1.In Reading 4.3, Michael Parenti differentiates between owners and employees in describing the natural bifurcation of social class in terms of capital and labor possession. Owners are individuals or groups who own the means of production—businesses, land, or machinery—and gain wealth essentially from the fact that they own them. They gain from these things without necessarily doing actual physical labor themselves. An owner is a case of a CEO or big shareholder of a company like Amazon or Tesla. Employees, however, are individuals who do not own the means of production and must sell their labor for wages. They rely on their labor to survive and have little control over the wealth generated by the firm. A good representative example could be an office customer service representative or an Amazon warehouse employee. This comparison brings into sharp relief the disparity of power between those who exercise power over resources and money and those who provide the labor which enables them.

2.Adam Smith work argument is that commodities achieve real value through effort employed in production and selling and not through money. Effort employed in the acquisition of raw material, production, and selling provides a real value, he asserts. Effort employed in purchasing raw materials, production, and selling provides commodities with a real value. But the above passage is faulting capitalism on the grounds that the capitalist regime is such that the workers get hardly any share of the value which they produce. The remainder, i.e., the surplus value, is reaped by the masters and makes them rich at the expense of other individuals’ labor. This is exploiting workers who create enormous values compared to the sums they receive back in the form of wages, but their owners benefit from them without putting a whit of effort into it. The imbalance between the value that the workers producing value are worth and that which they receive in exchange is the disproportion at the very heart of capitalism, where wealth ends up for the most part in the owners’ pockets.

3.Paul Heideman, in Reading 4.4, disputes that class is an identity, but instead is a place within the structure determined by the dialectic between labor and capital. He disputes that individuals will associate with specific social classes by income or mode of living, but that class is actually determined by where one resides within the economic structure and not from one’s individual identification. That is, class is the relation of power between owners of the means of production and sellers of their labor, not something one identifies with. Heideman’s argument shifts the subject of debate from personal identity to class as a universal social and economic relation, as opposed to the idea that class is a question of personal perception. It reaffirms the assertion that class is deeply embedded within the very foundations of ca
pitalist structure, and understanding it means having a sense of the structural forces that are working to shape what people are doing economically, rather than who they believe they are.

4.In Reading 4.4, when it says that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency,” it is referring to how capitalists and workers are in close relationship with each other in a system of economic relations where the success of one depends on the labor of the other. This “near form of dependency” suggests that the capitalist class depends on the workers to yield profits, and workers depend on capitalists for a job and for wages. Interdependence is not mutual, but rather there exists a power discrepancy—the capitalist class holds the means and the profit, and workers depend on wages to survive. An example of such a dependent relationship is the one between workers and factory owners: the factory owners rely on workers for the production of goods and profit, while the workers rely on factory owners for a source of employment and income. In this situation, workers’ labor creates value but with most of the value taken by the owners, illustrating a dependent relationship that keeps the capitalist system afloat but widens inequality.

1.Both Readings 4.1 and 4.2 discuss the issue of social class but discuss them in a different way to reveal both comparisons and contrasts. In Reading 4.1, the Gallup article discusses how Americans define their own social class, and it is mentioned that such identification is most  often done based on  subjective  senses and not just on objective determinants such as income or education. In the same way, Reading 4.2, the New Yorker’s subway project, illustrates how income and consequently, social class is highly dependent on where one is, and therefore class must also be relative to one’s surroundings. Both readings expose the great inequalities of American society and illustrate that class can be felt and perceived in relational terms. But they are different in the way they conceptualize and represent social class. The New Yorker article uses objectified median income data mapped across subway lines in New York City, while the Gallup article uses self-definition and national polling figures. One measures perception and identity, the other economic and spatial data.  They together give complementary views of how class operates internally and externally in individuals’ lives.

2.The closest subway station to where I reside in Manhattan’s Fort George community is the 190th Street station on the 1 train, and its median income per household is approximately $39,000. According to the principles outlined in Reading 4.1, this would place my community within the lower-middle to working class. This fits with how the reading explains that social class isn’t based just on income, but also on how people see themselves and their place in society. I’m not really surprised by this classification, since the area is known for being more affordable and has a lot of working families and service workers. Generally speaking, I think that the information provides a fairly realistic picture of the people residing in my environment.

3.Yes, as can be seen from Reading 4.2, there is a pattern to social class in NYC along the subway lines—that is, the closer to Manhattan’s business districts or richer neighborhoods a neighborhood is, the higher the median income will be. The farther out you travel towards the outer boroughs like the Bronx, eastern Brooklyn, or parts of Queens, incomes tend to drop off significantly. This itinerary illustrates how the city’s geography is itself built in terms of inequality, with the riches being extremely concentrated in a few centers and working-class or poverty-stricken areas potentially just a few stops—or in some instances, one stop—away. It shows how deeply stratified by class, even within the course of a short subway ride.

1.A Repressive State Apparatus is a system, like the police or military, that forces control over through force or consequences. Althusser calls it “repressive” because it relies on controlling and having the power over through laws, arrests, or surveillance for better reasonable proof in the future.

2.An Ideological State Apparatus is a structure for schools, media, and religion, that keeps control of changing people’s beliefs and values. Althusser calls it “ideological” because it works through education, culture, and social norms to make people take the power as natural and not suspicious. Ideological State Apparatus can actually change how people view the world and their role in it, most of the time without being forceful, because they are forcing it again on ideas that support the existing power structures.

3.The Repressive State Apparatus and the Ideological State Apparatus is about how they maintain control. Repressive State Apparatus, like the police and military, actively use force, laws, and punishment to make sure they maintain power. Ideological State Apparatus, like schools, media, and religion, work by creating and changing people’s beliefs and values, influencing them to accept the ruling class’s power without the need for force. While the Repressive State relies on all the control over physicality, Ideological State depends on ideas being made and brought to maintain the things are now.

4.Example of Ideology:
“The American Dream is within reach of anyone who works hard enough, regardless of their background.”

Type of Apparatus:

Ideological State Apparatus (ISA) – It is articulated through schools, media, and culture. It works by controlling beliefs and values in a way that maintains all things in their place, even though there is not equal access to opportunity for everyone.

1.The Constitution was written by the wealthy, landowners, merchants, lawyers, and other professionals. These people, such as George Washington, James Madison, and other valuable people, were financially stable, well educated, and held an important political role. The social class that was forced to be kept out from participating in the process was the working class, poor farmers, unfree people, enslaved people, women, and Native Americans.These  groups that were kept out had no rights or a good representation in the making of the Constitution. In the early years, the only ones who could vote were the white property men owners, leaving poor people, both white and black women, Black individuals, and Native Americans. These groups were purposely taken off from the whole political process, with the wealthy rich people making sure that power and political decisions were always in their control.

2.The social class structure of early U.S. society was much harder than today. Back then,as I said previously, only property owning white men had political power, while women, enslaved people, Native Americans, and the poor were excluded. Today, all voting rights and political participation is at its best than ever before as it’s open to all citizens, gender, race, or any specific property owners won’t be affected , however economic and social variabilities still exist. So, while there still are different types of altercations, the system currently is far more inclusive now than it was in the past.

3.The people who wrote the Constitution were actually very scared of democracy because they were from the wealthy and thought of losing their power because of it. They were worried that if the general population, the poor, enslaved people, and women, had more political influence, it could change how they have control of their status. They believed that only the educated, property owner men could have the responsibility to make decisions, and direct democracy could lead to unbalance or mob rule.

1. What is ideology?

Ideology is a combination of ideas that change the way we see the world. It gives us an understanding of politics, society, and culture, giving us a strong perspective and actions. Ideologies are present everywhere, in politics, religion, and in a regular day. They can feel natural because they feel extremely invested in society and a lot of times not being motivated until challenged.

2. Conservative vs. Liberal Ideologies in US Politics

Conservatives and liberals have different views on government and social issues. Conservatives like a smaller type of government, unique values, and a market price, but as for liberals, they believe in a government that is active and gives equality and social welfare. The thing that can be worrying is the government’s involvement; liberals believe that as long as they have the government, their are more inequalities.

3. Althusser’s Definition of Ideology

Louis Althusser argued that ideology has an important role in changing our perspective of reality, primarily through different ways such as schools, media, and religion. It changes and affects the beliefs and actions, often without us knowing the effects. Althusser suggested that ideology “calls” or “interpellates” individuals, making them believe they are making free choices about what they believe, even though these beliefs are extremely influenced by other social and impactful factors.