In a unitary system, most of the power sits with the national government. Local governments only do what the central government allows, so citizens mostly participate through national elections or policies. In a confederation, it’s the opposite. The states or regions hold most of the power, and the national government is pretty weak. That means people have more influence through their state governments instead of a central one. The federal system, like the U.S., falls somewhere in the middle. Power is shared between national and state governments, so citizens can get involved at multiple levels, voting for local leaders, state representatives, and national officials.

The way I understand the division of power is that it’s meant to keep things balanced. The federal government handles big national issues like defense and foreign policy, while states take care of local things like education and public safety. Some powers, like collecting taxes, are shared. I think this setup helps prevent one level of government from becoming too powerful, while still allowing them to work together when needed.

During COVID-19, the federal government definitely shaped how New York handled things. Through programs like the CARES Act and the American Rescue Plan, New York got billions in federal funding to support hospitals, schools, and local budgets. That money helped keep essential services running when the city was hit hard. The CDC also gave national health guidelines that influenced New York’s mask mandates and reopening plans. On top of that, the federal government temporarily boosted Medicaid funding, which helped cover healthcare costs for people who were struggling.

Overall, federalism allows both flexibility and teamwork. It gives citizens more ways to be involved, and during a crisis like COVID-19, it showed how the federal and state governments can share responsibility to keep communities safe.

1. I noticed that Madison’s idea of a “faction” reminds me a lot of what we’ve discussed about social classes and interest groups. Just like how different classes in society have competing interests. For example, the rich want to protect their wealth while the poor fight for fairness. Madison saw factions as groups of people united by their own interests, even when those interests might harm others.
2. According to Madison, the source of wealth and private property comes from the “diversity in the faculties of men.” The word faculties means people’s different talents, abilities, and skills. He believed that because people are naturally different, some can use their abilities to acquire property and become wealthy, while others can’t and end up with less. In other words, he saw inequality as something that naturally happens, not as a result of unfair systems.
3. Personally, I don’t completely agree with that. Yes, people have different strengths and work ethics, but not everyone starts with the same opportunities. Factors such as family background, access to education, and experiences with discrimination play a significant role in determining who succeeds. So, it’s not just about individual ability; it’s also about the conditions people are born into.
4. Madison also says that the “first object” of government is to protect property and the unequal rights that come from owning it. That actually surprised me, because today we tend to think the government’s main purpose is to serve the people, promote equality, and make sure everyone has basic rights and resources. Back then, though, it was more about protecting property owners and maintaining social order.
5. Given all of this, it makes sense that Madison wasn’t in favor of a pure democracy and instead supported a republican (representative) form of government. He feared that in a direct democracy, the majority (especially poorer citizens) could unite and vote to take power or property away from the wealthy minority. By having representatives, he believed it would protect the rights of property owners and prevent the “mob rule.” It really shows how the Constitution was shaped around class differences and the desire to protect wealth and power.
   

1. According to both Beard and Parenti, the Constitution was written by wealthy elites. Men who owned property, land, slaves, and businesses. Beard’s analysis shows that most framers had strong economic interests in bonds, land speculation, and commerce, and therefore wanted a government that would protect property and investments. Parenti adds that these elites were motivated to maintain their dominance after the Revolution by creating a system that looked democratic but served their class interests. The excluded classes were poor farmers, laborers, indentured servants, enslaved Africans, and women. They had no political voice and were often suppressed when they protested. These groups were seen as a threat to property and “order,” so they were intentionally left out of political decision-making.
2. While society has changed in appearance, Parenti would argue that the class structure remains fundamentally similar. Then, as now, a small wealthy class controls most economic and political power. In the 1780s it was the landowners and merchants; today, it’s corporate leaders, billionaires, and major investors. Beard’s analysis suggests that just as the framers shaped laws to serve their economic class, modern political and economic elites continue to influence the government through lobbying, campaign financing, and corporate interests. The faces have changed, but the class power dynamic remains.
3. Beard and Parenti both show that the framers feared democracy because it meant giving power to the majority class; the poor and working people. They were worried that a truly democratic system would threaten their wealth and privilege through things like debt relief, fairer taxes, or land redistribution. To prevent this, they designed a government with strong limits on popular participation such as the Electoral College, an appointed Senate, and property qualifications for voting. In Parenti’s words, the Constitution was meant to “contain democracy, not unleash it.” Their fear of democracy was ultimately a fear of losing class control.
   
   

1. One statistic that made the biggest impression on me was how a very small percentage households own the overwhelming majority of wealth in the U.S. The fact that just 1 percent of Americans own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined really stand out. It shows how wealth is not just unevenly distributed but concentrated to an extreme degree.
2. The implications of living in a society with this kind of inequality are huge. It affects access to quality housing, education, health care, and even political influence. When such a small group controls most of the resources, they also have more power to shape policies and institutions in ways that benefit them, which often widens the gap further. I see this dynamic playing out in everyday life when I look at housing in major cities. For example, in New York, luxury apartments and condos continue to rise even sitting empty as investments, while working families struggle to find affordable housing or face eviction. That’s a real world example of wealth concentration shaping who gets to live comfortably and who doesn’t.

The diagram M-C-M’ represents how capitalists maintain and increase their wealth. The first M stands for money that the capitalist already has. They use this money to purchase C, which means commodities like raw materials, machines, and most importantly, labor power. These commodities are then used to produce goods or services. When the capitalist sells these goods back into the market, they end up with M’, which is more money than what they started with. The key difference between M and M’ is the surplus value, or profit, that comes from the workers producing more value than they are paid in wages. In this way, the capitalist class is able to continually reinvest money, produce commodities, and come out with more money than they started with, keeping themselves wealthy.

1. The means of production are the tools, machines, land, and resources used to produce goods. For example, in a clothing factory, the sewing machines and fabric are part of the means of production. Labor is the human effort that goes into turning those resources into goods. In the factory, its the workers using their skills and energy to make the clothes.
2. In Marxist terms, value come from human labor. What gives something “value” is not just it’s usefulness but the amount of socially necessary labor time that went into making it. For example, a handmade table might be valuable because of the hours of skilled work it took to craft it.
3. Labor creates value. Without human effort applied to resources, they remain just raw materials. The amount of labor invested in production is what determines the value of a commodity.
4. Labor is the actual work performed, while labor power is the worker’s ability or capacity to work. Employers don’t just buy someone’s labor for one task, they buy their labor power for a period of time like an 8 hour shift. Which can produce more value than the worker is compensated for.
5. Surplus value is the extra value created by workers beyond what they are paid in wages. For example, if a worker is paid $100 for a day’s work but the value of what they produce in that day is $300, the $200 difference is surplus value, which the employer keeps as profit. This concept is important for studying social class because it highlights exploitation, and how profit under capitalism comes from extracting more value from labor than workers receive in return.

1. Reading 4.3 draws a sharp line between those who own wealth and those who must work for a living. Owners live mostly off investments like stocks, rents, or royalties, while employees live off wages and salaries. For example, a corporate shareholder who collects dividends without laboring is part of the owning class, while a factory worker who spends long hours creating value but only gets a fraction of it back in wages is an employee.
2. Adam Smith’s point is that labor is the true measure of value. Money is only a symbol, but the real worth of any commodity comes from the work that went into producing and distributing it. A tree doesn’t become a valuable table without the labor of loggers, mill workers, carpenters, and transporters. To me, this highlights how labor creates the wealth that owners profit from.
3. Reading 4.4 argues that class is not just another identity like race or gender. Liberals often see class as a ladder of socioeconomic status, but socialists see class as a structural position either you own the means of production or you must sell your labor to survive. So while people might build an identity around being “working class”, the deeper point is that class is about material relationships and power, not just culture or lifestyle.
4. The text explains that class structures are built on a very close dependency between workers and capitalists. To be a worker means depending on a capitalist for a job, and to be a capitalist means depending on workers to generate profit. Unlike race, where one group’s identity doesn’t rely directly on the daily labor of another, class is always tied to this interdependent though unequal relationship. A good example is a strike. American workers rely on the company for employment, but the company relies on them even more to keep operations going. When workers withhold their labor, they expose how dependent capitalists are on them.

1. Both readings look at how social class can be measured and represented, but they approach it from different angles. Reading 4.1 focuses on how Americans perceive their social class and shows that income and education are stronger factors that influence whether people identify as upper, middle, or working class. Reading 4.2 looks at NYC specifically and uses subway stations to map median household income, which makes the divide between rich and poor neighborhoods very visible. The similarity is that both readings highlight how class is tied to access and opportunity, but the difference is that reading 4.1 is based on objective income data.
2. The station closest to me is the Canarsie- Rockaway Pkwy Station on the L train. Based on Reading 4.2, the median household income there is around $32,000, which suggests that most people in my area fall into the working-class category. This lines up with Reading 4.1, which shows how income and education strongly influence where people place themselves socially. I’m not really surprised by this because it feels accurate when I think about the people in my neighborhood, the housing, and the local businesses around us.
3. Reading 4.2 makes it clear that New York City has extreme inequality that you can literally trace along subway lines. In some cases, just going one or two stops can mean a huge jump in income levels, like between Fulton street and Chambers street. Wealth tends to be concentrated in parts of Manhattan, while many outer borough stations reflect lower incomes. At the same time, there are lines like the G train that show more consistency, with stations closer in income range. Overall, the subway map really shows how divided the city is by class.

1. A Repressive State Apparatus is the part of society that uses force or the threat of force to keep order and protect those in power. Althusser calls it “repressive” because it relies on punishment or violence, not persuasion, to get people to follow the rules. It doesn’t try to win you over it forces you. For example, think of the police or court system. If someone breaks the law, the police can arrest them and the courts can lock them up. That’s the state keeping control through repression.
2. Ideological State Apparatus work in a much subtler way. Instead of using force, they make us accept certain ideas as “normal” so that we go along with the system without needing to be threatened. For example, school is a good one. Sure, we learn math and writing, but we also learn to show up on time, listen to authority, compete with each other, and prepare ourselves for the workplace. The system doesn’t have to force us, it trains us to fit in by shaping our ideas and habits.
3. The big difference is how they keep society in line. RSA is control through force (police, courts, army). ISA is control through ideas and beliefs (schools, religion, media, family). RSAs make you obey whether you want to or not, while ISAs get you to obey because you’ve been taught to believe it’s right or natural thing to do. Together, they make sure society keeps running the way it does.
4. Example: An advertisement for the American Dream – a happy family in front of a house with a white picket fence, smiling parents, kids, and maybe a new car in a driveway.

Type: Ideological State Apparatus. This isn’t forcing anyone with violence or punishment. Instead, it promotes an idea, that success and happiness come from home ownership, family stability, and consumer goods. By spreading this “dream”, people internalize certain values (work hard, buy a house, raise a family) and willingly shape their lives around them. That’s ideology at work.

A) Ideology is a structural set of political beliefs and values that helps people interpret how government and society should function. In American context, ideology provides citizens with a framework for understanding the constitution, the role of government, and the balance between liberty and equality. It shapes how individuals view policies, institutions, and the responsibilities of both government and citizens.

B) For example, in the United States, liberalism and conservatism are two dominant ideologies that frame much of political debate. Liberals often argue that the government should play an active role in promoting social and economic equality, such as healthcare and educational programs. On the other hand, conservatives typically emphasize limited government, free markets, and individual responsibility. These opposing ideologies help explain why Democrats and Republicans often clash over the scope and purpose of government.

C) I understand ideology as a lens that organizes political conflict in the U.S. It gives people a way to make sense of abstract principles like freedom, justice, or democracy and apply them to concrete issues such as taxation, immigration, or civil rights. Without ideology, politics might feel random or chaotic, but with it, citizens and leaders can rally around consistent values that guide their choices.

At the same time, ideology is not just about individual beliefs; it also structures American institutions. Political parties, interest groups, and even the Supreme Court operate within ideological frameworks that influence their decisions and priorities. For example, debates over federalism whether states or federal government should hold more power are shaped by ideological views about the proper role of government. Similarly, ideological divisions over democracy and representation impacts discussions about voting rights, campaign finance, and the balance between majority rule and minority rule.