1. Citizens roles in government vary significantly across federal, confederation and unitary systems. In a federal system, citizens actively participate by electing representatives at both national and state levels, fostering a balance of power and representation of diverse interests. Conversely, in a confederation, citizens influence on the central government is indirect, primarily exerted through the election of representatives to regional governments that then make decisions for the entire confederation. Lastly, in a unitary system, citizens directly elect representatives to a central government granting them significant influence over national policies, although this may come at the expense of local autonomy.
2. The division of power separates governmental authority to prevent any single entity from becoming too powerful. This can be achieved through federalism, which divides power between national and state governments or through the separation of powers, which distributes authority among different branches of government like the legislative, executive, and judicial. This distribution ensures checks and balances promoting a balanced and limited government.
3. During covid, the federal government significantly influenced New York and its local governments through several key mechanisms. Federal funding, such as the cares act provided substantial financial aid to support state and local budgets, which were strained by increased healthcare costs and economic downturns. These funds came with guidelines on how they could be used, shaping state and local spending priorities. Additionally, federal mandates and recommendations from agencies like the “CDR” influenced public health policies, including mask mandates, vaccination efforts, and social distancing measures implemented at the state and local levels. The federal government also coordinated the distribution of vaccines and other essential resources further directing state and local responses to the crisis.

1. From reading 6.1 of Parenti’s argues the constitution was primarily crafted by and for the interests of the wealthy elite. He suggest that the Founding Fathers many of whom were landowners, merchants, and lawyers, designed a system that would protect their economic interests. For example, the clauses in the constitution that protected the property rights and limit the power of the majority, defended the assets of the wealthy from potential redistribution. In the other hand of, economic interpretation of the US constitution also emphasizes the economic motivations of the framers. He argues that the Founding Fathers had significant financial stakes in the outcome of the constitution. For instance, many of them held government bonds and stood to gain financially from a stronger national government that could ensure repayment. As for who was excluded both readings imply that the working class, small framers, debtors, and enslaved people were largely left out of the process. These groups had little to no representation at the constitutional convention and their interest were not prioritized. It came to conclude that both readings were written primarily by the wealthy elite class, while the working class and other less privileged groups were excluded from the process.
2. The social class structure of the early times in the US and from todays are completely different. While both eras have economic disparities, early US society had a more rigid structure defined by land ownership, race, and social status, with limited mobility for those outside the elite. Today, while wealth still plays a significant role, there are more avenues for social mobility through education, entrepreneurship, and career advancement, even through systemic inequalities persist. The early US also had the distinct feature of slavery, which created a separate, oppressed class, unlike anything in today’s society apart of race and discrimination that continues running.
3. The framers of the constitution feared pure democracy due to concerns about the tyranny of the majority, potential instability and the belief that the public lacked sufficient knowledge for informed decision making. They worried that direct democracy could lead to the oppression of minority rights and create chaotic governance based on popular whims. To mitigate these risks, they established a republic, where elected representatives would make decisions, providing a buffer against the excesses of democracy and ensuring a more stable, reasoned government. This avoids both pure democracy and autocracy.

1. It’s primarily based on their relationship to the means of production and their control over economic activity. The owners are the individuals or entities that possess and control the means of production, such as factories, land, capital, and resources. Owners have the power to make decisions about production, distribution, and investment. They also receive the profits generated by these activities. Employees would be who sell their labor to owners in exchange for wages or salaries. Employees do not own or control the means of production and have limited decision making power within the economic system. They rely on the owner for employment and are subject to the conditions set by the owners. 

A great example for that would be the owner Jeff Bezos, as the founder and former CEO of Amazon, is an owner. He had significant control over the company’s operations, investment decisions, and distribution of profits. A warehouse worker at an Amazon fulfillment center is an employee. They perform tasks assigned by the company in exchange for wages but do not have ownership or control over Amazon’s operations or profits.  

2. Smith’s quote is likely about the value and importance of labor in creating wealth, but also potentially about how laborers often don’t get their fair share. It shows that the workers often get ripped off, with owners taking most of the money even though workers do the actual work. It’s about how labor creates wealth, but workers don’t always get what they deserve. 

3. Generally argues that class isn’t just an identity but primarily a structural relationship to the means of production. He critiques the idea of class as just another identity group, arguing instead for focusing on material conditions and power dynamics. This perspective suggests that political action should aim to change economic structures and redistribute wealth, rather than just focusing on identity.
4. The statement “class structures are built around a close form of dependency” means that the capitalist system inherently relies on workers being deeply dependent on employers for their survival. This dependency isn’t superficial, it would be more like a fundamental relationship where workers lack independent means to support themselves and must rely on access to resources controlled by employers. For example, a factory worker does not own the factory or machinery, forcing them to depend on the factory owner for employment and wages. This dynamic gives employers significant power, as they control the terms of employment, perpetuating a class structure where workers livelihoods are tied to employers decisions. This close dependency reinforces the power imbalance inherent in the capitalist system.

1. If I was to guess some similarities between these social classes I would say, there are some interesting connections beyond just income. They both highlight the presence of different social classes. Come to a realization that not everyone has the same amount of money or opportunities. The subway does the same thing, you’re going to see people from all different backgrounds riding together. Discussions about social class are often shaped by the environment and context in which people live and interact. In the subway weather it’s clean or crowded it definitely can change the way you perspective the inequalities. Another example would be the perceptions of fairness in opportunities and outcomes. On subway stations just because some areas are good looking doesn’t mean the rest could be a bit more lower class which in yet there is a point but services should be treated all the same. So in reality, it’s not just about how much money people have, but also about how these differences are made visible, how the environment shapes perceptions, and how people view the fairness of the system.

Now some differences I could come up with are how they usually are about income, wealth, education, and opportunities in society. On the train, it is a public service. It’s more about transportation, accessibility, and how well the city is serving its residents. Social class discussion covers the entire country and affects many aspects of life, like jobs and healthcares. The subway mainly impacts people who live in or come for a visit and primarily affects their ability to get around. Social class people may feel a sense of agency to advocate for policy changes or support organizations working to address inequality. On the subway, individuals have more direct ways to voice their concerns through local elections or community meetings. While both touch on inequality, social class discussions are broader and deal with the whole system, while the subway is a specific example of how inequality plays out in a city service 

2. I strongly believe on my end, 103rd St “Corona Plaza” station in Queens is pretty diverse, but it’s generally considered a working-class and lower middle class neighborhood. You’ll find a lot of immigrant families, small business owners all around “Roosevelt” , and people working in service industries. While there’s definitely a range of incomes, It’s not typically an area where you’d find a lot of upper middle class or wealthy residents.   

3. I would say yes, there are definitely some patterns all around. The subway hits lower income areas harder with problems, there’s a perception of unequal service favoring wealthier areas, and improvements linked to gentrification can displace residents. The subway reflects and reinforces social class divisions in NYC.

1. A Repressive State Apparatus, in Althusser’s theory, refers to the institutions that maintain power through force. Althusser calls it “repressive” because its primary function was to suppress dissent and maintain order through coercion. His choice of words highlights the inherently forceful nature of these institutions. They are not about persuasion or consensus, but about maintaining control, usually often through violence. A good example of an RSA is the police force. The police have the power to arrest, detain, and use force to enforce laws. This is a clear example of repression. It involves limiting individuals freedom and punishing those who deviate from established order. 

2. Well according to Althusser, they’re institutions that spread ideology and reinforce the power of the state. Unlike RSAs which use force, ISAs work through persuasion and shaping beliefs. This can include schools, family, media, religious, and cultural institutions like art and literature. They can work like hailing or calling out to individuals and shaping them into subjects who accept their place in the social order. For example, the media might constantly show images of success tied to wealth, encouraging people to accept capitalist values.

3. The main difference is how they exert control. RSA’s function primarily through violence and ISA’s function primarily through ideology. So, RSA’s use coercion, while ISA’s use persuasion. Both serve to maintain the power of the dominant class, but they do so in different ways.

4. Down below is an example of an image of repressive.

1. I would say ideology can be a set of opinions or beliefs of a group or individuals.This could also refer to a set of political beliefs or ideas that characterize a particular culture. Therefore these ideas make you understand and figure out what’s right and wrong. A vision of how the world should work, guiding different actions and decisions. For instance, some people might believe that a good hand of people should share everything equally, while others think it’s better for people to own their own things. These contrasting ideologies offer different perspectives on how society should function and the values it should prioritize. 

Now, how did I come to understand what ideology is you would ask me. Well, let’s put it out like I looked at many different examples and read lots of explanations. It came to a conclusion if you see it like putting together a puzzle, where each piece was a different idea or belief system. This is just my opinion of gathering up how I see what ideology is. Everyone is not going to see it like the way I do, that just gave another example. These ideas fit together and how they influence people’s actions, I started to get a clearer picture of the meaning behind ideology. As I had mentioned before we’re all going to have different thoughts and opinions but still have the same meaning at the end just different ways of explaining it.

2. I would consider the issue of healthcare. Conservatives would think its best if everyone takes care of themselves and buys their own medicine and sees a doctor if they can. They would believe that if lots of, for instance doctors offices, would give the best care on top things will get better and maybe even cost less. On the other hand liberals would say its important for everyone to get help when they’re sick, even if they don’t have the amount of money. That just for the fact that it is a free environment, the government should help pay for doctor visits and medicine so that they could recover back up and get better sooner. In my opinion, the big difference is that the conservatives think it’s mostly up to you to take care of yourself, while liberals think they should help each other out, especially when it comes to being healthy. It really comes down to the role of government and individual responsibility versus collective responsibility and differing priorities regarding the equality of opportunities. Conservatives generally favor less of the government and more individual responsibility, while liberals tend to support more government involvement to address social and economic inequalities.  

3. On my behalf, a way I would understand Althusser’s definition of ideology is by its representations such as ideas, images, and myths that gives us a better understanding of how we perceive the world and our place in it. It’s not just about false beliefs it would be more about each and every component is already ideological. An example of a topic I would give out would be about school. I’m saying this due to the fact we already have skills but also learn things like the importance of competition, respect for authority, and the idea that success is based on individual worth. I wouldn’t say these ideas aren’t necessarily true nor false just that they prepare us to accept our roles in a capitalist society. We might believe we’re just getting an education, but according to Althusser, we’re also being “hailed” as subjects who fit into the existing social order.