to money and resources needed for survival, while capitalists must exploit the working class in order to continue to be capitalists. Workers will always be in a position to have their interests threatened by the capitalists employing them by nature of those conflicting with the interests of the capitalists, but it also means that the workers have the ability to threaten capitalists’ abilities to remain in power.  So while capitalists have created a system where society is dependent on them, workers still maintain the ability to take that power away from them if they choose to not work.  An example of this would be if a group of workers decided to unionize and strike, such as we have been seeing with Starbucks workers across the country.  By striking, the workers pause production or the distribution of services which in turn stops the capitalist class from profiting, meaning that the capitalist class either will have to replace an entire workforce or meet the working class in the middle towards their own interests.

1. Do you notice any similarities in the way social class is discussed in readings 4.1 and 4.2? Do you notice any differences in the way these two readings DIFFERENTIATE between social classes?

Both reading 4.1 and 4.2 place a focus on income level as a way of defining social class.  Reading 4.2 specifically only considers income for its data set and specifically uses median, not average, income levels to determine the data, thus showing the income that a majority of the population living there makes.  Reading 4.2, however, also places importance on other factors for social class, such as education level, age, race, employment, and whether an area is more urban or suburban.  Reading 4.2 places emphasis on self-determined social class, as well, instead of insisting on a firm definition, meaning that both articles do not completely define what social class is or could be.  Instead, they present it in a way that fits with the data they are sharing regarding social class.

2. Pick the station closest to where you live. Using the concepts from Reading 4.1, what social class tends to live in your neighborhood? Are you surprised (or not) by the answer? Do you feel it is an accurate representation of the people living in your neighborhood?

The closest station to my location based on when this data was compiled would be the 34th St.-Penn Station stop on the A, C, and E lines, which gives a median income of $51,827.  Using the concepts from the 4.1 reading and that income amount, I would label the neighborhood as low-income, which I do feel would be accurate for the neighborhood when the data was taken over a decade ago.  There are several NYCHA buildings in the area and it generally was a less developed neighborhood that could be afforded on a smaller income.  At that point, most people in my neighborhood appeared to be working class and the prices of shops and restaurants in the area reflected that.  Overall, I am not shocked by the median income being $51,827 in the context of when the data was taken. 

All that being said, I would love to see an updated data set as the closest subway to my home now would be the Hudson Yards stop on the 7 train that was opened after that data set was gathered.  That half of the neighborhood appears to be upper-middle class due to the development of the Hudson Yards, the luxury buildings and mall that were built, and the increase in more expensive brands moving into the area.  I wonder what the median income would look like with the two competing income levels, as the people living in the eastern part of my neighborhood seem largely unchanged while the western part of the neighborhood seems like it would be in a different social class based on income, age, and education level.

3. Based on Reading 4.2, do you notice a general pattern about social classes in NYC?

Lower and Middle Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn that are close to Manhattan seem, based on income level, to be at middle-to-upper-middle social class, while in most cases, further parts of Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Queens seem to be lower or working class.  There are a few outliers, like Forest Hills and Mets-Willets Point in Queens and Grand Army Plaza and 7th Ave in Brooklyn that are closer to middle class, and stops such as 116th Street and upward or Delancy St.-Essex Street in Manhattan that are notably lower or working class.

1. What is a Repressive State Apparatus? Why does Althusser call it “repressive”? Can we explain his choice of words here. Give an example.
Althusser defines a Repressive State Apparatus as something that controls you through a threat of violence. Examples of this include police, courts, and the prison system. He calls it repressive because these means are used to stop someone from doing something that upsets the status quo by punishing them when they get out of line. This represses their ability to continue to act in ways that go against the status quo.

2. Let’s do the same for the Ideological State Apparatuses. What are they, how do they seem to work?
Ideological State Apparatuses maintain the status quo by keeping people in their place through the want to fit in, belong to groups, and be perceived as normal. They work by using social pressure to stop people from pursuing genuine change for fear of no longer fitting in. People are expected to behave in specific, approved ways and changes are pursued in socially acceptable ways. Examples of Ideological State Apparatuses include school, politics, and mass media.

3. Important: this question will appear on our exam: How are the Repressive and Ideological State Apparatuses different from each other? What is the difference between the two?
Repressive State Apparatuses are tools that are meant to stop people from acting against the status quo through fear of punishment, while Ideological State Apparatuses are meant to uphold the status quo by social conditioning and pressure. Ideological State Apparatuses seem to be more subconscious as they are built into society and engrained in people from a young age, while Repressive State Apparatuses are more overt by nature of being punishments. Ideological State Apparatuses maintain the status quo due to it becoming the natural way that most people will engage with the world and Repressive State Apparatuses exist to maintain the status quo by removing your freedom.

4. Post an example of ideology. This could be a piece of writing, an image, video, pdf document, visual art, or music, clip from a movie. Next to your example, specify if this is an example of repressive or ideological apparatuses at work. I’ll start us of off by giving an example.

I chose to share a clip from a reality television series called “Beyond Scared Straight,” which would place “troubled teenagers” in prison in order to try to scare them into changing in order to avoid potentially ending up in prison one day themselves. This show is an example of repressive apparatuses at work as the goal of it was to use fear in order to return these teenagers to the status quo. The purpose is to scare them with the threat of what prison may be like in order to convince them to change their behavior to what is considered to be acceptable to society. If they do not, then they will be met with a more extreme repressive apparatus: losing their freedom to the American prison system.

1. Keeping in mind the material covered in this lesson, describe how you understand ideology in YOUR OWN WORDS.
Ideology is the series of political beliefs one has about society as a whole and it affects how one sees the world. This can include beliefs that one has without consciously being aware of them and, as per the thoughts of Louis Althusser, can be reinforced through behaviors that are approved by society. Typically, ideology is associated with political parties, such as being Republican or Democrat, but it is not 100% the same thing. Instead, it is the beliefs themselves that may lead someone to associate with a political party. For example, if someone comes from a republican family that goes to church and upholds traditional American values in their community, they may be more likely to develop a political ideology that reflects those values without actively choosing to hold those beliefs.
I understand ideology to be the political views through which a person views and interacts with the world. This includes the beliefs that we develop through interaction with our families, communities, and schools over our lives, especially in our youth. Our inclination towards certain political parties will be reflected in these ideologies that develop but due to the complex nature of beliefs, one might align with a certain political party without 100% aligning with their beliefs. I do feel like I may not be fully grasping the idea, though, and I look forward to seeing the different perspectives that everyone brings to this discussion.

2. How do you understand the difference between conservative and liberal ideology in US politics? What seem to be the big differences, the dividing line? Give an example to back up your arguments.
The largest difference between conservative and liberal ideology in US politics would be that conservatives see a large government as something that can disrupt individual liberty, while liberals see a large government as a way to solve bigger problems in society. Outside of national defense, conservatives prefer power to be placed in state and local governments while liberals support the national government having the power to intervene with social programs, environmental endeavors, and the economy in the pursuit of equality. To reach these goals, conservatives believe in lower spending for the national government and thus lower taxes, while liberals tend to support a higher tax rate on corporations and the wealthy in order to fund these social programs. Conservatives typically hold traditional religious and patriotic values as part of their ideology, which does not tend to be the case with liberals. Similarly, liberals tend to be united over desire for social equality, while there does not tend to be one universal stance for conservatives. Overall, the major division comes from their views on the national government and what power they believe that government should possess.

3. How do you understand Althusser’s definition of ideology? Paraphrase it in your own words. Give an example.
Louis Althusser’s definition of ideology seems to be that it is a concept that exists to maintain the status quo of a society that is determined by that society. Through Repressive and Ideological State Apparatuses, people conform and adjust their beliefs to fit into their specific group or society as a whole. People subconsciously develop their ideology through school, where they are taught discipline and how to work in order to fit in. An example of ideology by his definition would be if someone grows up in a society that is accepting and celebratory of different walks of life, where acceptance is rewarded with fitting in with their peers and community, their own beliefs will reflect that without them likely ever being aware that they decided to believe those things.

1. Why do you think Southern racist politicians chose to frame their defense of racial segregation through the language of “law and order”?  What special advantages was this choice of words going to give them?

I think Southern racist politicians chose to frame their defense of racial segregation through the language of “law and order” in order to avoid being labeled as racist or socially unjust due to the climate around racism changing. By labeling the Civil Rights Movement as an attack on law and order, they could dodge around the idea of race as the motivator for legislation that primarily or solely affected people of color.  By avoiding race through this wording, they were able to appeal to poor and working class whites that were conservative but not necessarily racist.

2. Do you think the Southern Strategy is still influencing American politics? Give an example supporting your answer.

In the article, the Southern Strategy was described as a plan to create a “new majority” by combining the traditional Republican base with the white South and half of the Catholic, blue-collar vote from cities by appealing to racial fears and antagonisms.  I think this concept is still influencing American politics today, specifically in regards to immigrants, as political platforms continue to be built on the fears that Americans might have surrounding job security and safety.  Similar to how the Southern Strategy was used to convince conservatives that an increase in crime was correlated to an increase of people of color in those areas, the same concepts are applied to areas with immigrants in order to argue for the legislature to not help them.  I see it as an evolution of the concept of the Southern Strategy.

1. M. Alexander claims that the main explanation of why so many people are sent to jail in the U.S. today is deeply wrong.  Explain her argument by referring to the various examples she mentions to back up her point. (see p. 1-2).

M. Alexander argues that the general population believes many people are sent to jail thanks to the government’s attempts to address drug crime in poor, minority neighborhoods.  Her argument, however, is that the War on Drugs used harmful Black stereotypes surrounding inner-city residents to create the illusion that the Black community had a higher involvement in drug use and dealing. She points out that the war on drugs was announced in 1982 but crack cocaine did not spread to poor neighborhoods across the country for several more years.  She also noted that the media specifically made use of images of Black “crack whores,” “crack dealers,” and “crack babies,” to visually associate these terms with the Black community. This was combined with the potential that crack cocaine was introduced into these neighborhoods by the government as a way to harm or erase them, and she supports this by mentioning that the CIA admitted in 1998 that guerilla armies they supported actually smuggled illegal drugs into the US.  This furthers the idea that the War on Drugs caused more people of color to be targeted by police, leading to higher arrests and convictions in the Black community that goes beyond simply the government seeking to address drug crime. 

2. Why is it that racial disparities in the rates of incarceration “cannot be explained by rates of drug crimes”?

Racial disparities in the rates of incarceration “cannot be explained by rates of drug crimes” because studies show similar rates of selling and using drugs across people of all colors.  The only significant difference found in these studies was that whites, specifically white youth, were more likely to engage in drug crime over people of color.

3. How do you understand the phrase: “the American penal system has emerged as a system of social control unparalleled in world history”?

The way that I understand the phrase is that, as M. Alexander describes the system, the American penal system exists as a way to control groups that the government decides.  No other country in the world comes anywhere near the amount of people incarcerated, and likewise has nowhere near the proportion of minorities imprisoned, as the U.S., showing our system to be unlike any other in the world.  Additionally, one in three African American men is in prison, on probation, or on parole, meaning that a significant portion of Black men in America will be under the control of the American prison system for life.  This is without mentioning the impact of being imprisoned, which can affect job and housing opportunities, and thus does ultimately have the social lives of these men affected for the rest of their lives.