1) The Constitution of the United States was written by the wealthy, capitalist class; the “landed gentry” that formed a sort of American aristocracy in lieu of Great Britain’s nobility. As described in Michael Parenti’s Democracy for the Few (pg 5-12) the delegates of the Philadelphia Convention were the wealthy: merchants, slaveholders, and manufacturers. There were no representatives of what we would call the working class: laborers, artisans, let alone enslaved or indentured people. Nor where there Black people, women, or white men insufficiently wealthy. Indeed, a primary concern of the delegation was devising the means to keep power out of the hands of those not represented there, that they deemed to have “unequal faculties” unfit for the demands of governance.

2) I believe the social class structure of the United States today does still bear a resemblance to the structure of early America. While some advancements have been made — voters’ rights have expanded considerably — there remains a divide between the wealthy elite and the working class that makes the vast majority of our population. These wealthy few still seek out ways to prevent or circumvent populist decision making through government manipulation and the leveraging of capital; millions of dollars are invested to affect political races, sway officials and policies, and exhaust grassroots or individual opposition through legal battles and other means.

3) The writers of the Constitution were afraid of democracy because it diluted power too evenly, allowing a simply majority too much influence over decisions that would greatly impact the writers’ finances and liberties. They thought of White, wealthy men as superior to others; that their land and money were indicative of their higher faculties and that allowing others to have equal say would lead to ruin. A republic allowed them to mollify the masses by allowing them participation, but still ultimately allowed power to sit with a relative few who would be more amenable to the desires of the elite class.

1) When James Madison writes of “factions” in his Federalist Paper #10, it brings to mind the class system that’s been at the center of our discussions this semester. While we writes in different terms, Madison is concerned that factions may form that would be a threat to the status quo. As Madison is himself a wealthy capitalist, it’s easy to draw parallels to the fears of capitalists broadly, of the labor class banding together to push back against the power wielded by the wealthy.

2) According to Federalist #10 (written by James Madison), the rights of property originate in “the diversity in the faculties of men.” That is, Madison believes that it’s a sort of exceptionalism that allows some men to amass wealth, while those of lesser ability remain poor. Therefore, the best people to govern are people who have wealth, as they’ve demonstrated an ability to reason above the average man.

3) I do not agree with Madison’s explanation of wealth and poverty. A person may be born into wealth, or they may stumble into it. What is clear, is that wealth-building tends to gain momentum over time; the more money one has, the easier it is to make more of it.

4) Madison writes that the core mission of the government is to protect the “faculties” that allow men to acquire property; generously, this is a statement on protecting the freedom/liberties that allow people self-determination and the opportunity to make their own fortunes. In practice this is more often seen as protecting the wealth already amassed by a select few. This doublespeak reflects popular opinions in our society today. Americans largely agree that people should have opportunities to improve their lives, but a lot of our laws and the actions of our government serve to entrench and protect the wealthy.

5) Madison argues for a republic over a democracy as a more stable form of governance, less likely to be swayed or turned by the will of temporary factions. While there can be some benefits to a stable, predictable government, this also favors the status quo, of course, and acts as an entrenchment of power, particularly for the wealthy class to which Madison belongs. It’s never a surprise when the people in power decide they are the best people to be in power, and thus seek to ensure its continuation as such.

1. Of the statistics given on p.29 of Michael Parenti’s Democracy of the Few, the most jarring was this: “The top 1 percent own between 40 and 50 percent of the nation’s total wealth […] more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent.” But this statistic really hits home as Parenti drills down in the following pages.

• “The real wealth is with the very top superrich stratum, a tiny fraction of 1 percent of the population, some 145,000 individuals, who increased their aggregate income by almost 600 percent in the last three decades (adjusting for inflation). The real income earned by the bottom 90 percent fell by 7 percent.”
• “In the eight years from 2001 to 2008, the wealth of the richest 400 Americans had increased by nearly $700 billion for a grand total of $1.6 trillion, more than the bottom 50 percent (150 million people) combined.”

It’s the specificity of those numbers that makes such a big impression on me. 1 percent of 100 is simply a fraction. “400 Americans” is visual. That’s the size of my high school. That’s 2-3 subway cars at rush hour. The idea that such a small number of people could amass so much wealth is both mind-blowing and frustrating. I can’t imagine a proper justification for that great a disparity.

2. Such huge wealth inequalities imply that there’s an extreme power imbalance in the worker-capitalist dynamic. If there were a healthy balance, there would be more even economic prosperity across the board, or perhaps even faster growth in the bottom percentages as society redistributes wealth. These inequalities also indicate that the wealthiest are gaining even more leverage over the working class, making it easier to downsize, speedup, and downgrade.

This process of maximizing profits at the expense of the worker is evident in several industries, but perhaps most easily detailed in software engineering. With the rise of AI, the entry- and mid-level programmer positions at many of the largest tech companies have been all but eliminated, and the demands on the remaining employees are through the roof as employees are expected to utilize AI to exponentially increase their labor power without commensurate compensation.

1. M-C-M’ [Money – Commodity – Money’], or as the author Pierre Jalee refers to it in “How Capitalism Works,” the general formula of capital, is the formula by which capitalists maintain and grow their wealth.

In a system without capitalists, markets function on a C-M-C [Commodity – Money – Commodity] formula. That is, the laborer creates a good or “commodity” to sell for money which is then exchanged for other needed commodities. In this case, money exists primarily as a representation of the value of their sold goods. The laborer is not seeking to amass money so much as they are looking to trade their labor for the labor of others; currency simply enables the indirect trade of goods and services.

Capitalists invert the formula, using their existing money (M) to purchase or produce commodities (C) that they then sell for more money than they had previously, recognized as M’. This profit is generated by the exploitation of labor in the production of the commodities. By leveraging their existing wealth to control the means of production, and thereby the livelihood of the worker, they are able to purchase the labor power of the worker at a rate favorable to them. The capitalist then benefits off the surplus value of the worker’s labor power. That is to say, the worker generates more value for the capitalist than they are paid for their labor. M’ can also be expressed as M + m, where m represents the surplus value of the labor generated by their investment of capital.

In order to be successful and maintain their wealth, the capitalist must continuously receive more from their investments than they put in, enough to sustain their own needs and, ideally, to grow the amount of capital available for future investments.

1. What is the distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees? Give an example of each.
2. How do you understand the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28? What is it saying about labor?
3. What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is NOT an identity?
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 this close form of dependency, and can you think of an example?

1. Owners are people who are able to live primarily off of their investments (stocks, bonds, rents, etc.) Colloquially, their money makes money. Employees are people who live off of their labor. Jeff Bezos, owner of Amazon, lives off the wealth generated by his companies and financial maneuvering. Amazon’s warehouse workers are employees, trading their labor in Bezos’s warehouses for wages – a fraction of the wealth generated by their work.

2. Adam Smith believed that the true value of a product was best measured by the labor that went into its creation and distribution, including the labor that may have gone into producing the tools, materials, and whatever other means used in the process. This, to me, places labor in a superior position in the balance between labor and capital.

3. I agree that class is something separate from identity. While facets of identity may or may not be something we choose for ourselves, identity by no means determines our actions. We are free to choose our actions whether or not they conflict with or identity. The socialist idea of class, however, is determined by the actions we’re able (or forced) to take. Being a worker or being a capitalist is an identity we must actively take part in in order to survive, and as such is a fundamental concern, though other aspects of identity may impact how we’re able to function within our class role, or may be impacted by our class.

4. To say that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency,” is to say that the capitalist and the worker cannot exist without that other. Workers depend on capitalists to purchase their labor; capitalists depend on workers for their labor. Forklift operators rarely own their own forklift; they depend on the warehouse owner to provide one and to hire them to drive it. In the reverse, warehouse owners depend on forklift operators and other workers to perform the essential functions that make a warehouse profitable.

2. I live in Crown Heights, off the 2/3/4/5 Franklin Avenue station. Based on the concepts from Reading 4.1 (“What Determines How Americans Perceive Their Social Class?” by Robert Bird and Frank Newport), the majority of my neighbors would be working or middle class, whether judged on income or education level. What’s notable to me is the gentrification apparent in my neighborhood. The newer residents trend higher in both income and education than the lifelong or long-term residents of the neighborhood, and may by themselves lean toward middle or even upper-middle class status, though most would not place themselves in the upper-middle category.

What I’m surprised by in the reading is what seems to be a desire to be perceived as “in the middle” with a large number of respondents declaring themselves “working” or “middle” class whether on the high or low end of the given scales. Why participants would do this is open to conjecture, but I think it demonstrates a major flaw in this economic/educational class structure as a subjective measurement.

1. Keeping in mind the material covered in this lesson, describe how you understand ideology in your own words.

Ideology is a framework of ideas, beliefs, and principles that people use to guide their decisions. It’s an understanding of the world, and more specifically politics, that groups and individuals use to determine their actions. It often functions as a shorthand, allowing us to make fast decisions and quickly identify likeminded people.

When we allow ideology to guide our decisions, we risk not earnestly engaging with legitimate questions and forming biases to our own detriment. This is often the case in politics, where ideology and tribalism lead us to disregard ideas presented by rival political parties based on who’s presenting the idea, rather than on the merits of the idea itself.

2. How do you understand the difference between conservative and liberal ideology in US politics? What seem to be the big differences, the dividing line? Given an example to backup your arguments.

Liberals believe in the power of government and collective decision-making to create the best outcomes for the greatest number of people, valuing equality over individual liberty. Conservative ideology has an emphasis on individuality, believing that free markets yield the best outcomes for the greatest number of people. 

As a broad example, liberals generally agree that a public healthcare system, funded by tax dollars, is better than private healthcare, as it makes healthcare available to more people. Conservatives believe that government spending is largely inefficient and wasteful, therefore a private healthcare system (with lower taxes) will better allow individuals to seek out and afford the healthcare they need.

3. How do you understand Althusser’s definition of ideology? Paraphrase it in your own words. Given an example.

Althusser argues that ideology is most often a framework for class and social repression. By instilling bad or distracting values to people (say, emotionally investing in a sports team rather than issues of class and personal/group well being) and by giving the illusion of choice (like the choice between two political parties that altogether as different as they may claim themselves to be, nor as threatening to the status quo as other options may be), the working class is largely distracted and deterred from fomenting societal change.

1. What is a Repressive State Apparatus? Why does Althusser call it “repressive”? Can we explain his choice of words here. Give an example.

A Repressive State Apparatus is any of several tools used by the ruling class to enforce the status quo. These are most often institutions, like the police and court systems, that force compliance and repress the potential for change through violence and the threat of violence. For example, a large protest may be met with the physical force of the military or a militarized police force.

2. Let’s do the same for the Ideological State Apparatuses. What are they, how do they seem to work?

Ideological State Apparatuses are systems that reinforce the status quo through subtle pressures and conditioning. Schools, religion, and the media often work to indoctrinate people – particularly young people – into compliant worldviews, and coerce them into obedience through conditioning and social pressures.

3. How are the Repressive and Ideological State Apparatuses different from each other? What is the difference between the two?

Repressive State Apparatuses use violence/the threat of violence to control people. This may be intimidating them into obedience or forcefully eliminating a threat to the status quo (often via imprisonment or punishment.) Ideological State Apparatuses work in a less overt manor to cultivate compliant behaviors and outlooks by leveraging social tools.

4. Post an example of ideology.

The United State military spends an significant amount of money to affect their cultural positioning. Famously, they will only grant access or services to help produce films that depict the US military in a positive light. They also pay professional sports leagues to insert patriotic events and exercises into their events, like the singing of “God Bless America” and flag displays. (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/05/454834662/pentagon-paid-sports-teams-millions-for-paid-patriotism-events)

This is an example of the Ideological State Apparatus at work, creating a positive association and fondness for the military that bolsters support for it and makes questioning it more difficult.