1. What did the Supreme Court decide in the Wal-Mart case? And more importantly, how did it justify its decision? (HINT: the key word here is “commonality” (and how it related to “class-action lawsuit”). Try to understand what this legal terms means, as it is key to the court’s decision).

• In the Wal-Mart case, the Supreme Court decided they couldn’t bring a class-action lawsuit because their stories weren’t similar enough. The Court justified this by stating that the women didn’t prove there was a company-wide policy of discrimination. They believed that all the experiences that the women had were too different to be considered a problem. As well as nitpicking the discrimination policies and stating that not all Wal-Marts have the same policies therefore it couldn’t proceed as a class-action lawsuit.

1. In what ways is the court system better suited to protect the individual, than are the elected branches of government (such as Congress and the President; or the Mayor of NYC and the NYC City Assembly)? Give an example to illustrate your argument.

• The court system can be better at protecting individuals because they’re strictly created to be less influenced by public opinion or political pressure compared to elected officials. For example, Congress passed a law that makes it illegal to protest against the government during a war. It might be super popular because people are feeling patriotic and don’t want dissent. But, if someone gets arrested for protesting and takes the case to court, the judges have to look at whether the law violates the First Amendment. They might rule that even though the law is popular, it’s unconstitutional because it can go against free speech. However, the elected branches are more likely to follow public opinion to stay in power, while the courts are supposed to act as a check on that power and protect individual rights, even when it’s unpopular.

2. Think about how federal judges get to become judges – unlike Presidents, Mayors, and members of Congress (and other legislatures), they are not elected, but rather appointed. Many Americans have thus called the federal courts system, and especially the Supreme Court, anti-democratic PLACES IN OUR GOVERNMENT. Do you agree that the Supreme Court, for example, is an anti-democratic part of our government? What could be the reason for this way of choosing judges in federal courts? (HINT: think about our discussion of “Federalist #10”, and which social class plays a leading role in our government system.)

• I can agree that the Supreme Court is an anti-democratic part of our government. I believe so because they are supposed to be anti-democratic to show a neutral party and not to be led by public opinion. They choose to not be led by public opinion because it ensures their independence and focuses more on upholding the Constitution.

1. Describe how you understand the “Establishment Clause” and the related “Lemon Test”. 

• The Establishment Clause is essentially part of the First Amendment that states whether the government can’t create or endorse a national religion. During the Lemon Test, there is a set of rules that the Supreme Court came up with in the 70s to figure out if a law or government action breaks the Establishment Clause. There are three parts to it: First, the law has to have a non-religious purpose. Second, its main effect can’t be to help or hurt religion. And third, it can’t create too much of a connection between government and religion. If a law fails any part of the Lemon Test, it’s seen as violating the Establishment Clause.

2. Is burning the US flag protected by the First Amendment? Explain by referring to the relevant court case discussed in the reading.

• According to the court case Texas v. Johnson, Burning the U.S. flag is protected under the First Amendment because it is a form of free speech which is what the amendment protects no matter how absurd the action is. 

3. What does it mean when someone says “I’m taking the Fifth”?

• “I’m taking the Fifth” essentially means the person chooses to not state their response to whatever question that is presented in court because it may seem incriminating. It could also be referred to as “I’m Pleading the Fifth”.

1. 
   Based on the arguments presented in Readings 6.1 and 6.2, which social class wrote the Constitution, and which class was excluded and not allowed to participate in this process? In your comment, make sure you clearly specify the difference between the two classes by giving examples from the readings.

Based on both readings 6.1 and 6.2, the social class that wrote the Constitution was the wealthy upper class which is stated in reading 6.1 “ In the period from the American Revolution to the Constitutional Convention (1776–1787), the big landowners, merchants, and bankers exercised a strong influence over politico-economic life, often dominating the local newspapers that served the interests of commerce.”(Parenti 5).  The ones that were excluded according to reading 6.2 were “In an examination of the structure of American society in 1787, we first encounter four groups whose economic status had a definite legal expression: the slaves, the indented servants, the mass of men who could not qualify for voting under the property tests imposed by the state constitutions and laws, and women, disenfranchised and subjected to the discriminations of the common law. “ (Beard 1) which are the lower class or men that did not own properties. The clear difference between the two classes is that the upper class are the people that are dominating financially and have decision-making power whilst the lower class are the ones who struggle to make ends meet and have little to no upward mobility on the social class ladder. 

2. Would say that the social class structure of early United States society was the same as ours today, or different? Explain.

The social class structure of the early United States has both similarities and differences compared to ours today. For starters, the similarities include the power and influence the wealthy still hold politically and the fact that there still are strong class divisions. However, the major differences include the progress made racially, back then the color of your skin would determine if you had power or not which can still be seen now but the ones with the strongest influence are the ones who are wealthy and nowadays there is more diversity even if it’s not a huge amount. Another strong difference is the status of voting which back then would only be allowed to do so by white male property owners. 

3. Why were the people who wrote the Constitution so afraid of democracy? Hint: think about how to answer this question by discussing it in terms of social classes.

The people who wrote the Constitution were so afraid of democracy because they felt like it would give too much power to the lower class. The wealthy/upper class felt like democracy would allow the lower class to vote towards laws that would take away money from them or affect their property rights in some way because the lower class made up the majority of the population so that would be a lot of people against the upper class. In other words, they worried about giving too much power to those they believed would threaten the social and economic order that the rich benefit from. 

1. Which statistic on wealth inequality in the US (discussed on p. 29) made the biggest impression on you? Explain why?

• The statistic on wealth inequality in the US that made the biggest impression on me would be “ The top 1 percent own between 40 and 50 percent of the nation’s total wealth (stocks, bonds, investment funds, land, natural resources, business assets, and so on), more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent” (Parenti 29). This statistic does not shock me, however, the absurdity of this imbalance is concerning. It concerns me how such a small percentage could own so much whilst the rest are nowhere near. 

2. What could be some of the implications of living in a society that has such huge wealth inequalities? Do you see this dynamic getting played out in everyday life in our society? How so? Example?

• For starters, crime rates have increased tremendously throughout the years just as our economic state has plummeted, people are struggling to make ends meet and have now resorted to breaking the law in order to provide for themselves and their families. Another implication could be the lack of social mobility whereas before people would at least move up from lower class to middle class but as stated in the reading “Concentration of Capital, Who Owns America?” by M. Parenti, “most people die in the class to which they are born” (Parenti 29-30). This shows that the cycle of poverty would just continue for generations because it is difficult to move upwards on the social list. I do see these dynamics in our everyday life, for example, the crime rates can clearly be shown when taking the train to anywhere in the city. It feels like being on the train as a woman or just anyone at this point can be attacked for no reason. As for social mobility, I have known many people who have not moved up from the lower class.

1. As we learned thus far, the capitalist class consists of people who own wealth, as well as the means of production in American society. An important question in understanding how this class works is to ask: how does a capitalist remain wealthy? The answer to this question depends largely on understanding the diagram M-C-M’. So, let’s practice by explaining what happens in this diagram in our own words (but basing our ideas on Reading 5.1). Respond to the following question:  Explain M-C-M’ to show how capitalists maintain and increase their wealth. (hint: your answer should weave a summary that includes what you reviewed in the self-assessment exercise question 1-7)

In order to understand M-C-M you have to understand C-M-C. C-M-C stands for Commodity-Money-Commodity which is an exchange where you start with an item, sell it, then buy something else. For example, you have an old pair of shoes, you sell it for $30 then you buy a new shirt because you need it. In order to buy yourself something new, you had to sell something of yours to make money. However, M-C-M stands for Money-Commodity-Money. You start with let’s say $10000 you then buy the materials and pay the workers for labor then you sell whatever item for $10700 which means you made a profit of $700 because you started with $10000. The point of Money-Commodity-Money is to multiply the initial sum you started off with therefore increasing the money you initially possessed, thereby generating a profit and expanding your capital.

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.

The means of production are the materials needed to achieve your goal. For example, it’s not the act or process of baking a cake, it’s more so the oven, the ingredients, and so on. The means of production are the physical items that don’t include you. However, labor is the act of doing something. It is the work you put into achieving your goal. For example, it is not the materials you need to make the cake, it’s the action of doing so. You yourself have to mix the ingredients and then put them in the oven. 

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? 

Based on the ideas presented in Video 5.1 value is how much something is worth. What gives value to value is the amount of labor put into it. What makes something valuable is the labor put into the object under “normal circumstances” which means someone worked hard to achieve said object instead of it being made by a machine in which it would cut back the process and be done quicker. According to the video, the amount of time spent making the object is what increases its value because someone worked hard to do so and not a machine. 

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

Labor and value are related because value is affected by labor. What I mean by that is that the value of something is increased by how much man-made labor was put into it as I explained in the previous question. Labor is labor, it’s the work put into something and the time spent doing so. However, when it comes to value, it is affected by the amount of labor put into it. More work equals more value because someone worked hard. 

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 between labor and labor power is quite simple because labor is the acting of doing whilst labor power is the potential of doing. For example, labor is the act of cooking while labor power is how much skill you could potentially have to be able to cook. Imagine in a video game when choosing a player, you see who’s the strongest and who’s the weakest because you’re seeing their skill, that’s the same as labor power. You’re seeing which character has the potential to be the best one in order to beat the game. 

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?

As explained in the video, surplus value is the extra value created by the workers of a privately owned means of production company in which they create a product that is then sold for way more than what they are actually paid. Surplus value is important to study in social classes because it shows us how the capitalist class accumulates its wealth. Which is by extracting labor that workers are not being paid for.

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

The main difference between owners and employees is their forms of income in which the owners live off of investments that include stocks, bonds, rents, etc and the employees strictly live off their wages and salary. An example of an owner is Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, who heavily invested his funds into the tech world and became one of the richest people in the world. An example of an employee is quite literally anybody in the working class who isn’t in the investment markets or sprouting into the markets of online money or just simply someone who relies on their job for income. 

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

From my understanding, the quote by Adam Smith explains that labor is the actual value of any product even though money shows the cost, labor shows the value. This quote states that something’s worth is determined by the labor put to work on it and not necessarily the price. 

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

I understand where the socialists are coming from when they say that class is not an identity because they are just trying to break down the societal hierarchy of capitalistic views of class. The socialists believe that the capitalists control the economic system and make inequalities for the working class therefore if they break that down they may have a chance of improving the lives of the working class.  

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?

I agree with the argument, that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency” because the working class heavily relies on the capitalist class for employment while the capitalists rely on the labor from the working class in order to make their money. An example of this could be Jeff Bezos and Amazon because he relies on the workers to keep the company running smoothly and the workers rely on him to pay them. It’s a typical boss-and-employee dynamic. The boss relies on the employee to do the work so that the company stays strong and the employee needs their money.

1. A Repressive State Apparatus (RSA) includes institutions that maintain control by enforcing rules and ensuring people adhere to the dominant ideologies in society. Althusser calls them “repressive” because they play a key role in keeping societal order. An example could be a school principal making sure all students follow the school rules and behave properly. The principal helps maintain order and ensures everyone follows the guidelines set by the school. It’s like a system that keeps things in check and running smoothly. 

2. Sure! Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs) are like different parts of society that shape how we think and act without us really noticing. They include things like schools, churches, TV, and even our families. These places teach us what’s “normal” and what to believe in. 

3. Repressive State Apparatuses and Ideological State Apparatuses are both ways society keeps things in order, but they do it differently. Repressive State Apparatuses, like the police or military, use force or the threat of force to make sure people follow the rules. They can arrest you or use physical power to keep control. Ideological State Apparatuses, on the other hand, work through ideas and culture. They include things like schools, media, churches, and families. These institutions shape how we think and what we believe is normal. Instead of using force, they influence our beliefs and values so that we follow the rules on our own.

4.