1. Based on both readings, the social class that wrote the constitution was mainly the wealthy or owning class. These were the people who owned large amounts of land, were creditors, merchants, manufacturers, or had other forms of property and wealth. The class that was mostly excluded was the working and propertyless class, which also included people who were disenfranchised, like enslaved people, women, indentured servants, and poor white men who did not own enough property to vote. The difference between the two classes was that the wealthy owning class had property and wealth. They wanted to protect themselves, while many working people struggled with taxes and debt and had little political power because of it. An example from the reading is the conflict between creditors and small farmers. Many small farmers were in debt and supported laws that would give debtors relief, while creditors wanted stronger laws to ensure they were paid back. Because of this, the two classes had different economic interests and viewed the new constitution differently.
2. I would say the social class structure of early United States society is very similar to our society today. Obviously, there are differences because society has changed since then, especially in terms of who has the right to vote and participate politically, but I think the overall divide between the wealthy and working class still exists. In the reading, Beard describes a society where certain groups owned large amounts of land, businesses, securities, and other forms of wealth, while many working people and small farmers struggled with debt and had much less economic and political power. I think today we still see a similar divide, especially when you think back to our earlier readings about wealth and equality and how much wealth is concentrated among the top 1%. Even though there are different circumstances today, there’s still a large gap between people who own significant wealth and those who mainly depend on working for their Income.
3. The people who wrote the constitution were afraid of democracy because they were worried about giving too much political power to the majority, which was mostly made up of working and poorer people. When it comes to social class, the people writing the constitution were mainly from the wealthy and property owning class, so they had money and property they wanted to protect. If everyone had more political power, the working and propertyless class could vote based on their own needs and support things like debt relief and other policies that could go against the interests of the wealthy. Clearly, the wealthy class feared giving the majority too much power because they were afraid of what could happen to their economic power.

1. One concept we’ve reviewed that faction reminds me of is social class. In the reading, Madison described a faction as a group of people with common interests and the group can either make up a majority or a minority. This reminded me of our discussions about the working class and the wealthy or owning class because each class shared interests based on their position in society, like workers sharing interests around wages and working conditions, well the only class may share in interest in protecting their property and wealth.
2. The source of wealth and private property, according to Madison, comes from people’s different abilities or “faculties” to acquire property. He believed that people have different and unequal abilities, which resulted in some people acquiring more property and wealth than others. These differences were the reasons why people ended up owning different amounts and types of property, which then separates society into different interests and groups.
3. I agree that someone’s abilities and work ethic can definitely play a role in their overall success, but I don’t completely agree with Madison’s explanation of wealth and poverty. I think there are also systems and barriers in place that can make it harder for ordinary people, especially marginalized groups, to own property or achieve the same level of success as others. Because of that, I think it’s hard to explain why some people are wealthy and others are poor based only on individual ability without also acknowledging the larger systems and circumstances that can help people succeed or make it harder for them to do so.
4. the first object of government is to protect peoples different abilities or faculties to acquire property, according to Madison. This does surprise me because it sounds different from what society today usually suggests the government’s core purpose is. Without really taking a deeper dive into history and understanding how the constitution and our government were formed, I think most people would assume that the government’s main purpose is simply to protect and support the working class people. After reading this along with the previous readings, I can see how protecting property was a major concern and how that could benefit the wealthy and property owning class over regular every day citizens.
5. No, I’m not necessarily surprised after going through the readings, but I was surprised actually reading Federalist No. 10 and seeing Madison’s argument for myself. He disliked the pure democratic form of government because he believed a majority faction could gain too much power and use it to push its own interests. This, for me, connects to social class because the majority is largely made up of ordinary, working, propertyless people whose economic interests could be different from those of the wealthy, property owning class. With a republic, instead of everyone directly making decisions, people elect representatives who would make those decisions for them. Madison believed these representatives could filter public views and prevent a majority faction from gaining too much control, potentially pushing the wealthy out of power.

1. How I understand the means of production is what it takes to produce whatever product you’re producing. It basically means the materials, technology, or tools needed to produce that product. An example would be making a song. I can use a computer and software to mix the song, a microphone to record it, and other equipment necessary to produce the finished song. These would all be part of the means of production. How I understand labor is the actual work that goes into producing something. For example, potholes don’t fix themselves. Workers have to remove the damaged pavement, fill the pothole with asphalt, compact it, and smooth out the road. The tools and materials they use are the means of production, while the work they do to repair the road is their labor.
2. Based on the ideas presented in the video, value is basically how much labor it takes to produce a commodity. What gives “value” to value is the actual labor behind it, including the time, work, and skill necessary to produce it. So, a commodity isn’t necessarily valuable just because of the price that’s randomly placed on it, but because of the actual human labor that went into producing it.
3. Labor and value are related because the labor and amount of work that goes into producing a commodity determines its value. Value is based on the actual human labor involved in producing it, so labor and value basically go hand in hand. You can place a random price on a product, but that price is not necessarily worth the same thing as it’s value. The value is connected to the labor it takes to actually produce that product.
4. The difference between labor and labor power is that labor is the actual doing or producing of the work that you’re working on. Labor power is the ability you have to work, which you sell in exchange for wages. So, labor is the actual work that you get done and labor power is your ability to show up and get that work done.
5. Surplus value is when the labor you perform creates more value than what you were being paid for your labor power. For example, someone working in retail might make $15 an hour and work a six-hour shift, earning $90 for the day. During those six hours, their work may help the company generate much more value than the $90 they were paid. The difference between the value created through their labor and what they receive for their labor power contributes to the surplus value that goes to the owner. This connects to social class because it shows how workers create value through their labor, while owners profit from, or “exploit,” the additional value workers produce.

1. MCM’ means money, commodity and more money (surplus value). Capitalists start with money and use that money to buy what they need for their production and that includes things like materials, equipment and labor power. The workers then use their labor to produce the commodity and create value. Part of that value covers what the workers are paid, while the additional value they create becomes surplus value for those capitalists. The capitalist ends up with more money than they started with and can put it back into production to make even more. Through this system, they continuously repeat the process, maintaining and increasing their wealth.

1. The statistic on wealth inequality in the US that made the biggest impression on me was that the top 1% owned between 14 and 50% of the nation’s total wealth, which was more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90%. This statistic wasn’t completely shocking to me because I’ve closely followed Bernie Sanders, who has consistently spoken about wealth concentration among the richest Americans. But still, seeing the numbers laid out this way always surprises me because it shows how large the gap is between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else. What stands out the most to me is that this level of wealth inequality can exist while so many working people struggle to afford basic necessities.
2. Some of the implications of living in a society with such huge wealth inequality could be increased financial hardship, rising health problems, and even higher levels of crime in some communities. When people struggle financially, they may become desperate to afford basic necessities, and they may also put off going to the doctor or getting the healthcare they need because they literally cannot afford it. I definitely see this dynamic playing out in everyday life because even working-class people who have jobs can still struggle to get by. People may have to choose between paying rent, buying food, going to the doctor, or paying other important bills, even though these are all basic necessities. To me this shows how having a job and working hard does not necessarily mean that someone is financially secure, especially when the cost of basic necessities continue to rise, and people are unsure if they’ll be able to afford what’s next.

1.  
2. Based on the station closest to where I live and the concepts from readings in 4.1, my neighborhood is mostly made up of working-class and middle-class people, although it can vary by block. I’m not surprised by this because I think it pretty much reflects the mix of people and families living in my area. My neighborhood also has a large population of families with different income levels, some of whom may work lower-wage jobs or live in lower-income households. This just adds to my neighborhood’s economic diversity and shows my area isn’t a monolith, regardless of the data.

Discussion Board 4.2

1. the distinction between owners and employees is that owners live off the work done by employees or they have investments, which can include stocks, bonds, rent, mineral royalties, and other property income, while employees live mostly off wages and salaries. An example of an owner would be someone who owns something of high value, like a large company with employees, or who has enough investments that most of their income comes from them. An employee could be someone who basically lacks “wealth” and has to work for that company, whether they are in an entry-level position, a manager, or even a director, because they still, for the most part, depend on a salary from their job.
2. I understand Adam Smith’s quote as acknowledging the importance of workers and the value of their labor. Without the work being done, there would be no product for a corporation or owner to make money from. If you’re going to sell a product or service, labor has to go into it, whether that is producing it, marketing it, etc. To me, he is saying human labor is ultimately the most expensive thing that allows businesses and owners to make a profit.
3. My thoughts on the main argument that class is not an identity are that I agree for the most part because I see class as a bigger structural issue. This is something I’ve always thought about, but could never really get people to understand. Race, gender, sexuality, and many other things can shape our identities and the different struggles we experience, but class goes beyond how we identify ourselves. It involves a larger structure of power dependency between workers and capitalism. I think acknowledging the bigger picture matters more because many of the inequalities we experience almost always connect to economic power. Issues like racism, misogyny, homophobia, or other forms of oppression should rightfully be addressed individually, but we should also question them from the top down and understand how, though they’re separate issues, we can address all by addressing the issues at the top. Class structures can reinforce this, and addressing these issues requires confronting economic inequality.
4. I understand this argument as meaning that class structures are built around dependency because, as the reading explains, you basically have to give in order to get. As workers, we have to give our labor, time, and hard work to an employer in exchange for the income we need to survive, whether that is to pay rent, buy food, or pay our bills. At the same time, employers also depend on workers because without our labor, they could not produce and make a profit. For example, I work for a large corporation. I depend on that company for my paycheck, but the company also depends on its employees to keep the business running and making money. Without employees, there is no business; without an employer, there is no food on the table or a roof over my head.

1. I understand ideology as something that acts as a guiding factor in how you view the real world. It is a set of beliefs and values that help shape how you think socially and politically, including what you believe is right or wrong and how society should work. Ideology can be shaped by beliefs passed down to you, your environment, or from the experiences you go through as you get older and navigate the real world.
   • An example of ideology could be religion. Someone may grow up being taught certain religious beliefs and values that influence how they understand right and wrong and how people should behave. Because these beliefs can be introduced from childhood through family, a person may accept them before having the opportunity to question them or choose what they believe for themselves. Religion can also influence how people view others who do not share the same beliefs, even though identifying with a religion does not automatically make someone a good person, just as not practicing a religion does not make someone a bad person.
   • I also understand ideology as something that can be shaped by a person’s environment, social class, race, gender, culture, and lived experiences. Because people experience the same society differently, they may develop very different beliefs about how society functions and what needs to change. For example, someone raised in a wealthy family may have a different view of economic opportunity in America than someone from a low income, immigrant family who has experienced financial or social barriers. Their different experiences can influence how they view issues such as poverty, government, assistance, immigration, or economic inequality. This helps me understand why people living in the same society can develop very different ideologies.
2. My understanding of the difference between conservative and liberal ideology in US politics is mostly based on the relationship between the individual and the government. Conservatism generally emphasizes limited government, traditional values, individual responsibility, and a strong national defense. Liberalism generally emphasizes equality, social progress, government responsibility, and using government programs or regulations to address social and economic problems. To me, one of the biggest dividing lines is how much responsibility the government should have for improving people’s lives versus how much responsibility should be placed on individuals.
   • For example, government spending shows this difference. A conservative might support keeping taxes and domestic government spending lower because they believe individuals, families, businesses, and private organizations should have more responsibility and control over their money. Conservatives also view national defense as one of the federal government’s most important responsibilities and usually support strong military spending. A liberal may be willing to pay more taxes and use government funding for important programs such as healthcare, food assistance, education, or affordable housing because they believe the government has a responsibility to reduce inequality and provide a basic level of support for everyone. The disagreement mainly stems from the role the government should play in solving these problems.
   • The main keywords on the conservative side are limited government, individual responsibility, traditional values, and national defense. These ideas usually emphasize less government involvement in people’s lives and the economy, personal responsibility for one’s own success, preserving traditional institutions and values, and maintaining a strong military to protect the country. On the other hand, I associate liberalism with equality, social progress, government responsibility, and a social safety net. These concepts reflect the belief that government can help create more equal opportunities, adapt laws and institutions as society changes, and provide support like food assistance, healthcare, or other resources for people who may need them.
3. After watching the video, I understand Althusser’s definition of ideology as not something we exactly choose to believe, but something we experience and live through every day, which is how I would personally define it. Institutions and everyday practices help shape how we understand society, what we consider normal, and even how we see ourselves and our place in this world. We may feel like we personally developed our beliefs, but institutions like schools, families, religion, and the media can influence those beliefs from an early age
   • I would use school as a good example because students learn more than just academic subjects. They also learn expectations like being on time, respecting authority, completing assigned work, meeting deadlines, and being rewarded or disciplined based on their behavior. Over time, these practices can teach us what society considers a “good” student or successful person. A student may start to see themselves as either successful or unsuccessful, smart or irresponsible, based on how they are treated within that school system. This shows you Althusser’s idea that ideology works everyday through institutions and experiences that shape how people understand themselves and society.

1. A repressive state apparatus is part of the state that maintains social order through force or the threat of violence. I understand Althusser’s use of the word “repressive” as a way to distinguish this type of control from ideological institutions, like schools or religion, which primarily shape people’s beliefs and values. With a repressive state apparatus, you’re forced to comply regardless of whether you personally agree or not because these institutions have the power to enforce laws and punish those who violate them. Examples include the police, military, courts, and prison system. Repression can sometimes involve physical force, but even when it doesn’t, the possibility of consequences such as fines, arrest, or imprisonment can influence how people behave.
2. Ideological state apparatuses are institutions in everyday life that help shape people’s beliefs, values, behaviors, and understanding of their place here in society. Examples include schools, families, churches, politics, and mass media. Unlike the repressive state apparatus, they mainly work through ideology rather than force or the threat of punishment. They teach us certain values and expectations that can eventually feel normal in society or like our own personal choices, while also helping maintain the existing order of society. Ideological institutions can influence how we behave and see the world without physically forcing us to comply.
3. Repressive and ideological state apparatuses are different mainly in how they influence people and maintain social order. A repressive state apparatus mainly works through force, punishment, or the threat of consequences, while an ideological state apparatus works mainly by shaping our beliefs and what we consider normal or acceptable. With repressive institutions like the police, courts, or prisons, you may comply because you know there can be direct consequences if you don’t. Ideological institutions like schools, religion, and the media are more present in our everyday lives and condition us to follow certain expectations because we have learned to view them as normal or appropriate. The main difference is that one primarily maintains order through repression, while the other primarily maintains it through ideology.
4. I chose this image from the 2020 BLM/George Floyd protests in New York City because I think it clearly demonstrates Althusser’s idea of a repressive state apparatus. This image shows NYPD officers using pepper spray toward protesters, demonstrating how police have the authority to use physical force to enforce social order. This is especially relevant because later investigations into the NYPD’s response to the protest found cases of unjustified, excessive force and concluded that some police tactics escalated tensions. To me, this image represents Althusser’s idea of repression because, instead of shaping people’s beliefs or values, as an ideological state apparatus would, the police can directly control behavior through force or the violent threat of consequences.