My understanding stems from Pierre Jalee’s “How Capitalism Works,” and I’ve re-applied its principles to my own work situation to explain the M-C-M Concept in the 2024 version. Here is the context of my job as a Senior Corporate Securities Paralegal and how it applies to my law firm’s operations which helps to illustrate how capitalists maintain and grow their wealth. Here’s a breakdown using my personal example:

Initially, my law firm invests money (M) in resources, which includes my labor as a paralegal. I’m compensated at $43.27 per hour for my expertise and efforts. This is the firm’s investment in the commodity (C), which in this scenario is the legal services (specifically to onshore fund formations and keeping up with the SEC’s compliance) I provide.

When I work on client cases, my billable time is charged at $300 per hour. Once the client pays, this revenue (M) reflects a significant markup from the initial investment. The difference between what I’m paid and what the firm charges clients is the surplus value (M), stemming from the legal services sold at a price higher than the cost of production, i.e., my wage and other operating expenses.

This surplus, after deducting operating expenses, contributes to my boss’s profit. They can then reinvest part of this profit back into the firm, perhaps by hiring more staff, expanding the firm’s services, or increasing marketing efforts to attract more clients. This reinvestment is aimed at generating even more surplus value, perpetuating the cycle of M-C-M and facilitating the firm’s growth and my boss’s accumulation of wealth.

Not only do most companies favor the method of stock buybacks to reduce their corporate taxes, but business owners also often maximize their business expenses for the same reason, while those of us with W-2 income have no room to evade or lessen our taxes. Fun fact: Warren Buffett’s secretary pays more taxes than he does! This is the reality of corporate America.

1. In the video, two key concepts discussed were the means of production and labor. The means of production refer to the tools, facilities, and resources necessary for creating goods or services. An example would be a farm with its land, machinery, and buildings essential for producing crops. Labor, on the other hand, is the human effort employed in using these means of production, such as the farmers and workers who plant, tend, and harvest the crops.
   
2. A product’s value is measured by how much labor it takes to produce under normal circumstances. So, a designer garment or a custom tailored suit, which involves more labor, is considered more valuable than clothing produced on a mass scale.
   
3. Labor and value are intrinsically connected because the value of a product is largely determined by the labor required to produce it. This means that the more labor (or the more intensive and skilled the labor) that goes into creating a product, the higher its value.
   
4. To me, labor means the actual work or effort put into producing goods, whereas labor power is the ability or capacity to work that workers sell to their employers. In essence, labor power is what workers bring to the job market, and labor is what they do once they’ve sold that capacity to an employer. This difference is key to understanding how workers are paid and how value comes about in a capitalist system.
   
5. Surplus value represents the excess of value produced by labor over the wages paid to the worker, revealing the exploitation core of capitalism. This concept is pivotal for dissecting social classes, as it shows how capitalists profit by paying workers less than the value their labor creates. For example, I get paid $43.27 per hour as a Senior Corporate Securities Paralegal but bring $300 per hour (billable time to client) value to my firm. And the remaining surplus minus operating expenses will go to my boss who is represented as a capitalist in the video.

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

Reading 4.3 made a clear distinction between owners and employees by defining owners as making a profit out of their employees’ labor and living off their assets while employees must produce labor and rely heavily on their wages and salaries. 

Example: 

Owning class – My boss:  who is an equity partner and a founder of a corporate law firm – is in the Cayman Islands enjoying vacation while his associates like me are working for his clients.

Working class – Me: His employee, who is 100% dependent on the salary provided to pay my school tuition and living expenses. 

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

Adam Smith, “labor … is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of all commodities can at all times and places be estimated and compared. It is their real price; money is their nominal price only.”

I understand Adam Smith’s quote to mean that the true worth of goods isn’t in how much money they cost, but in the amount of work it takes to produce them. To me, Smith emphasizes that labor, or the effort people put into creating something, is the real measure of its value. Money, on the other hand, is just a way to express that value at a certain time and place, but it doesn’t capture the essence of the item’s true worth, which is the labor behind it. A simpler way to put it, Labor = Value = Money. 

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

I personally thought it was a very well written argument because I resonate with the writer’s stance on how people often view class as socioeconomic status which is again mainly derived from the combination of things like wealth, income, and education and viewed as a ‘ranking’ amongst others. When there’s a rank, there always will be some higher people and some who are lower. In my opinion, one’s identity should be valued more than just the societal rank often measured by people with power. 

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 think what Reading 4.4 is saying is that class structures are based on a very tight kind of need for each other. This means if you’re a worker, you’re always in a spot where your boss, the capitalist, could threaten what you want or need. But it also means that workers have the power to make their bosses listen by threatening their profits. This tight connection not only puts workers at risk but also gives them the power to fight back.

Bosses hold power because they control the resources everyone needs. But there are also workers who produce actual labor that provides them profits. So for example, when unions strike, they disrupt production, highlighting how much everyone relies on these resources. This forces a negotiation, showing the power balance between workers and bosses and the broader dependency society has on their continued operation.

1) Do you notice any similarities in the way social class is discussed in readings 4.1 and 4.2?

Both 4.1 The Gallup and 4.2 The New Yorker article highlight the correlation between people’s level of income and their residence to gauge their social class. 

2) Do you notice any differences in the way these two readings DIFFERENTIATE between social classes?

4.1 The Gallup article focuses on how people place themselves, such as by their age, level of education, income, and race which are more varied indicators, whilst 4.2 The New Yorker article mainly focuses on the direct correlation between people’s residence and the level of income only. 

3) 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?

I live closer to Flushing, on Main Street. According to the map, working to middle class tends to live in my neighborhood. I am not surprised as the article is outdated (issued in 2011 which is 13 years ago from now) before Flushing Main Street got more gentrified with the influx of cash rich Asian American immigrants and small business owners. I don’t think it’s an accurate representation as for today’s date because if you see apartment rent or property sale values, Flushing is highest after LIC in Queens. The condos are listed as close to $700K to over $1M which is priced higher than Forest Hills or Woodside. And I think this valuation will only get higher because it’s a lucrative area to have a business and the infrastructure such as Chinatown in Main Street and Ktown in Murray Hill are firmly established for Asian immigrants who tend to make above average income amongst other immigrants of race statically. 

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

I do notice a general pattern about social classes in NYC which I generally agree such as high middle to upper class is more often found in Lower Manhattan where FiDi is located where I used to work. And that people’s level of income rapidly decreases once their area of residence gets further from the city (Manhattan). 

Nevertheless, considering the article’s data is 13 years old, several changes have since influenced these patterns: 1) the emergence of Billionaire’s Row, 2) the relocation of most financial headquarters to Midtown or out of state to places like Miami or Texas for tax advantages, and 3) the gentrification of Long Island City (LIC), now surpassing Williamsburg in Brooklyn in terms of expense.  I’m curious what the most up-to-date data will look like. 

1. A Repressive State Apparatus is basically the tough side of the government, like the police, military, and courts, that makes sure people follow the rules, sometimes using force by a strong driving force “fear”. Althusser calls it “repressive” because it’s all about keeping control by being strict and sometimes punishing people. It’s like when a teacher sends someone to the principal’s office for breaking the rules. The idea is that these parts of the government are there to make sure everyone stays in line, using their power to enforce the laws.
   
   
2. The key idea behind Ideological State Apparatuses is that they subtly shape our thinking so that we hardly ever question inequalities in society. Through various institutions like schools which he states is one of the most powerful ideological state apparatuses because they are ‘mandatory’ which serves the same as the medieval Catholic Church in the feudal systems, we’re taught certain norms and values that make the existing social structures seem natural such as obeying to the authority of the teachers (and government).
   
   
3. The main difference between Repressive State Apparatuses and Ideological State Apparatuses lies in how they maintain control and uphold societal norms. RSAs do this through force and coercion, using tools like the police, military, and legal system to enforce laws and ensure order. They’re about making sure people follow the rules by showing the consequences if they don’t.
   
   On the other hand, ISAs work through culture, education, media, and other social institutions to subtly shape our beliefs, values, and behaviors. They don’t use force instead, they influence us from a young age to accept and perpetuate the existing social order as if it’s just the way things are supposed to be. So, while RSAs might use physical or legal power to keep society in line, ISAs work by getting us to buy into certain ideas and norms, making us part of maintaining those norms without even realizing it.
   
   
4. Althusser sees ideology essentially as a tool or weapon that the powerful use to justify keeping things as they are. He suggests that ideologies stem from the way work and ownership are structured in society. Then, these ideologies are supported and spread through widely accepted beliefs, like religion or racism, making people think the current system is the only way. According to him, ideology is complex and deeply intertwined with societal norms, influencing people’s actions and thoughts more than we might realize.

1. To me, ideology is like a personal filter or lens for how we see the world. It’s made up of what we believe and value, and how we understand and perceive everything around us. There’s no right or wrong (unless it’s extreme, of course) and everyone’s different ideals should be respected generally. And this generally agreed-upon ideology as a group shapes a bigger frame as a country, affecting the governing laws and expectations of how people should behave.
   
   
2. When I think about the differences between conservative and liberal ideologies in U.S. politics, I see it as a matter of how much freedom and government involvement people believe is best for society. Conservatives, in my view, really value personal freedom, especially when it comes to owning property and making money. They seem to believe in the idea of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and tend to want the government to stay out of people’s business (“free market capitalism” according to the reading material). Yet, they support strict law enforcement and traditional views on social issues like abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, and feminism, aiming to keep things the way they’ve traditionally been.
   
   On the flip side, I understand liberals as being more focused on fixing the social inequalities and injustices in society. They agree with conservatives about the free market being a good thing to a certain extent, but they see big differences in how to handle social issues. Liberals push for laws that help even the playing field, like minimum wage laws and better public services. Those on the far left take it further, advocating for free healthcare and education as ways to give everyone a fair chance at success.
   
   A clear example that highlights this divide for me is the debate over healthcare. Conservatives I’ve listened to argue for a healthcare system driven by the market, believing competition will lead to better services. In contrast, liberals, especially the far left, argue that healthcare is a right everyone should have access to (for example: Obama Care), regardless of their financial situation. And Biden’s student loan forgiveness is another great example of what liberals believe in while conservative states are strongly against his plan and even brought it up to the Supreme Court.
   
   
3. Althusser explained ideology as a system that justifies keeping things the way they are, suggesting that society doesn’t need to change, started in Feudal Age when the privileged class used it to maintain their power and status quo. Then he explained this idea has changed or evolved in the 20th century, arguing that ideology reinforces behaviors that are expected and accepted in a capitalist society. So I think ideology is like water in which it doesn’t have a definite shape or rigid frame but rather flows freely and can be changed interchangeably depending on the era, situation, and by what kind of people use it with a specific purpose as a way to control or retain their power.

1. Southern racist politicians chose to frame their defense of racial segregation through the language of “law and order” because it was a slick way to appeal to racist sentiments without being openly racist. By shouting “law and order,” they could crack down on civil rights movements and black communities under the guise of fighting crime, without directly mentioning race. This not only kept their hands clean in the eyes of the law but also resonated with white folks who were scared of the social changes the Civil Rights Movement brought. It was a clever but dirty trick to keep racial control without saying it out loud.
   
2. I think the Southern Strategy hasn’t disappeared from today’s political scene. Take Trump’s comments in 2023, for instance, where he used terms like “poisoning the bad blood” and “make America clean again.” Those aren’t just offhand remarks; they’re loaded with implied language designed to fuel division. It is hard to say this is not a Deja Vu or continuation of “Law and Order” that was used by Southern racist politicians.
   

1. According to the author Michelle Alexander, the discrepancy between crime rates and the government’s punitive response was apparent when comparing the U.S. to other Western countries. Alexander points out that, despite similar crime rates, the U.S. has a significantly higher incarceration rate, which skyrocketed from around 300,000 to more than 2 million in a few decades, primarily due to drug-related charges. The rise in the number of people in prison took place even as drug offenses were on the decline, showing a mismatch between the rates of real crime and the strictness of penalties, which demonstrates how deeply flawed our system is. It also discusses how drug use and crime rates don’t always align with punishment levels, suggesting that the war on drugs serves more as a tool of social control than a response to actual crime.
   
   2. The racial gaps in prison numbers don’t line up with drug crime stats simply because white people and black people use and sell drugs at similar rates. However, the justice system ends up locking up way more black men for drug offenses. In certain areas, black men are jailed for drug crimes 20 to 50 times more often than white men. This disparity isn’t because black people are committing more drug crimes; it’s because of a biased system that targets them more aggressively.
   
   3. I understand the phrase “the American penal system has emerged as a system of social control unparalleled in world history” to mean that the U.S. has developed a prison system that’s unlike any other in history in terms of its scale and its impact on controlling certain groups of people, especially African Americans, to an extent that’s not seen anywhere else in the world.