1. Two key concepts in this video are the means of production and labor. In your comment, explain how you understand the means of production and labor. Give an example of each.

Definition of Means of production: tools, technology one uses to get a product.  For example: I’m a singer, in order to record a song I will need things like a microphone, a quiet space to record, monitor speakers and a mixer where to connect all my technology. Those would be the means of production to create my product which would in this case be a recorded song. 

Definition of Labour: for Marx is the one thing that can increase the value of what people have. To illustrate: If I bought a big chunk of fabric and did nothing with it, its value would remain the same. However, If I labour to make a shirt out of it. Its value would increase, and all I’ve added to it was my labour. 

2. Another important concept in understanding social class is value. Based on the ideas presented in Video 5.1, what is value?  What give “value” to value, what makes something valuable? 

Definition of Value: For Marx, value is something proportional to the measure of how much labor it takes to produce something under normal circumstances. It is measured in time, hours and minutes. Under this context, what gives value to a product is the labour that a person puts in in. Likewise, the time that a person invests laboring in a product under normal circumstances is what adds value to a product.

3. How are labor and value related? What’s the relationship/connection between the two?

The relation that labor and value have is conditioned by a product. They are cause and effect, proportional to one another. In fact, the more time a person invests into laboring the more valuable the product will be. On the opposite, the less labour that a product requires the less valuable it will be.

4. How do you understand the difference between labor and labor power? Hint: this is a key difference, give it your best shot based on what the video says about it, and your own ideas. We’ll clarify and develop it in our discussions, and in my video comments.

The difference is simple: Labour is the action that applied increases the value of a product, and power of labour is the ability to get to use one’s labour. As a matter of fact, video 5.1 explains it very well. For example: a person requires commodities food, clothing and shelter to be able to have the power to labour. Then, when people go work, they rent their labour power for the day, and there they get to increase the value of products (labour)

5. Surplus Value: what is it? Why is it important to know about, in our study of social classes? Think about an example of surplus value?

Surplus value is the value kept produced after the costs of a persons labour power is covered .Since the means of production are privately owned, any product done by an employee belongs to a the owning class. Later, they sell the products to make profit and keep that to themselves. In other words, the surpus value goes to the owning class. Under capitalism one is always paid less than what one’s labour is actually worth. What people is not paid is the profit or surplus value that the owning class keep to themselves.

1. Do you notice any similarities in the way social class is discussed in readings 4.1 and 4.2? Do you notice any differences in the way these two readings DIFFERENTIATE between social classes?

I noticed both similarities and differences. On the one hand, a similarity must be highlighted : both readings give a protagonist role to income in order to define social classes. On the other hand, Gallup’s article uses more than one variable to define social class, it uses income, education level and age. Whereas reading 4.2 uses income only. In addition, Gallup’s article claims that these variables have been only used to describe a “perception” or a subjective view of social class. In comparison reading 4.2 uses facts to provide “objective definitions”.

2. Pick the station closest to where you live. Using the concepts from Reading 4.1, what social class tends to live in your neighborhood? Are you surprised (or not) by the answer? Do you feel it is an accurate representation of the people living in your neighborhood?

I live nearby the 36 avenue subway station of Astoria. According to the NYC subway graphic and the Gallup’s article the social class that tends to live in my neighborhood is : working class. I’m definitely not surprised by it. Similarly, I do believe is an accurate representation of the people living in my neighborhood. Most of the people that I’ve seen and met around my neighborhood are either elderly who have been living here for many years or young working class adults.

3. Based on Reading 4.2, do you notice a general pattern about social classes in NYC?

Yes, I definitely see a pattern. Looking at the graphics is easy to notice that people with the highest income have a tendency to live in Manhattan. However, around Washington heights and Harlem is noticeable that the medium income gets lower than the average that Queens and Brooklyn have. Furthermore, Brooklyn and Queens have a similar medium income average with some high and low points. Still, it is very interesting that the people with the highest incomes within this borough live one or two subway stops away from Manhattan. Last but not least, It is noticeable how people with the lowest medium income have a tendency to live around the Bronx. In a nutshell, there is a global pattern of where people with a higher and lower income decide to live and is mostly around the borough of Manhattan.

1. What is the distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees? Give an example of each.

Parenti defines owners as those who own wealth. That is to say, people who lives from investments, or the value that the labor of others create and they keep. On the opposite, there are employees who Parenti defines as: those who sell their labor in exchange of wages and salaries. 

An example of this would be the relationship I have with my Boss. My boss owns a restaurant. Following Parenti’s idea, my boss is the one that owns the wealth. He owns the place and  the tools that his employees need to labor. On the other hand, I’m just and employee I get a wage. I give my labor and I produce value. However, he keeps all the value that my labor produces and gives me a wage in exchange. 

2. How do you understand the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28? What is it saying about labor?

Smith’s labor theory of value describes the action of labor as the one and only standard by which the value of all commodities can be estimated and compared. If we understand labor as the activity that adds measurable value to commodities, wages and salary can not be a real representation of the value of labor. Only labor can represent the added value that goods get from itself. 

Then, Smith with this claim explains the capitalist economical system, where those who own wealth benefit from the labor of others. Under this context, those who own wealth keep the added value that employees give to goods. Later, employees obtain wages and salaries that don’t reflect the real value they have added to the goods. In other words, the owning class uses the employees to continue enriching themselves.

3. What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is NOT an identity?

In the lecture Heideman exposes the difference between how liberals and socialist understand classes in politics. On the one hand, he claims that liberals define class as : “ some combination of things like wealth, income, and education which combine to form a kind of aggregated ranking” ( Heideman, 3). In other words, he is basically stating that for liberals, class is a construction of preexisting conditions that set a measurable advantage or disadvantage for individuals to be comfortable or not with their inherited position in the world. Later, he argues that it makes complete sense that liberals categorize class as type of identity (as they do with race and gender) because of the way that they think of it. However, Heideman claims that class is more than just an identity, he states : “class refers to an entire structure that imposes very specific logics of action on people in society” ( Heideman, 2) . That is to say, socialists see class as a form of social oppression. The main form of social oppression. 

Both of these arguments are powerful, but they are rooted in ideologies. As a result, I must disagree with both points of view. I don’t believe class is an identity. Indeed, it is an inherited condition but is not something that will predict what an individual becomes in the future. It is something that can be changed. On the other hand, I don’t see class as the main type of oppression. Oppression is what it is on its own, class is just another structure behind which oppression is framed. On the opposite, for me class is nothing more than a way of measuring my finances. It doesn’t necessarily define who I am. It only defines the amount of tools and commodities that I can afford with my capital. The later consequences that these conditions can bring to my life are separated from my identity as well as they are just another challenge to face, but not the one an only. It’s not like in the American society a person doesn’t have the opportunity to accumulate capital from its labor. Hence, invalidating the argument that is necessary to destroy the capital in order to fight oppression. If a person accumulates capital she/he will be able to avoid to some level this specific kind of oppression. In a nutshell, the capital is not the problem, oppression is. Specially the one that forbids people to reach its highest potential in life.  

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?

From that argument, I understand that there is a structure of society that relies on the other; thus one can’t work without the other. This close form of dependency is the relation from the owning class with the employed class. To illustrate: My boss who owns a restaurant can only create profits if his restaurant is open. In order for him to have his restaurant opened he needs people to work for him. Similarly, there is people like me, who need the money they get from their labor to afford their living. Then, when a person like me gets involved with a company like the one my boss owns we create a “close form of dependency” He can’t get profits without somebody that works for him and I can’t afford my living if I don’t work. We rely on each other.

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

According to Althusser, the Repressive State Apparatus is the structure that the State and government use to socially control its population. In fact, this type of Apparatus controls the population through the threat of violence. Althusser choices the word “repressive” because these institutions can also be used against the interest of people. In order words, they may use fear and threats to get people to act and do things that will eventually hurt them. Examples of them are: the police and the penal system (courts and prisons). 

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

Ideological State Apparatuses are institutions used by the State, government and society to prevent the change of the Status quo (the current state of things). They work by persuading people, they claim that the current state of things is how it’s supposed to be. Likewise, it proposes reasons that support why things should be the way they are. Examples of them include: schools, politics and the mass media. 

3. Important: this question will appear on our exam: How are the Repressive and Ideological State Apparatuses different from each other? What is the difference between the two?

The Repressive Apparatus is only allowed to be hold by the government and the State. In comparison, the Ideological Apparatus can be imposed by anyone. In addition, the Repressive Apparatus has the characteristic ability of using physical violence. On the other hand, the Ideological Apparatus is only allowed to use behavioral reinforcement. In short, the main difference is that one makes people submit themselves against their will (repressive) and the other one persuades and makes them believe they have a choice (Ideological). 

4. Post an example of ideology. This could be a piece of writing, an image, video, pdf document, visual art, or music, clip from a movie. Next to your example, specify if this is an example of repressive or ideological apparatuses at work.

This is an example of ideological Apparatuses at work. All over Latin America this picture of a communist activist known as ‘El Che Guevara’ has become a symbol and statement for revolution and socialist-communist activists, working as publicity for the communist ideology.

1. Keeping in mind the material covered in this lesson, describe how you understand ideology in YOUR OWN WORDS. 

In my opinion ideology is a construction of believes that shape and influence the way a person reacts to and solves problems in their life. This type of solutions are mostly used for social, political and economical reasons. Also, it affects how a person follows and who they relation with in life. For example: I was raised a Catholic and I was told to live following the mandates of the Bible. As a matter of fact, this construction of believes shaped the way that I acted and who I related with. Then, if the Bible said that is wrong to lie; not only I would not lie, but also I would not allow those around me to do it. If they did so, I would set distance from them.  Basically, anyone could resume it to a pattern of reasons that create rules that people must follow or otherwise they will be punished by those who surround them and believe in it. 

That is what ideology is. Of course, you can’t compare the ideology that you have inherited from your parents with the one that you create for yourself once you become an adult. Moreover, I agree with the videos that were used as reference for this lecture. Your background and your life situations can shape your ideology. If you have never had the necessity to get help from the government to pay for essentials you’ll very likely be against social help. Conversely, if you have had to use economic help from the government you’ll very likely will be a supporter of social help. Similarly, I believe that your grade of education and the subjects that you study shape the way you see the world. I was a political science major back in Venezuela, and after I was introduced to the concepts of ideology I saw politics with a more critical eye; whereas someone who never gets to learn about this concepts can’t ever get to have a more objective view point on it.

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.

The dividing line in between conservatives and liberals in US politics has to be with the importance that they give to the concept of freedom and the one they give to the concept of equality. On the one hand, conservatives would be attributed with the value of freedom; that’s the most important thing for them. On the other hand, libertarians would be known for valuing equality over anything else. Under this context, you could evaluate the areas where political administrations from these ideologies have invested most of their resources and time. They have different priorities. For example: The administration of former president Donald Trump (conservative) invested time and resources in creating bigger tax cuts and publicizing a wall at the border of Mexico with the intention have more control over the boarders; and investment in homeland security. Conversely, the administration of current president Joe Biden has invested in the creation of a greener energy plan and social help programs that favor minorities. This is a clear prove of the priorities of the political parties in the United States, one is more inclined to maintain and defend their own freedom and privileges and the other one is more concern about creating equal opportunities for the pepole.

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

Ideology for Althusser means accepting beliefs. Those beliefs are created by reinforced and approved behaviors that make people good subjects and future cogs in a capitalist economy. 

In other words, for Althusser, ideology is just a result of what people has gotten to belief. Only and after the reinforcement of what they’ve been told to do in order to maintain the status quo (the current order of things) in the current capitalist economy.

1. Why do think Southern racist politicians chose to frame their defense of racial segregation through the language of “law and order”? What special advantages was this choice of words going to give them?

In “The new Jim Crow”, Michelle Alexander argues that after the 1950’s : “civil rights activists used direct-action tactics in an effort to force reluctant Southern states to desegregate public facilities. Southern governors and law enforcement officials often characterized these tactics as criminal and argued that the rise of the Civil Rights Movement was indicative of a breakdown of law and order” (Alexander, 40). That is to say, because civil right activists began to protest Southern States against segregational laws, Southern politicians took it as a chance to manipulate the subject and claim these people were “against laws”. Similarly, Republican politicians, during Nixo’s Presidential Campaign in 1968, realized that in this transformed political world: being straightly racist was not going to get them the sympathy and votes they needed to win. Consequently, they created a new way to subtilize their racist message and still get it delivered. That is how they began to frame their defense of racial segregation through the language of “law and order”.

Furthermore, according to Alexander this strategy gave them special advantages: it provide them with an excuse to fund systems of violence and do harmful publicity against minorities. All of it, without clearly stating their racist and socially manipulative agenda. Actually, it did not only provided them with funding, but also it help them to set a new political order in the United States by the reorganization of parties and the creation of a new majority.

1. Do you think the Southern Strategy is still influencing American politics? Give an example supporting your answer.

Yes, I do think the Southern Strategy is still influencing American politics. In “The new Jim Crow”, Michelle Alexander explains: “The success of law and order rhetoric among working-class whites and the intense resentment of racial reforms, particularly in the South, led conservative Republican analysts to believe that a “new majority” could be created by the Republican Party, one that included the traditional Republican base, the white South, and half the Catholic, blue-collar vote of the big cities ” (Alexander, 43). In other words, the Republican Party realized they could make use of the law and order rhetoric to attract resented and lower income whites in order to create a new political majority. This majority would allow them to gain political power and provide them with a leading position in the ground of American Politics. Indeed, for me is clear that this strategy has continued to be followed by the Republican Party. A recent example of it is the strong continuous speech that former president Donald Trump performed all over through his campaign and during his years in office: “Make America Great Again” But, what did this mantra really meant? The phrase basically summarized Trump’s speech. A rhetoric with a strong focus on the importance of strengthening the police and Justice system. A rhetoric that condemned and blamed all economic, social, security and political problems on the legal advantages that the former Democrat administration had given to immigrants. Moreover, it is a fact that Southern States are crucial to win any type of political elections in the United States. Then, Trump would had just used the save-old rhetoric of “law and order” to get himself the votes he needed to make it to the office. However, his later more straightly racist communication backfired on him creating the perfect playground to allow Democrats take over in last year’s Congressional and Presidential elections.

1. M. Alexander claims that the main explanation of why so many people are sent to jail in the U.S. today is deeply wrong. Explain her argument by referring to the various examples she mentions to backup her point. (see p. 1-2)

In the introduction of “The New Jim Crow”, Michelle Alexander claims that the “facts” given to start a War on Drugs during Regan’s presidency are all a lie. In fact, Alexander argues that the war on drugs was not a response to a crisis caused by crack cocaine in inner-city neighborhoods; as most people think it was. Instead she maintains: “an illegal drug crisis suddenly appeared in the black community after—not before—a drug war had been declared” (Alexander, 6). That is to say, the illegal drug crisis in the black community started because of the drug war itself, not the other way around. Similarly, she asserts that: “the War on Drugs began at a time when illegal drug use was on the decline” (Alexander, 6). In short, there was not really a crisis when the Drug War had been started. Then, if it is factually proven that there wasn’t a crisis with drug use, which is the real reason behind this war? Alexander suggests that there had been hidden intentions of the actual use of this Drug War. She proposes that it was used as an excuse for United States government to exercise social control over black communities and minorities.

2. Why is it that racial disparities in the rates of incarceration “cannot be explained by rates of drug crimes”?

Michelle Alexander states that racial disparities in the rates of incarceration cannot be explained by rates of drug crimes because : “Studies show that people of all colors use and sell illegal drugs at remarkably similar rates” (Alexander, 7). That is to say, there is not a difference of color in the rates of people who use and sell drugs, they are the same. However, there is a difference in the rates of incarceration of people of color and those who are white. Actually, Alexander emphasizes: “In some states, black men have been admitted to prison on drug charges at rates twenty to fifty times greater than those of white men. And in major cities wracked by the drug war, as many as 80 percent of young African American men now have criminal records” (Alexander, 7). To conclude, people of all colors do use and sell illegal drugs, however the black community and minorities are the ones’ obsessively persecuted and hardly punished for those crimes.

3. How do you understand the phrase: “the American penal system has emerged as a system of social control unparalleled in world history.”?

I understand from it that the American penal system has become a tool for social control. Also, I understand that this system has so much power, that it can’t be compared with no other in the world, as well as it has nothing to be compared to with the prior penal systems in the totality of the world’s history.