The American Constitution was written by the minority population of the country. The capitalists who were capable of owning “property”. Merchants, bankers, slaveholders, these were the decided writers of the governing papers of the nation. These people wanted a government with a more free market, that’d allow them to have little interference with their finances.

I personally believe that while there are a lot of similarities between the countries old government and our new government, I’d say they’re ultimately different. While there is still the wealthy minority class -which has a disproportionate amount of political leeway- dominating over the less fortunate majority. There are still major differences between that system and ours. A large example comes from the “New Deal”. Which created much more friction and actual challenge against what the upper-class wants. Which has lead to a lot of change and progress for the country.

The constitutional writers called democracy, “the greatest of political evils”. This is because they feared a majority mob rule. The upper-class feared that they’d be overtaken by the poor. The policies that favored the poor, would hurt the rich. Because between the conflict of the capitalist and the worker, whatever benefits one is a deficit to the other.

For any product, the means of production and labor are necessary for its creation. The Means of Production is the tools, body, and talent necessary for the formation of said product. And it can be divided to the Laborers Means of Production and the Capitalist Means of Production. Say, we take the creation of a movie. The Means of Production would look like the vision, script, and even the talent of the director. Capitalistic Production would look like the camera’s used, the stage lights, and even the little clippy board thing, that directors use. These are tools owned by the studio producing and eventually owning the movie. Now, the labor is the work necessary to actually create the product. And this would be the hours it would take the director and crew to actually make the film. As well as all the years it took the director to even know how to operate the camera.

In the video, “Value” is defined and enhanced by the amount of labor that is put into something (though, some usually associate it with price). The work behind something amasses its value. Because its the time that it cost to make it. Through the Theory of Value, where price is the amount of money a service costs, value is the amount of time put into it.

As I stated above, labor and value are related through The Theory of Value. The concept measures the value of a service through the amount of time it would normally take to labor for said service. The two are related, because labor scales value. The more labor something cost, the most the value skyrockets. And the less labor something costs, the more it falls.

The difference between labor and labor power is that labor power is cost it takes to labor. When you go to work, you sell your labor power for the day. And when you require things like food or clothes, that’s how much it costs. Whereas, labor is the actual work, itself.

Surplus Value is profit made over an initial cost. It’s what directly funds capitalism, and allows owners to continue to own, and expand in their owning. The amount of money paid for someones value and labor, is deducted through things like a salary. But, because of the capitalistic means of production being privately owned, everything a worker labors for, is sold. Covering the profit they paid for you, and giving them a surface value that they get to keep. It’s important, because it’s the heart of class conflict. Which is especially poignant in America and American politics. Playing a role in one of the reasons why separate political parties have conflict amongst each other.

Capitalists create wealth, by turning money into capital. This can better be understood, by understanding the contrast, inhabited by laborers. If we look at a wood sculpture, they sell their sculptures to buy food, to eat. That’s their cost. The money they make, they use to buy the things it cost to continue making money. This is called Small-Scale Commodity Production. Represented as C – M – C. But, for them, the money they make remains the same as the amount of money they need to afford their cost. Creating a linear cycle of wealth, that remains the same.

Capitalist’s on the other hand, don’t need commodity for necessity, because they already have money. So in their case, they don’t buy in order to consume. But rather, buy in order to resell. Which looks like: M – C – M’. Where the commodity and money of laborer remains the same, the money of a capitalist grows. This is because of surplus value. A capitalist purchases ventures, that use the labor of workers, to create goods. Because of the nature of human labor, they create much more value then it costs to maintain them. This allows the capitalists to continue to pay the workers. Which is how they sell their commodity for money. But for the capitalists, that surplus they make, is larger then the money they put into the venture, because of the labor power of their workers. This money, they put into other ventures. So that they can continue generating money, which allows them to ultimately own more. Which explains why the rich can continue to get richer.

I’m sure the statistic on wealth inequality in the US that surprised me the most, is the exact same statistic that surprised everyone else. I had no idea that the top 1% owns between 40-50% of the nations total wealth. It’s both puzzling and absurd. But, given the context of what we’re learning, and how money produces capital, it makes sense. Because, where laborers have a static amount of wealth that doesn’t increase, capitalist wealth can expound through surplus value.

As a writer, the implications of these economic inequalities is that, in order for a laborer to create an idea, they need to go through a capitalist to have the funds necessary to see it to fruition. It also means that it’s constantly becoming harder and harder to actually grow wealth. Because of the growing grasp on the nations wealth that capitalists have. I used this example in my first discussion board for this module, but you can see this in the need for a production company, when making a movie. Film staff usually take several years, just to create one singular movie. And it goes through the inception, to development, to creation, and to editing. When it gets released, the rights of that film goes to the production company, and the money it earns from country to country, goes to the people who haven’t actually lifted a single finger, working on the film.

1. What is the distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees?

In the reading provided, the difference between owners and employees, is described as “…so many squirrels dancing among the elephants.” The imagery paints a cruel picture, and hyperbolizes an extreme gap between the two. The rich, make their wealth off of stocks, bonds, rents, and owning things. Whereas, the employees make their money off of salaries. What separates the two is both the range and size of the wealth they are offered. Owners are privy to a much more vast set of methods of making money. The money they make is larger then the money workers make. And it often comes from the labor of the workers. The difference is that workers labor for gain, whilst owners have others work for them. An example of this, could be seen in a restaurant. The kitchen is worked, by an assortment of workers: chefs, cooking assistants, prep, dishwashers. The floor is ran by hosts and hostesses. And day in and day out, the ensemble cast gruel to keep the restaurant running. From top-to-bottom, knowing the workings of the establishment, in and out. With each gaining their yearly median wage salary. Whereas, the owner of the business, has their face plastered upon the front of the restaurant. They gain the recognition and notoriety associated with the business’ success. Earning top dollar. For work, the owner might not exactly know how to do. Getting their cash from investments and the success of their staff.

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

My understanding of Adam Smith’s quote on pg. 28, is that the labor behind a product or service, is what determines the products true weight. I believe that what he was recognizing outside of the nominal price of an object, was the physical price it would take to make the product in the first place. To me, it says that the most important thing about a service, is the effort behind it. And I believe that creating that separation, creates the incentive to reward that effort accordingly. The writer later compared this, to the transformation of a tree becoming paper. And I believe that the salary behind a service, shouldn’t be based around the nominal price of the materials used, but based around the actual amount of effort, used to create the service being purchased.

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

From what I’ve read in the document, I agree with the idea, that class is not an identity. From how the idea is presented, it’s presented upfront that class isn’t an identity, but a set of interests. In the world of capitalism, a worker is a worker. The only difference between a surgeon’s assistant, a teacher, and a garbage man, is the amount of money they actually make. But their concerns, still remain the same. “How can I improve my working conditions”. Because, in the nature of capitalism, it’s not higher paid worker versus lower paid worker. It’s worker versus owner. Because the nature of these two positions, fundamentally combat each other. What is good for an employer, isn’t good for an employee, and vice versa. So, while class can certainly play a minor role in someone’s identity. It wouldn’t be considered a marker of a persons identity, because outside of salary, every single worker across the board, is fighting for the same thing.

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 the close form of dependency, and can you think of an example?

The concept of a “worker” gains concept by the concept of a “capitalist”. A worker isn’t a worker, without a firm or workplace to clock into, labor to produce, and a salary to earn. And a owner isn’t an owner without a staff of people working underneath them, generating them money. It’s the existence of both sides, and their conflict over power, that ironically creates both of these, as concepts. Without a worker, an owner doesn’t exist, because there’s no one generating them money. And without an owner, a worker doesn’t actually have anywhere to work. In the restaurant example I was talking about, if the staff and crew stopped existing, the restaurant wouldn’t have even left the planning phse. The owner doesn’t know how to do each workers job. And even f they did, they couldn’t do it at the same rate or efficiency that their staff does it. And if, the owner stopped existing, the workers wouldn’t have anywhere to work, or have a single salary to earn. But, with both sides present, the struggle they have against each other, the workers fighting for more rights and doing their work, and the owners keeping up the restaurant and trying to find a way to short staff, creates what we identify as the capitalist and worker “social class”, that we identify them as.

1: The Repressive State Apparatus, is one of the two mechanisms that Althusser believed to play a role in why people would subscribe to ideologies that don’t actually benefit them. Repressive State Apparatus uses the threat of punishment, to keep people in societal order, and to accept an ideology. The reason why it’s Repressive, is because it’s forcing an ideology, by creating a punishment for not adhering. Using “violence” to force allegiance (though, when regarding schools, “violence” takes the form of disciplinary punishments).

2: The Ideological State Apparatus, is the second mechanism that Althusser believed to create mass allegiance to ideologies that don’t benefit the common man. Ideological State Apparatus uses the idea of belonging, to keep people subservient to the ideology that surrounds them.

3: The difference between the two apparatus’, is how they create adherence. Repressive State Apparatus uses fear of punishment to lessen the desire to rebel. Because there’s obvious consequences for not doing what you’re “supposed to do”. But, Repressive State Apparatus, isn’t the opposite of Ideological State Apparatus. Rather, it’s a counter measure for if it fails, or if people try to move around it. More times then not, Ideological State Apparatus is the tool that keeps most people, in line. It’s what makes people subservient and blind. And in some cases, it distracts people from the change they could make, because belonging to a certain group, means more. Ideological doesn’t force your hand, it makes blindly following look better, and from there, you make the choice yourself.

4. Call me, old-school. But when I heard that we needed to find an example of an apparatus, the first thing my mind went to was Star Wars. In the clip I chose, the emperor of the evil empire forces Luke Skywalker to join the Dark Side. But when he refuses that order, he’s punished with death. Even though his father saves him, in the end. The fact is, there was punishment for non-adherence. Which in my opinion, makes this an example of Repressive State Apparatus.

Link: https://youtu.be/PqaiKmm8gsY?is=jCKZ413aF1EL_g7p

1: In my own opinion, Ideology is how you identify yourself, based around your own beliefs and personal circumstance. Politically, it’s a way how you’re able to articulate and express your own viewpoint, by subscribing to a personal set of ideas and values, that you also happen to believe in. While it isn’t the most accurate reflection of who one is inside, it’s a mechanism people use to display the parts of themselves that they may be most proud of. It’s the collective culmination of who you professional yourself to be.

2: For me, I identify and separate Conservatism and Liberalism using three major metrics: position regarding the New Deal, belief on government financial intervention, and stances on defense. From what I’ve learned, conservatives are concerned about maintaining freedom from government. This is articulated through their belief in a free economy, and lessened taxes. Whereas liberals believe in heavy taxes upon the rich, and government allocation of finances. Liberals also don’t concern themselves with issues of defense, as much as conservatives do. Leading them to usually be anti-gun, and more for the government to allocate funds outside of issues like national defense. Which the conservatives disagree with, and believe that that is the one major area the government should be concerning themselves. Liberals also originated their beliefs from the New Deal, whereas, conservatives believed the government was taking too much on their shoulders, during that time.

3: From my understanding, Althusser diagnosed human submission to ideologies that don’t support them, via two different apparatus’, used to make people more lenient to the idea. The first, was a utilization of fear, via the Repressive State Apparatus. Which used tools like prison, police force, and courts. As a way to punish deviation, and promote the idea of following a certain line of behavior. If you look at Nazi Germany, for example (because it’s one of the examples provided), this would take the form something like being arrested, for not following the fascist identity. The second apparatus, is the Ideological State Apparatus. Which instead of utilizing fear, it utilizes people’s desire to actually belong. Using social order as a tool, through things like school, politics, and mass media. Returning back to the fascist example, this apparatus could take the form of fascism becoming an identity of the people. And that, if you were to oppose it, then you had no place among your people.