The readings show that the Constitution was written mainly by members of the wealthier, property-owning class, while much of the working and propertyless population had little or no participation in the process. Reading 6.1 explains that the people involved included merchants, slaveholders, manufacturers, landowners, and other wealthy men. Meanwhile, poor farmers, artisans, indentured servants, enslaved people, women, Native Americans, and many men without enough property were excluded. Reading 6.2 describes many of these groups as “disenfranchised,” meaning they did not have the right to vote and therefore were not represented in the Constitutional Convention.

The social class structure of early America was also different from what we have today, especially when it came to political rights. In most states, voting was limited to property-owning White men, so a person’s wealth and property directly affected whether they could participate in government. Today, property ownership is not a requirement for voting. However, there is still a similarity in the sense that society includes people who own significant wealth and property and people who mainly depend on working for an income. The readings show that this economic divide existed in early America as well, with struggling farmers and debtors on one side and wealthy landowners, merchants, creditors, and investors on the other.

Finally, the people who wrote the Constitution were concerned about democracy because they feared what could happen if the propertyless majority gained greater political power. Events such as Shays’ Rebellion showed that struggling farmers and debtors were willing to organize against foreclosures, debt, and economic conditions they believed were unfair. From the argument presented in Reading 6.1, the concern was that if ordinary working people had enough political power, they might support policies that challenged the property and economic interests of the wealthier class. This helps explain why social class was important to the way the Constitution and the new government were structured.

In Federalist No. 10, Madison describes a faction as a group of people who are connected by a shared interest or passion. This reminds me of the social classes we have already discussed because people within the same class can have similar economic interests. For example, people who own a lot of property may have different interests from people who depend mainly on wages. Madison explains that factions cannot realistically be eliminated because people will always have different opinions, interests, and circumstances. Instead, he believes government should focus on controlling the effects of factions.

Madison also connects differences in wealth to what he calls people’s “faculties,” meaning their abilities or capacities to acquire property. He argues that people have different abilities to gain property, and that these differences lead to unequal amounts of wealth and eventually different interests within society. He even describes protecting these faculties as the “first object” of government. I do not completely agree with the idea that wealth and poverty mainly come from differences in people’s abilities. The earlier readings in this class showed that people can begin with very different access to property, money, education, and other opportunities, so I think a person’s economic position is affected by more than individual ability alone.

This also helps explain why Madison favored a republic instead of a pure democracy. In a pure democracy, citizens participate directly in government, while in a republic they elect representatives to make decisions. Madison believed a republic could better control factions because representatives would stand between the public and government decisions, and a larger republic would contain a greater variety of competing interests. When I connect this to social class, I can understand why he would be concerned about a large majority of people with similar economic interests gaining direct political power. Overall, Federalist No. 10 shows how concerns about property, social class, factions, and political power were connected to the preference for a representative form of government.

The means of production and labor work together to create products. I understand the means of production as the resources needed to make something, such as factories, machines, tools, land, and materials. Labor is the actual work people perform using those resources. For example, in a bakery, the ovens, equipment, and ingredients are part of the means of production, while the baker provides the labor by actually making the bread. This also connects to the idea of value because human labor is what transforms materials into products. The amount of labor normally needed to produce something helps determine its value. A piece of furniture, for example, requires labor to prepare the materials, build the furniture, transport it, and eventually sell it.

Another important distinction is between labor and labor power. Labor is the work a person actually performs, while labor power is their ability to work. When working-class people get jobs, they sell their labor power to an employer for a certain amount of time in exchange for wages. For example, a restaurant employee sells their labor power when they agree to work an eight-hour shift, while the cooking, serving, and cleaning they perform during that shift are their actual labor.

These ideas also helped me understand surplus value and why it is important when discussing social class. Surplus value is the portion of the value created by a worker’s labor that goes beyond what the worker receives in wages and contributes to the owner’s profit. 

For example, a worker may create more value for a business during an hour than the amount they are paid for that hour. The worker receives their wage, while the additional value can benefit the owner. To me, this shows how labor, value, and social class are connected. Workers and owners participate in the same production process, but their positions within that process determine how they earn money and how they benefit from the value that is created.

The diagram M–C–M′ explains how money can be transformed into capital and used to create more money. The M represents the money a capitalist starts with. That money is then used to purchase C, or commodities, which can include buildings, machinery, raw materials, and labor power. After those commodities are used in the production process and the finished products are sold, the capitalist ends with M′, which represents the original money plus additional money, or surplus value. The reading explains that M′ must be greater than the original M because the purpose of this process is to increase capital rather than simply exchange one item for another. 

This is different from C–M–C, or small-scale commodity production. In that process, a person makes a commodity, sells it for money, and then uses that money to purchase another commodity they need. For example, the reading describes a farmer selling vegetables to buy cloth. The main purpose is consumption rather than increasing wealth. With M–C–M′, the purpose is different because the capitalist begins with money and uses it with the goal of ending with more money than they started with. The process can then be repeated, allowing capital to continue increasing. 

Labor power is especially important to understanding where that additional value comes from. The capitalist purchases a worker’s labor power along with the other things necessary for production. Labor power is different from the actual labor performed because it represents the worker’s ability to work. Once that labor power is put to use, workers can create new value through their work. This leads to surplus labor, which occurs when workers continue producing value after they have already created enough value to account for their wages. The additional value created during that time becomes surplus value, which contributes to the capitalist’s profit.

Overall, I understand M–C–M′ as a cycle that helps explain how capitalists maintain and increase their wealth. They use existing money to purchase what is needed for production, including labor power, and the production process creates commodities that can be sold for more money. Part of the additional value comes from the surplus labor performed by workers. The capitalist can then put that increased amount of money back into the process and repeat the cycle. This is why the reading describes M–C–M′ as the general formula of capital and why labor power and surplus value are so important for understanding the relationship between workers and the capitalist class.

One statistic that made the biggest impression on me was that the top 1 percent owned between 40 and 50 percent of the nation’s total wealth, which was more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent. This stood out to me because I knew there was a large difference between wealthy and working-class Americans, but I did not realize the reading described the concentration of wealth as being that extreme. It also made me think differently about social class because there can be a huge economic difference between people who all live within the same society.

I think one implication of having such large wealth inequalities is that people can have completely different opportunities and levels of financial security. Someone with significant wealth may be able to handle an emergency, invest money, purchase property, or take advantage of opportunities without worrying as much about basic expenses. Meanwhile, someone who depends mainly on wages may be working regularly but still have difficulty keeping up with necessities. Parenti connects this problem to wages and explains that many people work for a living without necessarily earning enough to comfortably support themselves.

I can see this dynamic in everyday life, especially in a city like New York. People can live relatively close to each other but have completely different experiences depending on their income and wealth. One person may be able to comfortably afford housing, education, transportation, and unexpected expenses, while another person may work full-time and still have to carefully choose which expenses they can afford each month. To me, this shows that wealth inequality is not just something we see in statistics. It can affect people’s everyday choices, opportunities, and overall financial stability.

2. The subway station closest to where I live is on the Q line in Brooklyn. Based on the concepts from Reading 4.1, I would describe my neighborhood as mostly working and middle class. There are people with different incomes, education levels, and occupations living in the same area, so I don’t think everyone can be placed into one specific social class.

I’m not surprised by this because I’ve always seen my neighborhood as a mixture of working- and middle-class people and families. Something that stood out to me in the reading was that the class people identify with does not always match their income. Someone may have a lower income but still consider themselves middle class based on their education, occupation, lifestyle, or how they compare themselves to the people around them. I think this makes sense for my neighborhood because there is a lot of economic diversity even among people who live in the same area.

 I understand the idea that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency” to mean that workers and business owners depend on each other, but in different ways. Workers depend on employers because they need jobs and wages to support themselves, while employers depend on workers because their businesses cannot operate or make profits without people doing the actual work. This creates a relationship where both sides need each other, even though they do not necessarily have the same amount of power.

A simple example would be a restaurant. The employees depend on the restaurant owner for their jobs and paychecks, but the owner also depends on the cooks, servers, cleaners, and other employees to keep the restaurant running. If all of those workers stopped working at the same time, the owner would have a difficult time operating the business and making money. I think this is what the reading means by dependency because neither side can completely function without the other, even though their roles and interests are different.

That stays very close to Heideman’s actual argument: workers depend on capitalists for employment, while capitalists depend on workers and their labor to maintain their position and generate profits. He later explains that this dependence can actually give workers power when they act collectively. 

I understand ideology as the beliefs and values that shape the way we see the world and understand our place in society. Before this lesson, I mostly connected ideology with political beliefs, like whether someone considers themselves liberal or conservative. Now I understand it as something much broader. The way we think is influenced by the environment around us, including our families, schools, religion, media, and other parts of society. When we are exposed to certain ideas throughout our lives, we can eventually accept them as normal without really thinking about where they came from.

One example is how we define success. Many of us grow up learning that being successful means doing well in school, going to college, finding a good job, making money, and becoming financially independent. After hearing that message for so long, it can feel like that is simply what success means. However, someone else might have a completely different idea of a successful life. To me, this shows how the society we grow up in can influence beliefs that eventually feel like our own.

I think one of the biggest differences between conservative and liberal ideology in the United States is how each side views individual responsibility and the role of government. Conservatives generally put more emphasis on people being responsible for themselves and favor less government involvement in economic matters. Liberals are generally more supportive of government stepping in when social or economic problems cannot be solved by individuals alone.

Poverty is a good example of this difference. A conservative approach might focus more on personal responsibility, employment, and becoming financially independent rather than relying heavily on government assistance. A liberal approach might focus more on the outside circumstances that can contribute to poverty, such as low wages, limited employment opportunities, education, or the cost of housing, and support government programs that help address those problems.

I also don’t think the difference is as simple as saying conservatives want less government and liberals want more government. It seems more accurate to look at what each side believes the government should and should not be responsible for. Someone can want less government involvement in one part of society while supporting government authority in another. That makes the differences between the two ideologies more complicated than simply “big government” versus “small government.”

I understand Althusser’s view of ideology as the idea that our beliefs are influenced by the society and institutions we are surrounded by, often without us realizing it. We don’t enter the world already knowing what is normal, successful, right, or expected of us. We learn those things as we grow up, and after being exposed to them repeatedly, they can begin to feel natural.

School is a good example of how I understand this. We go to school to learn subjects such as math, science, and writing, but we are also learning how we are expected to behave. We learn to follow schedules, meet deadlines, listen to authority figures, complete assigned work, and have our performance judged. After years of doing this, these behaviors can feel completely normal, and many of the same expectations continue into college and the workplace.

This is why I agree with Althusser’s view. I don’t think every belief we have is something we independently created for ourselves. We are influenced by the society we grow up in before we are even old enough to recognize that influence. At the same time, I don’t think that means we are unable to think for ourselves. Once we recognize where some of our beliefs and expectations may have come from, we can question them and decide for ourselves whether we actually agree with them.

A Repressive State Apparatus is an institution that maintains order and enforces the rules of society through authority, punishment, or the threat of force. I understand why Althusser uses the word “repressive” because these institutions have the ability to make people comply even when they do not willingly agree. Examples include the police, courts, prisons, and the military. If someone breaks a law, for example, the police can arrest them and the court can impose a punishment. In this situation, compliance is not based on convincing the person that the law is right; there are actual consequences for refusing to follow it.

Ideological State Apparatuses work differently because they influence people mainly through ideas, beliefs, values, and everyday practices rather than physical force or punishment. Examples can include schools, families, religion, and media. These institutions can shape what people consider normal, appropriate, successful, or even possible without people necessarily realizing that they are being influenced. School is a good example because students learn academic subjects, but they also learn to follow schedules, respect authority, meet deadlines, compete for grades, and behave according to certain expectations. Over time, those behaviors can begin to feel completely normal rather than something we were taught to accept.

The main difference I see between the two is how they get people to follow the expectations of society. Repressive State Apparatuses rely mainly on enforcement, punishment, and the possibility of force, while Ideological State Apparatuses rely mainly on beliefs and socialization. One makes people comply through consequences, while the other can influence people to willingly participate because certain behaviors and beliefs have come to feel normal. I think the ideological form can actually be harder to recognize because there does not necessarily have to be someone directly forcing you to do something. You may believe you are simply doing what is normal without questioning how you learned that definition of “normal” in the first place.

For my example, I would use a military recruitment advertisement. These advertisements often connect military service with ideas such as honor, patriotism, strength, opportunity, and serving your country. Rather than forcing someone to enlist, the advertisement can influence how a person views military service and what becoming a service member represents.

I would classify this primarily as an Ideological State Apparatus at work because the advertisement is attempting to influence people’s beliefs and values rather than using force to make them join. A person can still decide not to enlist, but the message can shape how they think about military service. I think this is a good example of Althusser’s argument because ideology can work by making certain ideas and roles seem desirable or natural without requiring direct punishment or force.