M-C-M’ stands for Money-Commodity-Money(prime). It is the General Formula of Capital. To take part in it, one uses their money/capital to purchase a product that they then resell for profit. To be able to make it work, the capitalist needs to convince the creator of a product to sell their product for less than it is worth, and the capitalist then resells said product to a costumer at its real value price, therefore creating profit. This is called exploitation and Capitalism cannot exist without it.

This exploitation does not exist in C-M-C, or Commodity-Money-Commodity, where a person creates a product, sells it for money and then uses that money to acquire a good/product they need. The value of commodity1 and commodity2 does not change but remains equal throughout the transaction. This makes C-M-C a much fairer system.

Unfortunately for Capitalists, since they do not create new wealth/value themselves and are instead dependent on other’s creations, they were quite limited in their business potential. To rectify this, they transformed themselves into capitalist manufacturers and industrialists. Essentially, they used their money to buy means of production -including labor- to create a commodity they then sold for more than it took to make.  This allowed them to transform money capital into productive capital.

To better understand how Capitalism works, we need to take a closer look at the second M in the General Formula of Capital; M’ (M-prime). M’ stands for Surplus Value. Mathematically, it can be thought of as M’ = M + m, where capital M equals the amount of money needed to create a product and lower-case m equals the profit the product is sold for. Capitalists are able to create Surplus Value through the exploitation of a workers Labor Power. Labor Power is not necessarily work, but instead is one’s potential/capacity for mental/physical abilities that allow him to create/produce things. Work is the result of using this potential. Capitalists purchase a worker’s commodity of Labor Power with its monetary value which we call “wage”. Wage covers the workers Means of Substance, which are things the worker needs to survive, live, and get to work. The value that is produced by the worker reaches their wage in about half a day, or 4 hours, and the rest of the value that is accrued by the worker for the rest of the day (considered Surplus Labor) goes straight to the capitalist. This extra value -that the worker never gets paid for- is how capitalists are able to create Surplus Value. Surplus value is the product of Surplus Labor and is the product of Capitalist exploitation.

1. MEANS OF PRODUCTION

I understand the means of production to be the things, i.e. equipment, one needs in order to produce a product. An example could be the tools and materials a carpenter needs to make furniture.

LABOR

I understand labor to mean the work put into creating a product with the means of production one has. To continue with the example of a carpenter: the amount of work that the carpenter puts into creating a piece of furniture is LABOR. The amount of labor put into the creation of a piece of furniture usually determines its value; more labor equals more value.

2. VALUE

“What gives “value” to value, what makes something valuable?”

I understand value to be the amount of labor that was put into creating something. So, labor gives “value” to value. The more labor put into something, the more value it SHOULD have.

3. LABOR & VALUE

Labor and value are related since labor is the SOURCE of value.

Their connection lies in the ability of labor to give something value. Without labor there is no value.

4. LABOR VS LABOR POWER

I understand the difference between labor and labor power to be the same as between “work” and “the ABILITY to work”.

Labor creates value and labor power is ones ABILITY TO LABOR, therefore, the ability to create value.

As per the video, Marxists consider labor power to be the most important commodity in the world and only people possess it. When people go to work, they are renting out their labor power.

5. SURPLUS VALUE

Surplus value is profit. Profit is created by the worker after their labor has covered their costs of getting to work. The more labor they are able to provide after their labor costs are covered, the more surplus value they create.

It is important to know about surplus value in our study of social class, because it plays a huge role within the worker/capitalist relationship. Surplus value is what the capitalist is after.

An example of surplus value would be the work of a construction worker; it takes about 4 hours of his labor for the company to pay him for his work, but he continues to work for many more hours after, creating MORE PROFIT for the company and NOT getting paid for it! This is surplus value.

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

• Owner is someone who makes money off of the labor of his/her workers.
• Employees are people who work for an owner, and whose labor provides value. The employees themselves only sees about 2 hours work of the value that they have provided, the rest goes into the owners pocket.
• A good example would be the owners of Starbucks vs the barista that works at Starbucks.

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

• “Adam Smith, one of the founding theorists of capitalism, noted in 1776
  that ‘labor … is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of
  all commodities can at all times and places be estimated and compared. It is
  their real price; money is their nominal price only.'”
• My understanding of the above quote by Adam Smith is that the labor needed to create or obtain a commodity is directly related to the cost/worth of said commodity; more labor equals higher cost/worth.
• This essentially means that when purchasing anything, we are essentially paying for the labor that was put into creating/obtaining our purchase. This would make the workers one of -if not the- most important part of this exchange.

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

• The main argument for why class is NOT an identity in Reading 4.4 is that class is not about “common status”, but is about “interests and actions”. Now, before going further, we have to acknowledge that Heideman does not state that socialists do not believe that class is NOT an identity, instead they believe it to be MORE than that. I, personally, can see how class can be viewed in such a way. Even though class can be something that we are born into and, some might believe, unable to change like other forms of identity, Heideman points out that socialists DO believe that class can be changed if only the workers stepped into their power and stood up against the capitalists. Since the capitalist systems is so interdependent -the workers depend on the capitalists and vice versa- this gives the workers some form of power if only they are brave enough to take it.

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?

• The close from of dependency between class structures that is mentioned in Reading 4.4 is the dependency between the workers and capitalist that employ them. The capitalists have control of the societies productive assets which forces society to depended on them at any cost, at the same time capitalists count on workers to be willing to produce for them. An example of this interdependent relationship would be that of a boss and his/her worker. The boss requires the workers to be willing to work for them while creating a surplus of profit, and the workers need the boss to be willing to hire them while agreeing to work for the wages the boss negotiates.

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?

• In both readings social class was defined by the yearly income of a household. The readings differentiated slightly in two ways; 4.1 mentioned that social class is very subjective and, besides income, people also consider ones education and upbringing.

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 on the D line, and I wasn’t too surprised to see that the average yearly income of a household was around $59,000. This would be considered middle-class, and I somewhat agree with that assessment. I agree somewhat because this is a quite, safe neighborhood with many private homes, which is a fairly common thing for middle class neighborhoods. I disagree somewhat, as well, because there are many immigrants that live in my neighborhood, and a fair amount are not documented, so their income level will not be taken into consideration. Since their income is usually less than $59,000. this would make the medium income for the neighborhood considerably lower.

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

• There is definitely a general pattern when it comes to social class and NYC subway lines; the wealthier people cluster around Downtown Brooklyn and Manhattan and the less wealthy live outside of these “prestigious” areas.

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

The Repressive State Apparatus is what controls society by the use of police, army, judicial system and prisons. Athusser calls it repressive because it is used to control the population into submission through force and violence.

For example; if you don’t pay your taxes you will have to pay a fine, if you fail to pay it you will go to jail, if you resist you will be taken there by physical force. This physical force can result in you getting hurt if not worse, and the state will not be held responsible.

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

The Ideological State Apparatuses are the media, education system, and religion, among other things.

They work by essentially brainwashing individuals in society into becoming submissive puppets.

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?

Though both apparatuses are designed to control the individual into submission, they differ in their punishment. The Repressive State Apparatus uses physical force, whereas the Ideological State Apparatus uses psychological manipulation and emotional pain.

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. I’ll start us of off by giving an example.

This is an example of Ideological State Apparatus in the form of media.

I1.

Ideology is ones beliefs of right and wrong and how they are reflected in our political system. For example, many conservatives believe that living a gay lifestyle is wrong and that is strongly reflected in their lack of support for gay marriage, whereas liberals on the other hand believe that it is wrong to keep consenting adults of any gender from being able to access the benefits of marriage, and therefore are pro it. Now, even though I used the words conservative and liberal, I do not use them in a way that is interchangeable with Republican and Democrat. It is important to recognize that a Republican can be more liberal leaning, and there are many conservative Democrats.

Essentially, I understand ideology to be ones chosen political believes that are usually deeply influenced by their moral compass.

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.
Hint: try to identify key words (concepts) that play a big role in making someone consider themselves to be liberal or conservative. Then, explain in your own words what those keywords (concepts) mean.

The main difference between conservative and liberal ideology in US politics is that conservatives are more concerned with individual freedoms, where as liberals are more concerned with equality.

The dividing line between these two ideologies is that they both hold the other in contempt. Conservatives believe that Liberals are morally wrong, not for desiring equality, but for the way they choose to get there. They believe that liberals desire to take away rights from an individual and use “positive discrimination” to get equality of outcome between different groups, which in turn creates inequality between individuals. On the other hand, liberals believe that conservatives are selfish and uncaring. They feel that the wealth disparities between different groups are due to inequality and the only way to solve this is to create and environment that promotes the uplifting of the disadvantaged, even if it might impede on some individual rights since these individuals might have benefited from an unjust system.

3. How do you understand Althusser’s definition of ideology? Paraphrase it in your own words. Given an example. Hint: you may have to watch the second video again, and find the few places where Althusser’s position is presented.

Althusser’s believes that ideology makes people act against their self interest. He mentions that religion was used during slavery times to keep slaves and surfs from rebelling, which would have been in their best interest. Ideology is essentially used to control us and society at large.

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?

The Southern racist politicians chose to frame their defense of racial segregation through using “law and order” due to this phrase allowing for them to hide their racism behind something that sounds right and proper. Who would not want law and order? This allowed for them appear as morally right in comparison to their opposition.

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

I’m not sure if the Southern Strategy is still influencing American politics. To say it is would imply that anyone who believes in policing is deep down a racist, and I don’t think this is the case. With that said, one could make the claim that the attempts to bring “law and order” are still being used to oppress minorities in America today, especially with very sad videos coming out of black man dying while being arrested by the police.