Madison describes a faction as any group of citizens, whether a minority or majority, who are driven by passions or interests that threaten the rights of others or the long‑term good of the community. He argues that factions can only be managed, not eliminated, because the causes of faction come from human nature itself. Removing those causes would require either destroying liberty or forcing everyone to think and feel the same, which he says is both impossible and undesirable. Madison explains that people have different “faculties,” meaning their natural abilities and unequal capacities to acquire property, and these differences inevitably create competing interests. Because of this, he believes the best way to control the effects of faction is through a republic rather than a pure democracy. In a pure democracy, citizens govern directly, making it easy for majority factions to dominate. A republic, however, uses elected representatives to refine public opinion and can extend over a larger population, making it harder for any single faction to take control. He’s saying it is important to maintain liberty while preventing the dangers that come from unchecked factional conflict.

Early U.S. class structures were different in form but very similar in function to those we see today. In the 1780s, political rights were tied directly to property ownership, meaning only wealthy men could participate in government. Enslavement meant only white men could participate, and women, regardless of class, had no political standing at all. Yet despite these legal differences, Parenti argues that the basic economic hierarchy has remained familiar: a small wealthy class continues to dominate political institutions. corporations, lobbyists, and high‑income donors hold a heavier influence, and economic inequality still shapes who has access to education, housing, and political power. Beard and Parenti both explain that the framers feared democracy because they feared the lower classes. They worried that ordinary people, especially debtors, small farmers, and laborers, would demand debt relief, challenge property rights, redistribute land, and elect leaders who favored the poor over the wealthy. To protect elite economic interests, the framers built institutions like the Electoral College, the originally unelected Senate, lifetime Supreme Court appointments, and multiple political sectors designed to slow or block popular demands. In this way, the Constitution was intentionally structured to keep political power in the hands of the elite founders and limit the influence of the masses.

  Who wrote the Constitution? Wealthy property‑owning elites: merchants, creditors, bondholders, land speculators, and slaveholding planters.

  Who was excluded? Poor farmers, laborers, non‑property‑holding men, enslaved people, and all women.

  Is class structure the same today? Legally different, but economically similar—political power still concentrates among the wealthy.

Why did the framers fear democracy? Because democracy meant giving political power to the lower classes, who might challenge elite economic interests.

The statistic Parenti gives on p. 29 that hit me the hardest is that the richest 1% of Americans own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined. That number stands out because it shows just how uneven things really are, and why so many regular people struggle no matter how hard they work. Living in a society with such huge wealth inequality means the rich have more control over housing, jobs, politics, and even basic opportunities. I see this every day in New York City — luxury buildings going up while working families can barely afford rent, or big corporations getting tax breaks while everyday people fall deeper into debt. In Human Services work (My major), you see how inequality shows up in real life: families waiting months for resources, people working full‑time but still needing assistance, and neighborhoods like Spanish Harlem dealing with rising costs but not rising wages. It’s a clear example of how wealth concentration affects real people’s lives.

In small‑scale commodity production, Jalee explains the formula CMC: you sell a commodity (C) to get money (M) so you can buy another commodity (C) that you actually need. This is how small producers live. they make something, sell it, and use the money to meet their needs. The goal is use, not profit. In contrast, MCM’ describes capitalist production. Here, someone starts with money (M), buys commodities (C), usually labor power and raw materials, and ends with more money (M). The key is the prime mark (M). It means the capitalist ends with more money than they started with. That “extra” is surplus value, the profit created by workers. Jalee calls M‑C‑M the general formula of capital because it shows that the purpose of capitalist production is not to satisfy needs, but to increase money.

Jalee explains that money becomes capital only when it is used to buy labor power, because labor power can create more value than it costs. Workers are paid for only part of the day and thats for the time needed to reproduce their wage, but they work longer than that. The extra hours they work, which Jalee calls surplus labor, create value that the capitalist keeps as profit. This is how surplus value is extracted. Because capitalists continuously use money to buy labor power and take the surplus created by workers, their money grows and they remain wealthy as a class. Workers, who do not own the means of production, must keep selling their labor power, which keeps them dependent. Buying labor power, extracting surplus labor, and turning it into surplus value is what transforms money into capital and keeps the capitalist class in power.

Means of production are described as the tools, machines, land, and resources that make production possible, and Marx emphasizes that these are owned by the capitalist class, not the workers who actually operate them. Labor, on the other hand, is the human activity that transforms raw materials into useful goods, like a warehouse worker scanning, lifting, and organizing packages. The video explains that value comes from the amount of socially necessary labor time required to produce something, meaning things become valuable because human labor is embedded in them and they meet a human need. Labor and value are directly connected because labor creates value, and value is essentially a measurement of labor. Marx makes an important distinction between labor and labor power: labor is the actual work performed, while labor power is a worker’s capacity or ability to work, which is what they sell to an employer for wages. This difference matters because workers are paid for their labor power, but the labor they perform produces more value than their wages. That extra value is what Marx calls surplus value—the value workers create beyond what they are paid, which the capitalist keeps as profit. Surplus value is central to understanding social class because it reveals how exploitation is built into the economic system; for example, if I earn$18 an hour but I produce $120 worth of goods in that same hour, the owner keeps the difference, showing how surplus value fuels capitalist profit and class inequality

a) Ideology, to me, are points of view from people that help shape what is politically and socially “correct”. When society undergoes a change, the experiences may vary, and that’s what helps combat inequality, promote equity, and uphold justice for everyone involved.

b) Example of ideology :For example, the idea that “Knowing a guy who knows a guy will get you farther in life than a college degree” is ideological. It suggests that social bonding is more important than education. This belief makes the existing economic system look fair, even when many people are blocked from opportunity. Everyone isn’t a social butterfly, should they be punished for not climbing the social ladder even though they have education and experience backing them?

c) Expanded explanation (how I understand ideology): I understand ideology as something that is formed in our minds first but experienced individually. The outcome is what forms the barrier between 2 or more parties. Ideologies can be found in our schools, media, religions and politics. Influencing all of us to admire or oppose wealth, laws, and what is socially or politically “correct”. It doesn’t just describe reality, it justifies it.

In Parenti’s terms, ideology helps legitimize a system where a small elite holds most of the wealth and power, while most people are told that this arrangement is “democratic” and “free.” Ideology can be conservative, liberal, or radical, but in all cases it organizes how we think about who deserves what, who is dangerous, who is “responsible,” and what kind of change is possible. So for me, ideology is both a mental framework and a tool of power and it influences in ways that can either challenge injustice or help keep it in place.

I see the main dividing line as how each side understands freedom, responsibility, and inequality.

• Conservative keywords: Free market, personal responsibility, law and order, traditional values, property rights. These emphasize that individuals succeed or fail based on their own choices, and that markets and private property should be protected above most other concerns.
• Liberal keywords: Social justice, equality of opportunity, civil rights, regulation, welfare/state support. These emphasize that government should step in to correct unfairness and protect vulnerable groups.

Example to back this up: I recently decided to serve my building by cleaning the elevators during the time maintenance isn’t there.  

A conservative ideology may say: Our environment should be kept clean and everyone should be involved to keep it healthy and clean. Sure, we pay people to clean the building, we already clean our own apartments, but taking it a step further to maintain a clean building is top tier cleanliness. If we all do our part, we can spend less on maintaining the cleanliness, because we do it ourselves everyday anyway.

A liberal ideology may say: We pay to have our public spaces cleaned. Why should we put in our time as well?  Its only our responsibility to keep our private living quarters clean; the building manager should have maintenance here on the weekends too. Give the maintenance team extra hours and bonuses.

So the big difference is whether social problems are seen mainly as personal failures (conservative) or as outcomes of systems that need reform or regulation (liberal).

Althusser sees ideology not just as a set of ideas, but as something that “works” on people through institutions. In my own words: ideology is the way society influences individuals into  accepting and reproducing the existing system without feeling forced. It’s not just in our thoughts; it’s in practices, rituals, and institutions (schools, churches, media, family) that groom us and tell us who we are and how we should behave.

So ideology, for Althusser, is:

• Material: It exists in institutions and routines, not just in abstract ideas.
• Reproductive: It helps reproduce the relations of production (like capitalism) by getting people to consent to their roles.
• Invisible: It feels like common sense, not like propaganda.

Example of Althusser’s ideology: School is a classic example. It doesn’t just teach math or reading; it teaches punctuality, obedience, competition, respect for authority, and the idea that success or failure is individual. Students learn to see themselves as “good” or “bad,” “smart” or “lazy,” and to accept their place in the system.

In this sense, institutions in general act as an ideological apparatus. They prepare people to fit into the labor market and the social order, while presenting themselves as neutral and “for your own good.” In the education system, the  student who believes “I failed because I’m just not smart enough” is already seeing themselves through an ideological lens that hides larger inequalities.