- What is the distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees? Give an example of each.
- How do you understand the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28? What is it saying about labor?
- What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is NOT an identity?
- 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 this close form of dependency, and can you think of an example?
11 thoughts on “Discussion Board 4.2”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Reading 4.3 distinguishes owners as those who possess the means of production, like a factory owner while employees are those who trade their labor for wages, such as a factory worker. Adam Smith’s quote emphasizes that labor is the primary source of value. He suggests that the effort put into production is the true measure of what a commodity is worth in an economic system. Regarding Reading 4.4 the argument that class is not an identity suggests that one’s socioeconomic position is determined by structural economic factors rather than personal choice or cultural labels. It frames class as a rigid position within a system.
The dependency mentioned refers to the mutual reliance between capital owners and laborers. Owners need labor to generate profit, while workers need wages from owners for survival. A clear example is a service business where the manager relies on staff to operate, and the staff relief on the manager for their livehood.
Great post! I really liked how you explained the mutual dependency between capital owners and workers using the service business example. It made the concept from Reading 4.4 very clear and easy to understand.
1. what I understood in simple language from reading 4.3 is that bosses use workers to make more money, and workers trade their time to get paid. For example, big companies like Amazon have owners who profit off the business, while employees like delivery drivers or warehouse workers sell their labor power to earn a living. the sad part here is that drivers face issues with low pay or working without a contract.
2.What I understand is that human labor is the actual source that gives something its true economic value, rather than just its price in money.
3. I was thinking that still I would support Bernie’s ideas, is not communism is just a way to balance power and create a fairer system for the majority who rely on labor to live. I was also thinking that in society many people don’t realize they are part of the working class simply because they can afford consumer items, like having their own car, but that doesn’t mean they are becoming wealthy or changing their class identity unfortunately, and a mistake from capitalism.
4. The dependency comes when the existence is possible with both sides, so companies need workers to generate profit, and workers need a place to go to work to earn a wage. For example, an Amazon driver needs the job to earn money, while Amazon needs the driver to deliver the products sold through their platform.
Hello Natalia, I respect your view that support for Bernie Sanders’ political views was not embracing communism. You are able to think for yourself because you think critically. Critical thinking is so lacking in political discourse on all levels and in both major parties. Therefore, independent thought based on evidence and critical thinking is very necessary.
heyy, I really like how you broke down the readings, especially your point in section three about consumer items. You’re so right—just because someone can buy a car or nice clothes doesn’t mean their actual class position has changed.
1. One distinction made from reading 4.3 between the owners and employees is that owners are individuals who live mostly off of investments while employees live mostly off of wages, salaries and fees. An example of an owner could be someone who is considered a stockholder of huge organizations. An example of an employee are the ones that work under those organizations, they can be considered factory or service workers depending on their role.
2. Adam smiths quote allows me to have the interpretation that a certain type of labor determines its worth. Smiths specific line that says “labor … is alone the ultimate and real standard ” depicts how much effort you put into a project determines how valuable it is.
3. Regarding the reading 4.4 I agree with the main argument about class not being an identity. Socialists say that class is more focused on someones place in society rather then that persons financial status or how they perceive themselves. I feel that class should not identify you. For example, if you live in a lower class neighborhood that doesn’t make you any less successful than someone living in upper middle class neighborhood. Class should not determine identity, you should.
4. The argument reading 4.4 helps me understand that capitalists/owners and employees/the working class relationship is not equal. this close form dependency is basically the capitalists saying “I depend on you to work and produce goods” while the workers are basically saying “I depend on you to give me money in order to support myself” An example could be construction workers. Their boss shows them the blueprints and they build it. The boss depends on their workers to build a project while the workers depend on their boss for their pay.
Hello Toni,
Great post! thanks for sharing your thoughts and comprehension in this reading, your examples really helped clarify the distinctions between owners and employees, and i appreciate how you connected adam smiths quote to the value of labor. Its interesting to think about class not defining identify and your point about the dependency between capitalists and workers is well explained with the construction worker example.
1) The reading 4.3 explains that owners and Employees are different because owners own the business or property that makes money, while employees have to work for someone else to earn money. For Example, the owner of a restaurant would be considered an owner, while a server working at the restaurant would be considered an employee. The owner makes money from the business, while the employee is paid for the work they do.
2) I understand the quote as saying that labor is what creates value in society. The things we use and depend on come from people working and putting in their time and effort. To me, it shows how important workers are because, without their labor, businesses and the economy could not function.
3) I agree with the main argument because I don’t think class is only an identity. To me, class is also connected to someone’s economic position and the amount of power and resources they have. For example, an employee and a business owner may both see themselves in a certain way, but their roles in society are very different: one depends on wages, while the other owns the business. I understand that class is not just about how someone identifies themselves, but also about their relationship to work, money, and power.
4) I understand the arguments to mean that workers and owners depend on each other, but not in the exact same way. Workers depend on owners or companies for jobs and income, while owners depend on workers to do the labor that keeps the business running and profitable. For example, in a restaurant, employees depend on the owner for their jobs and paychecks, but the owner also depends on the cooks, servers, and other workers to keep the restaurant open and profitable. That shows the close-knit nature of the dependency, as both sides rely on each other, even though the owner usually has more power in the relationship.
Hello!
I agree with your point that class is more than just how someone identifies themselves. I also think the difference in power is important because two people can earn money and still have completely different positions in the economic system. An employee depends on their wages, while a business owner has control over the business and the work being provided. This helped me understand why Heideman focuses more on a person’s relationship to work and economic power rather than simply calling class an identity.
In Chapter 4, Parenti makes a clear distinction between owners and employees. Owners are people whose income comes from the labor of others. Profits, rents, stocks, and business ownership. Employees, on the other hand, survive by selling their labor for wages. A landlord collecting rent or a corporate shareholder earning dividends are examples of owners. A customer service worker, a nurse, or a factory worker are examples of employees. Parenti’s point is that the difference isn’t about how much money someone makes—it’s about where their income comes from and who depends on whom.
On page 28, Parenti quotes Adam Smith saying that labor is the “ultimate and real standard” of value. I understand this to mean that labor is what actually creates wealth, not money or property by themselves. A raw material has no economic value until human labor transforms it. Smith is basically acknowledging that workers are the foundation of all economic value, even though they often receive only a fraction of what they produce. This fits Parenti’s larger argument that the owning class benefits from the laboring class in a way that is built into the structure of capitalism.
3.In Class Rules Everything Around Me, Heideman argues that class is not an identity, and I think that point is important. Class isn’t about how people dress, speak, or see themselves—it’s about their position in an economic system. As someone who has worked full‑time while raising a child in NYC, I never “identified” as working class; I simply lived the reality of depending on wages to survive. That experience made Heideman’s argument feel accurate. Class is a structural relationship, not a personal label.
4.Heideman also says class structures are built around a close form of dependency, meaning workers and employers rely on each other in a way that neither can escape. Workers depend on wages to live, and employers depend on workers to produce profit. This dependency is unequal, though, because workers have far more to lose. A clear example is any job where missing a paycheck threatens rent, food, or childcare. I’ve felt that pressure myself, and it shows how class isn’t just a category,it’s a relationship that shapes people’s daily lives and limits their choices.
Hello!
I agree with your explanation of the dependency between workers and employers. I especially liked your point that the dependency can be unequal because losing a paycheck can immediately affect a worker’s ability to pay for basic needs. I also think this helps explain why Heideman believes workers can gain more power when they organize together. Even though an individual worker may be easier to replace, employers still depend on their workers as a group to keep the business operating and producing profit.