1. The Constitution was drafted by wealthy, propertied individuals such as landowners, merchants, bankers, slave-owners, and creditors. As noted by Parenti, many of these individuals bought government bonds from poor people at very low rates and profited from them when the new government paid back the notes in full value. Not included were poor and powerless individuals. According to Beard, there were four major classes that did not participate in the drafting of the Constitution: slaves, indentured servants, adult males without adequate property holdings to enable them to vote, and women. Parenti mentions Native Americans as well, and claims that only 10% of the adult population was eligible to vote. Poor farmers were also ignored since many were heavily indebted, some even imprisoned for being unable to pay their loans, and could not take time off to attend the convention in Philadelphia. The basic difference was that the rich were the lenders and the poor were the borrowers.
   
2. It is both similar and different. The difference is that there are no legal obstacles anymore. People do not have to be property owners to vote. The issue of slavery was settled. Women and African Americans gained the right to vote. The Senators are now directly elected. The similarity is that the small class of the rich still holds most of the wealth and significant political power due to such factors as political donations and lobbying. Numerous ordinary citizens still struggle with debt in form of loans for studying and medical care in the same way as farmers did back in 1787. So nowadays everybody is equal before the law but economically unequal anyway.
   
3. As the majority were poor, and the founders feared that if they were to gain any power, then they would abolish debts, print fiat money, or rob the rich. The Shays’ Rebellion involving armed indebted farmers was an example of the tangible danger feared by the framers. They expressed these sentiments openly. For instance, according to Elbridge Gerry, democracy was the worst evil in politics. Roger Sherman believed that the common man should not be involved in politics in any way. To Alexander Hamilton, there was a division in society of the aristocratic few and the rest of the common mass, and the latter hardly ever made sound decisions. Thus, they established a system of governance that appeared to be democratic but restricted the powers of the people. Senators were selected by the state legislatures; the president was selected by the Electoral College; and Supreme Court judges were appointed for life. The only elected officials were members of the House, and only property owners were allowed to vote.

1. A faction seems to be similar to social classes that were discussed in our previous readings. According to Madison, a faction refers to a number of individuals who have the same interest or passion and work against the rights of other people or the interests of the entire community. It seems very similar to the classes that were mentioned by Parenti and Beard such as poor debtors and rich creditors. For Madison, the root cause of a faction is the unequal distribution of property.
   
2. “Faculties” refers to the natural gifts, talents, and skills of an individual. According to Madison, humans differ in their faculties, which give rise to the right to property ownership. Those who possess certain faculty find it easier to gain more property than others who possess different or few faculties. In other words, Madison believed that the wealthy are wealthy because they possess many natural talents, and poor because they possess fewer talents. Hence, the framers were looking upon class in this manner because for them the difference in wealth between people was natural.
   
3. I partially agree with Madison’s explanation. It is true that everybody has different talents and skillfulness and being diligent can lead one to prosperity. But Madison does not find the explanation of the causes of being rich or poor purely within ability. Firstly, there are a lot of people who are born rich due to the inheritance of wealth or lands. Secondly, the lack of opportunities for some categories of population such as slaves, women, and indentured servants could not own any property because the laws prevented them from doing it. These people were poor because of the social system, not because they had less talent. In our times we have to admit that a child whose parents are poor faces worse schools and less opportunities and money compared to a child of wealthy parents. Thus, nowadays being rich or poor also depends on the social background.
   
4. First of all, Madison says that the primary task of the government is to secure people’s unequal natural ability to acquire property. In other words, the primary goal of the government is the protection of property and inequality of people in wealth. I was surprised by this idea because it differs greatly from the contemporary ideas of the role of the government. Usually, we think that the primary goal of the government is the protection of freedom, security, equality, and general welfare of the citizens. People also expect government assistance for needy people through such programs as education and Social Security. Madison’s idea is much more narrow. He prioritizes the protection of unequal wealth, while the modern idea of government serves all citizens.
   
5. This was predictable. With the government’s prime responsibility being the protection of property, and the majority of the population lacking property ownership, having the will of the majority to govern would be dangerous for the rich. In a direct democracy, citizens are the ones making decisions. What worried Madison is the possibility of the poor majority forming a faction and using their decision-making powers to choose policies that disadvantage the rich, such as cancellation of debt or sharing of property. Since he argued that factions arise as a result of unequal distribution of property, the largest faction would consist of the numerous poor versus the few rich. The republic resolves the issue in two ways. Firstly, by the people choosing a smaller number of representatives to make decisions rather than deciding directly, and secondly by the sheer size of the country that makes it difficult for the majority to form a faction since there would be different groups with diverse interests. That is why Madison preferred a republican government over a democracy because in the former, the people had a voice without threatening the interests of the propertied class.

1. Means of production include all the factors required to create goods other than labor such as land, tools, machinery, buildings, and raw material. For instance, in a bakery, the means of production include the ovens and flour. Labor refers to the human input used to convert the means of production to something usable. In this case, it would be the baker putting in his effort to mix and bake the bread. The class division is based on the ownership of means of production and not having anything other than the labor to sell.
   
2. Value is defined as the time taken in the production of a good, which can be measured in terms of the amount of socially necessary labor time. Factors which determine value include the amount of human labor input in the production of an item. This is why a car is valued more than bread; the amount of labor required for its production is much greater.
   
3. Labor is the primary source of value. Materials and machines only transfer their previous value while human labor generates new value.
   
4. Labor power is the ability or capacity of the worker to do work, which the worker sells to an employer through the wage system. Labor is the process that follows where the ability of the worker is put to use. What is important about labor is that its value is higher than that of labor power.
   
5. Surplus value refers to the difference between the value created by workers and the wages given in return; this surplus value becomes the profit of the owner. It is important in social class analysis because it shows how the owners benefit from the labor of their employees through a supposedly fair exchange process. For instance, a factory worker who receives $120 in wages every day creates $600 in value; thus, the owner retains $480.

M-C-M’ refers to the process of capitalists transforming money into more money. Before the advent of capitalism, farmers and artisans would operate on the basis of M-C-M, where they first sold the products they had created and exchanged them for money just to obtain what they needed in return. Capitalists reverse this process, thereby starting with money, making purchases of commodities, and ending up with more money in the end than before their operations. The new amount of money would be equal to M plus m, which refers to the excess value calculated by Jalée and called surplus value, so capitalists will never buy commodities with their money unless they anticipate making a profit out of such breaks-even investments.

At first, merchants used to earn money by purchasing goods such as clothes from laborers at much lower prices and reselling them in the process. Nevertheless, such transactions were limited because merchants could only operate based on what other people had already created. Thus, capitalists turned into industrialists. They invested capital into bricks and mortar, mills, equipment, raw material, and most importantly, into labor force.

The example put forward by Jalée is abundantly clear. An employee earns 60 units for working 8 hours and manages to produce a value equivalent to that wage in just four hours. This means that the rest of the time spent working non-paid surplus work means that the 60 units of value produced by the worker during that period go to the capitalist as the surplus value. After that, the capitalist sells the commodity and receives M’ as a return that exceeds the initial M.

This is the way in which capitalists sustain and augment their fortunes: they repeatedly reinvest their profits again and again in the M-C-M’ cycle that allows them to make even more profit because of workers working for free. It is possible to enhance the surplus value by lengthening the workday or making employees work faster or automating their functions. Since the initial capital investment creates infinite opportunities to repeat the process, the wealth of capitalists increases consistently while workers are paid only what is needed for them to keep coming back to work.

1. This statistic was particularly memorable in my opinion, the top one percent possesses from 40 to 50 percent of all the wealth that the nation has. Which is more than the bottom 90 percent put together. Even more surprising is what Parenti says 90 percent of all American families do not possess any real net worth. And what is most surprising is that this is being done in a country whose economy is thought of as being predominantly middle class. It seems that in reality only some Americans actually live comfortably with most people just making ends meet. And what is also interesting is the relation of all this to M-C-M. Those who already have money get richer, while others make money for their basic necessities.
   
2. Given the fact that the level of inequality is very high in today’s society, it translates to the fact that the wealthy have greater power than others. They have more power over jobs, prices, and even politics, with campaign funding and holding political offices as examples cited by Parenti in his book. It also implies that a person’s success in life depends greatly on their social class, because it has become hard for people to move up socially and achieve financial freedom like it was before. This happens in our everyday lives through phenomena such as rising rent and housing prices, graduates coming out of college with loads of debt, and working-class citizens earning full-time salaries and still lacking basic needs.

2. The median household income of the local community is about $50,000, which happens to be exactly at the point in national income distribution where the Gallup data indicates a transition from working-class status to middle-class identity. The problem is that $50,000 does not go very far in New York City due to the increased rent and cost of living in comparison with the rest of the nation. Therefore, although the nationally collected data could indicate a working or lower-middle class for that income bracket, in my opinion, the local situation resembles rather the one of lower and working classes.

Indeed, my block consists of apartment buildings mixed with some houses and also includes a variety of stores, such as a hardware store, supermarket chain store, and some restaurants, that could indicate a typical lower and working class environment. This is exactly the way I was expecting the neighborhood to be and I find the description to be accurate. However, I must stress that the income brackets used in the article are underestimated in their “lower” character due to the cost of living.

1. The difference here has to do with the source of the income. While the income of owners is derived mainly from providing the use of property. It can be stated that owners benefit from the efforts of others rather than their own work and labor. On the other hand, the income of employees is defined in terms of the wages or salaries they earn. For example, it may be illustrated by showing a business owner who earns money from the work of his staff, rather than doing that work himself or herself, and an employee of some company, who is paid for the work performed by themselves.

2. Smith argues that the determinant of value is not money but labor. According to Smith, while money is only a “nominal price” and a “number provided for convenience,” it is human labor that creates the”value.” A tree on its own has no value; however, it gains value when it is transformed into furniture or paper through the processes of cutting, manufacturing, logistics, and selling. This idea contributes to the larger argument on surplus value. Since labor only produces real value but employees receive less remuneration than the worth of what they have produced, it is the difference between the wage paid and the value produced by employees that brings profit to the employer.

3. I would definitely support the argument as it is true that class cannot be treated just as a status. When we talk about class, we cannot just talk here about the ranking system based on such indicators as income or education. Class is the relation that is built on dependency and exploitation. A worker needs their employer to obtain income, while the employer needs the worker to provide sufficient labor to make sure that the business stays successful and profitable. The relationship has a functional nature, which means that it is more than just a shared characteristic among people, which allows claiming that there is a difference between class and race/gender. However, I believe that the reading exaggerates the division. In the end, the author acknowledges that class can be considered a kind of identity, which demonstrates that the main argument should not be that class has nothing to do with identity.

4. Being a worker does not only confer an abstract label, it denotes a direct dependency on a certain employer. The worker has to depend upon that specific employer to get their wages, while the employer depends upon the labor of their workforce to be able to realize profit and survive as a capitalist. This is not like race because identity does not depend upon being linked to some specific person. For instance, the payroll employee depends on their employer to get his salary, while the employer depends on him to get profits.

1. What Ideology means to me?
   
   Ideology is a set of beliefs a person has that is stemmed from their socioeconomic background but also from their personal experiences in life. This can be seen clearly when comparing people from different economic backgrounds. Imagine you were raised in a wealthy household. You may come to believe that success is the result of hard work. You may come to realize that you lived someone else’s dream. Now imagine the opposite. You are raised in a low income household. You may come to believe that your community’s hard work is not recognized and that the system is unfair. You may also come to believe that people are lazy. Both of these people are looking at success and poverty, but due to socioeconomic divisions, each will come to a different conclusion on the reasons for these disparities.
   
   People don’t realize they have an ideology, and as a result, ideology can feel like a truth that everyone can see, as opposed to a belief. People from all economic backgrounds view their outlook on life as the truth. The first example was of a wealthy person. That person doesn’t believe what they have is their ideology. They believe what they have is their worldview. The second example is from a person with a low economic background. They call what they have the truth, and like the wealthy person, they do not believe that it is their ideology they are explaining.
   
2. Conservative vs Liberal
   
   Conservatives and liberals have similar outlooks on the role of the government, but differ greatly on individual responsibility. Conservatives view individual success and failure as the consequence of their efforts and actions. As a result, they favor a small government when it comes to supporting individual economic needs. Whereas, they advocate for a larger government when dealing with issues of law and social order. Liberals support a governmental solution to productive and economic inequity, believing the social and economic injustices caused by factors out of peoples’ control should be addressed by the government. While liberals support the active role of government in issues of productive and economic inequity, they are generally in favor of the restriction of government in social issues, including social order and social justice. For example healthcare: A conservative would argue that the government should not be involved in healthcare, as the government would negatively impact the costs and choices involved. A liberal, however, would argue that government healthcare would ensure that the basic and social need of individuals for healthcare is not neglected.
   
   
3. Althusser’s View on Ideology
   
   Althusser believes ideology consists of things people believe that they are not even aware of. This belief is not because of their own efforts, it happens almost automatically. For example schools play their part and teach people how to perceive themselves and their social position before they have even learnt how to think about these issues critically. He refers to this as interpellation. This is when society allocates someone a role and the person Allocated that role accepts and we as a society accept that a particular ideology has determined that role.

1. What is RSA?
   
   The RSA represents the institutions that utilize force to sustain social order and maintain an oppressed society. Althusser referred to them as “repressive.” These institutions operate by overtly suppressing behavior by arresting you or by jailing you. Sometimes by using brute force to convince you to come to believe something, as opposed to persuading you to believe it. For example, police arresting protesters.
   
2. What is ISA?
   
   ISAs represent the institutions in society without the use of force that sustain social order by influencing the beliefs and values of their constituents to the point of voluntary compliance. ISAs are precisely where ideology is internalized for example schools teaching you to respect authority, belief, and your position in society.
   
3. RSA vs ISA
   
   The differences between the Repressive State Apparatus (RSA) and the Ideological State Apparatus (ISA) first emerge in the methods they use in the maintenance of social order. The RSA (police, military, courts, and prisons) exercise control through the exertion of power and punishment. The ISA (schools, churches, family, and media) exercise control through belief, and techniques of socialization and normalization create subjects who internalize the social order, thus making it unnecessary to use control and exercise power. The RSA breaks bodies, and the ISA breaks minds.
   
4. Example of Ideology
   
   My example is the pledge of allegence because some students say it in school but say it without questioning it why they do it. This is ISA at work shaping a belief instead of forging it.