1. If we look deeply at capitalism, we can say that capitalism requires inequality. If we look back to the history of capitalism, we can see that there was a distinguishable difference between the owner of the means and the laborers who were exploited then. So, all type of capitalism is racial capitalism from the very beginning, and it’s been like that for years and years. Ruth Wilson Gilmore’s statement that capitalism ceases to be racial capitalism “when all the white people disappear from the story” demonstrates how whiteness is linked to systems of power and privilege. Whiteness is more than just skin color; it is a social construct that provides benefits and justifies the exploitation of non-white people. Whiteness has been employed in racial capitalism to build and maintain racial hierarchies, allowing wealth to be extracted from oppressed populations while favoring those labeled as “white.” These hierarchies are ingrained in laws, regulations, and cultural norms, making oppression appear natural or necessary, particularly when it disproportionately impacts minority communities. Whiteness has backed colonialism and imperialism all over the world, broadening the scope of racial capitalism.

The connection between whiteness and racism lies in whiteness’s historical and structural role in sustaining racial hierarchies that serve capitalist accumulation. When Gilmore criticizes whiteness, she is not targeting people but rather the institutions and ideas that perpetuate racialized exploitation and unfairness. Her work encourages us to conceive a world without such systems—a world in which racism, and by extension, racial capitalism, is truly eliminated.

2. Ruth Wilson Gilmore believes that the prison system produces new “criminals” by targeting and punishing people based on structural inequities rather than addressing the underlying causes of harm or poverty. She explains that jails do not address problems; rather, they process and warehouse people, particularly from underprivileged areas, who are frequently dealing with challenges such as unemployment, a lack of housing, or institutional racism. The criminalization of survival activities or minor violations promotes incarceration cycles. For example, those released from jail frequently suffer stigma, limited job chances, and limited access to resources, which might force them back into situations that lead to re-arrest. This loop assures that incarceration is more than just a reaction to crime; it is a mechanism that actively causes it.

I agree with Gilmore’s point of view because it demonstrates how the jail system fails to solve fundamental issues such as poverty and inequality, instead reinforcing them. Punishing people without addressing their needs worsens their problems, providing no real solutions for safety or communal well-being. Investing in education, mental health care, and economic possibilities might break this cycle and lessen harm.

3. In the video’s final analysis, Ruth Wilson Gilmore defines “liberation struggle” as a social, transformative process to demolish oppressive systems and build a world that values life, equity, and justice. She emphasizes that liberation entails not just releasing people from specific types of damage, such as jail, but also eliminating the conditions that allow those harms to occur in the first place. This entails confronting interconnected systems of exploitation, such as racial capitalism, patriarchy, and environmental destruction, and developing alternatives that promote caring, cooperation, and communal well-being.

Gilmore defines liberation struggle as grassroots organizing and social action to reimagine and rebuild society. It means envisioning a future without prisons, systematic injustices, and racial hierarchies—a one in which everyone has access to the resources and opportunities they require to thrive. It is not enough to combat oppressive regimes; it is also necessary to create conditions for genuine freedom and prosperity for all.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dukes v. Walmart fundamentally changed how workplace discrimination cases could be pursued through class action lawsuits. The case, representing 1.5 million female Walmart employees alleging systematic gender discrimination, was struck down in a decision hinged on a seemingly technical legal concept: “commonality.”

What’s fascinating about this case is how the Court, mainly through Justice Scalia’s majority opinion, redefined what constitutes sufficient commonality for a class action. While traditionally, class members just needed to share common “questions of law or fact,” Scalia raised the bar significantly. Under the new interpretation, plaintiffs needed to demonstrate not just a common problem but also a common solution that could remedy all members’ grievances “in a single stroke.”

This might sound reasonable at first glance, but consider what this meant in practice. The Court essentially said that because different women at Walmart experienced discrimination in different ways – some denied specific promotions, others paid less than male colleagues, others facing hostile work environments – they couldn’t be considered a unified class. As Scalia put it, there wasn’t enough “glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together.” But here’s what makes this reasoning problematic- it fundamentally misunderstands how modern workplace discrimination typically operates. As the Walmart case demonstrated, discrimination often manifests through countless individual decisions, biased corporate culture, and subtle systemic barriers. The statistical evidence was striking – women made up 72% of hourly employees but only 34% of management, and the wage gap increased every year after 1997, even though women had better performance ratings and longer tenure.

The implications of this decision extend far beyond Walmart. By setting such a high bar for commonality, the Court made it extraordinarily difficult for employees to challenge systemic discrimination at large companies through class actions. After all, the larger the company, the harder it becomes to show the kind of uniform discrimination the Court now requires.

1. Considering Williams’ analysis, the war on terror marks a profound shift in how we conceptualize warfare. Traditional conflicts have always had tangible elements – armies facing armies, contested territories, and resources being fought over. However, this new idea represents something far more abstract and psychologically complex. As Williams astutely observes, it’s fundamentally a “war of the mind” where the enemy isn’t defined by uniforms or borders but by the emotion of fear itself. This psychological dimension creates a troubling dynamic where, as she notes, anyone could potentially be classified as the enemy simply because they evoke fear in others. This complexity is perhaps best illustrated by Mike Reagan’s observation; “You might think the guy living next door is the most wonderful person in the world; you see him playing with his children, but in fact “he might be part of a sleeper cell that wants to blow you away.” The war’s psychological nature, focused on combating “unruly if deadly emotionalism,” makes its boundaries potentially limitless and risks transforming anyone into a potential threat.

2. The Roving Wiretaps provision of the Patriot Act raises serious concerns about violations of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. This provision enables surveillance across multiple devices without requiring separate court authorizations for each device – a significant departure from traditional protections. While criminal wiretaps traditionally required verification that the person under investigation would use the device before tapping could occur, this provision removes that safeguard. Civil liberties groups have pointed out that the provision’s broad language could lead to privacy violations of innocent individuals who simply happen to come into casual contact with suspects. The lack of requirements to specifically identify which devices will be tapped or clearly identify suspects further weakens constitutional protections against surveillance overreach.

3. The “Sneak and Peek” warrant provision of the Patriot Act presents another troubling challenge to Fourth Amendment protections. These warrants permit the FBI to conduct searches of homes or businesses without immediately notifying the target – a significant departure from traditional search warrant requirements. While secret searches were previously limited to counterterrorism and counterespionage cases, the Patriot Act expanded this power to encompass any crime, regardless of severity. Critics argue that such secret searches should only be permitted when immediate notice seriously compromises an investigation. Although the provision requires eventual notification to the target about the search, it allows for considerable delay in this disclosure. This expansion of secret search powers beyond serious national security threats to minor crimes stretches well beyond the Patriot Act’s original counterterrorism mandate.

1. The Establishment Clause is one of the fundamental protections in the First Amendment, essentially creating what Thomas Jefferson called a “wall of separation between church and state.” At its core, it prevents the government from playing favorites with religion – whether that’s setting up an official state church, giving special treatment to one faith over others, or even promoting religion in general over non-belief. To help courts figure out if a law or government action crosses this line, the Supreme Court created what’s known as the Lemon Test in 1971. The lemon test can be interpreted as a three-part checklist: the government action can’t get too entangled with religion, it has to stay neutral, and it needs to have some secular purpose. This test helps courts navigate tricky questions like whether a school can display religious holiday decorations or include prayer in graduation ceremonies and so on.

2. Yes, burning the US flag is protected as symbolic speech under the First Amendment, as established in the 1989 Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson. Gregory Lee Johnson was arrested and convicted for burning a flag during a protest near the Republican National Convention in Dallas. The Supreme Court ruled that flag burning was a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment and found the law against flag desecration unconstitutional. When Congress tried to override this decision by passing the Flag Protection Act, the Supreme Court struck that down as unconstitutional.

3. When someone says they’re “taking the Fifth,” they are invoking their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. This means they are exercising their right to remain silent and not provide evidence in court or to law enforcement that might constitute an admission of guilt for a crime.

1. The United States federal system of government creates a unique dynamic in the role of citizens and the division of power compared to other systems like confederations or unitary governments. In a federal system, citizens participate in governance at multiple levels, electing representatives to federal, state, and local offices. This multi-tiered structure provides more opportunities for political engagement and allows citizens to appeal to different levels of government for policy changes. In contrast, confederations emphasize state-level engagement with limited national government power, while unitary systems centralize authority and citizen interaction primarily at the national level.

2. The U.S. system of divided power is characterized by both horizontal and vertical separation. Horizontally, power is distributed among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. On the other hand, vertically, it is shared between federal and state governments. The Constitution enumerates specific federal powers, reserves others for the states, and establishes concurrent powers shared by both levels. This complex arrangement, coupled with a system of checks and balances, aims to prevent the concentration of power and protect individual liberties.

3. The federal government influenced the actions of New York state and local governments during the COVID-19 pandemic in several key ways:

1. Federal Funding: The federal government provided crucial financial support that enabled state and local response efforts. For example, on March 3, 2020, Governor Cuomo signed into law a $40 million emergency management authorization for New York’s coronavirus response. Later, the state received federal CARES Act funding to support various initiatives, including $65 million for childcare providers and $4.3 million for emergency management agencies.
2. Federal Agency Guidance: Agencies like the CDC and FDA played an important role in shaping state policies. For instance, New York worked with the CDC to develop criteria for identifying and responding to COVID-related illnesses in children. The FDA granted New York labs more flexibility to begin patient testing, which helped expand the state’s testing capacity.
3. Federal Resource Deployment: The federal government deployed personnel and medical resources to support New York’s efforts. This included sending the U.S. Navy hospital ship Comfort to New York Harbor and having the Army Corps of Engineers help set up emergency hospital sites.
4. National Strategy Influence: Governor Cuomo frequently called on the federal government to provide clearer national strategies on issues like testing and reopening criteria. While states maintained significant autonomy, these calls for federal leadership influenced the state’s approach and highlighted the need for coordination between federal and state efforts.
5. Travel and Border Policies: Federal decisions on international travel restrictions and screening protocols at ports of entry affected how New York, particularly New York City, managed the influx of potentially infected individuals.

Resource for answer 3 –
https://www.nga.org/coronavirus-state-actions/new-york/

1. The concept of “faction” reminds us of social classes or interest groups within society that have competing goals or interests.

2. According to Federalist #10, the source of wealth (private property) lies in the “diversity of human faculties.” This refers to individuals’ different abilities, skills, talents, and efforts. Madison argues that people’s varied faculties – their capacity to acquire skills, knowledge, and resources naturally lead to unequal outcomes regarding wealth and property ownership​. Some people are more successful in utilizing their faculties to acquire property, while others, with fewer advantages or different faculties, do not accumulate as much wealth. Here, Madison implies that inequality in property ownership is a natural result of these diverse faculties, which can include intelligence, skills, or other advantages.

3. In Federalist #10, Madison says that “faculties” are the main denominator of one’s being wealthy or poor. According to him, inequality in wealth is natural as different people have different skills, capacities, and advantages (faculties). I think, for some point, his argument is correct, as efficient usage of one’s skills, capacities, and other opportunities can indeed make a difference. However, here, Madison totally overlooks the social, structural, and systemic factors like education, systemic discrimination, inheritance, and other unequal opportunities. Hence, I disagree with Madison’s explanation of wealth and poverty. 

4. According to Madison, the “first object of government ” is ” the protection of these faculties.” This means the primary purpose of government is to protect people’s abilities to acquire property. This indeed surprised me as it differs from our common contemporary views that the government should provide for the general welfare, ensure equality, and provide justice. The idea that the government’s main role is to protect property rights, even if they are unequally distributed, reflects a more individualistic and property-focused view than what we might expect from an elected government, which most people think was elected for social welfare and justice.

5. Given the previous discussion, it’s not surprising that Federalist #10 favors a republican form of government over direct democracy. Madison does not like pure democracy because it would give more power to the majority (working class), which could threaten the property interests of the wealthy minority. By advocating for a representative system, Madison aims to create a buffer between the masses and direct political power, thereby protecting the interests of property owners (the upper class) from the potential working-class people. This preference for republicanism over direct democracy reflects the desire to maintain existing class structures and protect the wealthy from democratic redistribution of wealth.

1. Based on the readings, the Constitution was primarily written by and for the wealthy elite class of early American society, including large landowners, merchants, bankers, and other men of property and means. This group, described as “gentlemen,” were creditors interested in protecting their possessions and economic interests. Examples include wealthy men who owned vast land grants and estates and merchants and bankers controlling commerce and industry. In contrast, the class excluded from participating in the constitutional process encompassed small farmers, artisans, tenants, laborers, indentured servants, women, African Americans (both enslaved and free), Native Americans, and white males without sufficient property. One of the main reasons why these working-class poor people could not be a part of writing the Constitution is that they didn’t have the privilege to take four months off of work to go to Philadelphia. So, “The debate between haves and have-nots never took place.”

2. The social class structure of early US society appears to have been more stark and rigid compared to today. However, there are noticeable similarities between early US society and today’s US society regarding social class structure. Reading 5.1 shows that “By 1700, three-fourths of the acreage in New York belonged to fewer than a dozen persons. In the interior of Virginia, seven individuals owned over 1.7 million acres. By 1760, fewer than five hundred men in five colonial cities controlled
most of the commerce, shipping, banking, mining, and manufacturing on the eastern seaboard.” A similar situation can still be witnessed in our society. If we compare this with reading 5.2 from last week where it says, “The top 1 percent own between 40 and 50 percent of the nation’s total wealth (stocks, bonds, investment funds, land, natural resources, business assets, and so on), more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent. True, about 40 percent of families own some stocks or bonds, but almost all have investments of less than $2,000. Considering their debts and mortgages, 90 percent of American families have little or no net assets.” Indeed, society has improved today compared to the early US in terms of equal rights, slavery, and property requirements for voting. But it is also true that even today, the wealthy class possesses the power to influence politics to maintain their status and wealth and create more opportunities for themselves where most Americans suffer to meet necessities. Based on that, I would say that, for the most part, the social class structure of early United States society was the same as ours today.

3. The framers of the Constitution deeply feared democracy, primarily due to their concerns about protecting the interests of the wealthy class from the demands of the poorer majority. This is evident in James Madison’s writings in Federalist No. 10, where he states that “the most common and durable source of faction has been the various and unequal distribution of property.” Madison and his peers were worried about how to “secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time preserve the spirit and form of popular government.” The readings argue that their fear of democracy was fundamentally rooted in class interests. They deliberately designed a system to protect their property and economic privileges from potential redistribution or debt relief measures that a truly democratic system might enact. Their goal was to maintain the existing social and economic hierarchy while providing just enough of the appearance of popular governance to secure legitimacy.

The M-C-M’ diagram represents the wealthy class of the society compared to the working class people who fall under the C-M-C diagram. Understanding both of these diagrams is essential to have better knowledge about the wealth disparity and how certain people are able to maintain and grow their wealth. As mentioned, the C-M-C diagram represents the working class. According to this, people go to work to produce commodities (C) in exchange for money (M) and, later on, use that money to buy commodities (C) for their consumption. Here, the value of both (C) is the same. On the other hand, the M-C-M’ diagram says that a capitalist (wealthy class) invests an initial amount of money (M) into producing commodities (C). However, these commodities are not for personal consumption but to be used in a production process to create new commodities that can later be sold for more money (M’). The production process includes some critical transformations where the workers utilize the initial commodities and their labor power to create the final new commodity. According to Marx, this labor power from the worker is very important as it is the only commodity that, when applied, increases the value of what we already have. Once the production process is completed, the capitalist sells the final commodity in the market. By doing so, they receive a sum of money (M’) greater than their initial investment (M). Here, the difference between M’ and M is called the “surplus value,” which is the most critical thing to increase wealth. As the cycle continues, the capitalist tries to maximize their growth by increasing production. However, it is also important to keep in mind that the number of hours of necessary labor is invariable at any given time. So, they try to increase labor intensity by requiring the workers to speed up and oversee more machinery. This way, by spending the same amount on the labor force, the capitalist can increase productivity from the workers. This continuous reinvestment and expansion allow a capitalist to not only maintain his wealth but also increase it over time.

1. The statistics that made the biggest impression on me was the discrepancy among the “richest 20%.” The wealth disparity between the wealthy and the working class is already a matter of concern. However, it worsens when the difference between the top 1% and the average top 20% is around 4.5 times. A person would be in the “richest 20%” if they make $75,000, while to be in the top 1%, an individual needs to make $350,000 or more. The top 1% – consisting of around 145,000 individuals, had their aggregated income increase by almost 600% over three decades, while the bottom 90% experienced a 7% decrease in income during the same period. It shows an economy that has delivered extraordinary gains to a small percentage of the population while leaving most Americans worse off. The sheer magnitude of this disparity – a 600% increase versus a 7% decrease – is striking and suggests a fundamental imbalance in how economic growth benefits are distributed.

2. Some potential implications of such vast wealth inequality could include:

1. Political influence is concentrated among a small, wealthy population
2. Lack of economic mobility for most of the population
3. Inadequate access to education, healthcare, and housing for lower-income groups
4. Consumer spending constraints limiting overall economic growth

These dynamics play out in everyday life in various ways. For example, the rising cost of higher education and increasing student debt burdens reflect how wealth inequality impacts access to opportunities. The growing homeless population in many cities reflects the widening gap between rich and poor. Political campaigns heavily funded by wealthy donors and corporate interests demonstrate how concentrated wealth can strongly influence politics. Workers’ struggles to attain living wages while CEO compensation soars show how the distribution of wealth and economic growth opportunity is unfair for people from different classes. On top of that, the wealth being accumulated by a small percentage of the population also hampers economic progress. The circulation of money and wealth is essential for a thriving economy. However, due to this wealth disparity, lower and middle-class people do not have enough spending power to buy their necessities. On the other hand, despite having more than enough spending power, wealthy people do not spend their proportionate share due to limited necessities. Hence, it impacts the economic growth.