Posted on by Jayleen Abreu

Jayleen Abreu DB 7.1

The role of citizens in government changes depending on whether the country has a federal, confederation, or unitary system. In a federal system, like the U.S., power is divided between national and state governments, giving citizens multiple ways to participate. People can vote in national elections for leaders like the president and Congress, state elections for governors and legislators, and local elections for mayors and city councils. They can also influence policy through referenda or ballot initiatives. A confederation is different because the central government has very limited power, and most decisions are made at the state or regional level. This means citizens mainly engage with their state governments instead of a strong national authority. Historical examples include the Articles of Confederation in early U.S. history and the European Union today, where people vote for their national leaders and for representatives in the European Parliament. In a unitary system, like France or the U.K., the national government holds most of the power, while local governments carry out its policies without much independence. Citizens mainly interact with the central government through voting in national elections, since local governments follow the central authority’s decisions.

The division of power refers to how authority is shared among different levels of government. In a federal system, power is divided between national and state governments, each with its own responsibilities. For example, the national government handles defense and foreign policy, while states manage education and local laws. Some responsibilities, like taxation and law enforcement, are shared. In a confederation, the states hold most of the power, and the national government relies on them for things like trade agreements or military cooperation. Under the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. national government couldn’t collect taxes or enforce laws, making it weak. In a unitary system, the central government has all the power and can delegate responsibilities to local governments, but it can also take that power back whenever it wants. This system focuses on national unity and efficiency rather than dividing authority among different levels.

The federal government played a major role in shaping New York State’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic, mostly through financial aid and policy guidance, The CARES Act and the American Rescue Plan provided funding for stimulus checks, unemployment benefits, and support for state and local governments. FEMA covered costs for emergency supplies and temporary hospitals, allowing New York to improve healthcare, expand testing, and roll out vaccinations. The federal government also issued public health guidelines, which New York followed by enforcing mask mandates, business closures, and social distancing rules. However, New York sometimes went beyond federal recommendations, like implementing stricter lockdowns and vaccine requirements. The state worked with federal agencies to set up large vaccination sites, such as the one at the Javits Center. The National Guard helped distribute food, medical supplies, and manage testing and vaccination sites. Additionally, the federal government encouraged states to coordinate their policies, leading New York to team up with New Jersey and Connecticut to create regional travel and quarantine restrictions for high-risk states. This cooperation helped prevent confusion and made pandemic policies more consistent across state lines.

Posted on by Jayleen Abreu

Jayleen Abreu DB 5.3

The statistic on wealth inequality that made the biggest impression on me is the fact that the wealthiest 1% of Americans own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined. This was particularly striking because it shows how extreme the wealth gap is in the U.S. and highlights the concentration of financial resources in the hands of a very small, privileged group. The sheer magnitude of this inequality raises important questions about the fairness of economic systems, access to resources, and opportunities for social mobility. Living in a society with such significant wealth inequality can profound implications. It often leads to unequal access to essential resources, like education, healthcare, and housing. For example, the education system reflects this divide, where schools in wealthier neighborhoods receive more funding from local property taxes, resulting in better facilities, smaller class sizes, and more opportunities for students. Meanwhile, schools in lower-income areas struggle with overcrowding and outdated resources, which impacts the future opportunities of those students.

The effects of wealth inequality are also seen in everyday life. For example, in cities like New York or San Francisco, the rising cost of housing has made it nearly impossible for working-class families to afford rent, while wealthy investors and individuals but up real estate, driving prices even higher. This results in displacement and increased homelessness, a direct consequence of the widening wealth gap. Ultimately, this dynamic plays out in various aspects of society, from politics to healthcare to education, and the imbalance of resources has lasting consequences on both individuals and communities. The increasing wealth disparity only deepens divisions and creates barriers that make it more difficult for people in lower-income brackets to access the opportunities they need to succeed.

Posted on by Jayleen Abreu

Jayleen Abreu DB 5.2

The M-C-M’ cycle explains how capitalist grow and maintain their wealth by continuously reinventing money to generate more money. It starts with M (Money) – the capitalist begins with an initial investment. This money is then used to buy C (Commodities), which include raw materials, machinery, and most importantly, labor power-the workers who produce goods. Once production is complete, the capitalists sell these commodities for a higher price than the original investment, leading to M’ (More Money), or profit.

The key to this process is surplus value, which comes from labor. Workers are paid less than the value they create, meaning the capitalist keeps the extra value as profit. To maximize this, capitalists try to lower wages, increase worker productivity, and cut production costs by introducing automation or moving production to places with cheaper labor. They also reinvest profits into expanding their businesses, acquiring more means of production, or investing in financial markets. By repeating this cycle, capitalists not only maintain their wealth but continuously expand it, ensuring that they remain in control of the economy while widening the gap between themselves and the working class.

Posted on by Jayleen Abreu

Jayleen Abreu DB 5.1

Means of Production and Labor

The means of production refers to everything needed to create goods and services, like factories, machines, land, and raw materials. It also includes non-physical elements such as patents, techniques, and how businesses are organized. Labor, on the other hand, is the human effort-both physical and mental-that goes into making products. For example, in a clothing factory, the sewing machines, fabric, and building itself are part of the means of production, while the workers stitching garments, designing patterns, and managing production are providing labor. Without both, production wouldn’t happen.

Understanding Value

Value is a central concept in how we understand goods in a capitalist system. According to Marx, three are two main kinds of value: use-value and exchange-value. Use-value is about how useful something is-like how a chair is valuable because you can sit on it. Exchange-value, on the other hand, is about what something is worth in the market, like how much money it can be traded for. What gives something value? Marx argues that value comes from the labor put into making a product. The more time and effort it takes to produce something, the more valuable it tends to be. This is why labor and value are deeply connected. Labor transforms raw materials into something useful and marketable, creating value in the process.

Labor vc. Labor Power

The differences between labor and labor power is key in Marxist economics. Labor is the actual work a person does-like a carpenter building a table. Labor power on the other hand, is the worker’s ability to work, which they sell to an employer in exchange for wages. This distinction matters because when workers sell their labor power (for example, agreeing to work an 8-hour shift), they often produce more value than what they are paid for. The extra value they generate goes to the employer, not them. That’s where the idea of surplus value comes in.

Surplus Value

Surplus value is the extra value that workers create beyond what they paid in wages. It’s a crucial concept in understanding how profits are made in a capitalist system. Business owners aim to maximize this surplus value because it’s where profit comes from. For example, imagine a worker in a shoe factory gets paid $100 a day but produces $500 worth of shoes in that time. The extra $400 isn’t going to the worker-it’s surplus value that the company keeps. This explains why businesses often try to increase productivity, extend working hours, or lower wages-to get more surplus value from workers. Understanding this concept helps us see the economic inequalities built into capitalism.

Posted on by Jayleen Abreu

Jayleen Abreu – DB 4.2

1. What’s the difference between owner and employees in Reading 4.3? Give an example of each.

The main difference? It all comes down to work versus wealth. Owners are the ones calling the shots-they hand out the work and sit back while the money rolls in. Meanwhile, employees are the ones actually doing the heavy lifting, but they only get a fraction of the profit their labor generates. Owners are all about maximizing what they make while minimizing what they pay workers. Think of a big-time CEO who owns a chain of coffee shops-they make money whether they show up or not. But the baristas? They’re the ones grinding (literally and figuratively) every day to keep the place running while earning an hourly wage.

2. How do you interpret Adam Smith’s quote on page 28? What is it saying about labor?

Smith is basically saying labor is where the real value is-not money itself. We tend to think cash is king, but without workers actually doing the job, there wouldn’t be anything to profit from in the first place. The hustle, the effort, the skills-THATS what truly matters. If you strip away the workers, the economy would crumble because no one would be there to keep things moving.

3. What are your thoughts on Reading 4.4’s argument that class is NOT an identity?

I get why people feel like class is part of who they are. Erik Olin Wright said something that really stuck with me. “What you have determines what you have to do to get what you get.” That pretty much sums up the reality of generational wealth and opportunity gaps. Some people start life on third base while others are till trying to find the stadium. The article makes a good point-people in similar financial situations often bond over shared struggles, which makes class feel like an identity. When you grow up having to fight for every opportunity, it hard not to see it as part of who you are.

4. How do you understand the argument that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency”? Can you think of an example?

It’s a two-way street, kind of like a weird, unspoken deal between the upper and working classes. The rich need workers to keep their businesses running and profits flowing, while workers need jobs to survive. But here’s the kicker: one side definitely has more power than the other. The owning class gets to set the wages, while the working class has to hope they’re enough to cover rent and groceries. It’s like a restaurant, without chefs, servers, and dishwashers, the place wouldn’t function, but the owners are the ones raking in the big bucks from the business.

Posted on by Jayleen Abreu

Jayleen Abreu – DB 4.1

1. Do you see any similarities in how social class is discussed in Readings 4.1 and 4.1? What about differences in how they break down social class?

Yes, there are definitely some similarities. Both readings make it pretty clear that social class isn’t just about money, it shapes how people live their day-to-day lives. They both point out that things like income, education, and job status play a big role in where someone stands in society. The difference? Reading 4.1 focuses more on how people personally identify with their social class, like do they see themselves as working-class or upper-class? Meanwhile, reading 4.2 is more about the external stuff, like how something as basic as riding the subway can highlight social class differences. Basically, the rich avoid packed subway stations like the plague, while lower-income folks don’t really have that luxury.

2. Think about the subway station closest to you. Based on Reading 4.1, what social class tens to live in your area? Were you surprised, or was it exactly what you expected?

The closest station to me is the R train in Bay Ridge. This area is mostly middle-class, with a mix of longtime homeowners and renters. You’ve got a lot of families, some older folks who’ve been here forever, and a good number of working professionals. It is not super wealthy, but it’s not struggling either, it’s in that in-between zone. Am I surprised? Not really. You can tell from the local businesses, the relatively calm subway stations (at least compared to Manhattan), and the fact that people here actually seem to like their neighborhood. It’s a pretty accurate reflection of the people who live here.

3. After reading 4.2, do you see a pattern in how social classes operate in NYC?

Yes I do, one thing for sure that stands out is how public transportation really highlights social class differences. If you’ve got money, you’re probably not squeezing onto a crowded subway, you’re hopping in a cab or taking your own car. For lower-income folks, the subway is the go-to option because, well, it’s cheap. Also, if you’ve ever noticed, the stations in wealthier areas are cleaner, less chaotic, while the ones in lower-income neighborhoods can be overcrowded and, let’s just say, not as nice. So yes, NYC social class divisions are basically built into the transit system.

Posted on by Jayleen Abreu · 1 Comment

Jayleen Abreu                  DB 3.2                                                                                                                    

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

A Repressive State Apparatus (RSA) refers to institutions that enforce power and control primarily through force, coercion, and repression. According to Althusser, the state uses RSAs to maintain order and enforce the ruling ideology, often relying on physical violence or the threat of it. These institutions include military, police, prisons, and the judicial system, all of which can force people into obedience through punishment or intimidation. Althusser calls it “repressive” because these institutions use direct means to control people-whether thorugh laws, arrests, or physical force. He makes this distinction to highlight the tole of state violence in maintaining the status quo. Unlike ideological control, which is subtle and based on persuasion, repression works through explicit dominance. 

An example of an RSA would be law enforcement’s role suppressing protests. If people gather to demand social change – like the Civil Rights Movement or Black Lives Matter protests – the police may use tear gas, mass arrests, or even violence to disperse them. This is a clear example of how RSAs function to keep the existing power structure intact. 

What are Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs), and how do they seem to work?

Unlike Repressive State Apparatuses, Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs) operate through persuasion rather than force. They shape how people thinkg, behave, and perceive reality in a way that reinforces the dominant ideology of society. Althusser identifies institutions such as schools, churches, media, family, and cultural systems such as schools, churches, media, family, and cultural systems (like literature and movies) as ISAs:

ISAs work by instilling beliefs and values that make people willingly accept the status quo. Instead of using force, they shape people’s worldview in ways that benefit those in power. For example, schools teach obedience, respect for authority, and the idea that success come from individual hard work rather then systemic privilege. Religion, too, can be used ideologically – by promoting ideas like “everything happens for a reason” or “accept your place in life” which discourage people from challenging oppression.

A great example of an ISA in action is mainstream media’s portrayal of wealth and poverty. Many TV shows and news programs frame poverty as a personal failure rather than a structural issue. This encourages people to blame individuals from their economic struggles rather than questioning economic policies or corporate greed. 

How are Repressive and Ideological State Apparatuses different from each other? What Is the difference between the two? 

The main difference is between RSAs and ISAs is how they enforce power. 

Repressive State Apparatuses (RSAs) rely on force, punishment, and direct control. They function through institutions like the police, the military, courts, and prisons, which can legally harm, imprison, or kill individuals who do not comply with the dominant system.

Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs) function more subtly by shaping beliefs, values, and consciousness. Instead of using violence, they maintain control by influencing education, religion, media, and vulture to ensure that people willingly accept and internalize the ruling ideology. 

A key difference is that RSAs operate openly and visibly – if someone is arrested, beaten, or censored, the repression is clear. ISAs work behind the scene, shaping people’s thoughts so they don’t even realize they are being influenced. For example, imagine a protest against corporate corruption. If the police arrest and beat protestors, that is an RSA in action. If the media then portrays the protestors as violent anarchists, discouraging public sympathy, that is an ISA at work. The first uses force; the second manipulates perception. 

Example of Ideology/specify it represents repressive or ideological apparatuses 

One example of an ideological apparatus at work is the “American Dream” narrative often promoted in movies and media. Films like The Pursuit of Happiness (2006) emphasize the idea that anyone, no matter how poor, can succeed through hard work and determination. This reinforced the idea that systemic inequality isn’t real or doesn’t matter – that failure is a personal issue rather than a societal one. This example represents an Ideological State Apparatus (ISA) because it persuades people to believe in a meritocratic system, even when real-world economic conditions show that wealth is often inherited, and opportunities are not equally distributed. By promoting this ideology, the media discourages people from questioning or resisting economic inequality. A Repressive State Apparatus (RSA) example could be the use of riot police during labor strikes. When workers organize for better to break up strikes, sometimes using tear gas, arrests, or physical force. This is a direct physical repression of dissent and serves to maintain corporate and state power. 

Posted on by Jayleen Abreu · 1 Comment

Jayleen Abreu                  DB 3.1

What is Ideology?

Ideology is essentially a collection of ideas, values, and beliefs that individuals or groups use to interpret the world around them. It’s a framework for understanding how society should function and what role people play in it. It can shape personal opinions, political beliefs, economic practices, and social norms, often influencing behavior and decision-making. Ideology often goes beyond individual preferences and become a collective, almost unconscious way of thinking that drives how we engage with issues of justice, power, and equality. People might not even realize that they’re influenced by ideology, because it’s so embedded in everyday life through schools, media, family, and culture. We can think of ideology as a lens or filter through which we perceive reality, and depending on which ideological perspective we adopt, we might see the same issue in entirely different ways. 

Ex: 

An example of ideology could be seen in the way different political groups view wealth distribution. A person who aligns with a capitalist ideology might believe that wealth should be earned through personal effort and that the market will naturally reward those who work the hardest. They may argue that anyone who works hard enough can achieve financial success. On the other hand, someone who supports socialist ideology might argue that wealth should be more equally distributed because the market doesn’t always reward hard work and tends to favor those with privilege. The ideological divide explains why some people believe in policies that emphasize individual responsibility and free markets, while others believe the government should intervene to correct the inequalities of capitalism. Both are deeply ideological views on economics and fairness.

Ex: 

Ideology plays a huge role in shaping not only individual actions but also collective social movements and even entire political systems. For example, the ideology behind the civil rights movement in the U.S. was rooted in a belief in equality and justice for all people, regardless of race. Activists like Martin Luther King Jr. were influenced by ideologies. Similarly, in a more modern context, movements like Black Lives Matter reflect how ideologies around race and justice continue to evolve. The way we view societal issues is often a product of the dominant ideology within a given context, whether that’s capitalism, socialism, conservativism, or liberalism. These ideas can be deeply ingrained, influencing how we view social problems, what solutions we advocate for, and even who we trust as authority figures. 

Conservative vs. Liberal Ideology in U.S. Politics

The difference between conservative and liberal ideologies in U.S. politics primarily lies in their views on the role of government, economic systems, and social values. At the most basic level, conservatives tend to advocate for limited government intervention, a free-market economy, and individual responsibility, while liberals generally support a more active government role in addressing social inequalities and providing public services, these differences often manifest in policies regarding healthcare, taxation, labor, rights, and the environment. 

Big Differences: 

Conservatives are generally more focused on maintaining tradition and emphasizing individual liberty. They believe that people should be free to pursue their own interests without interference from the government. Key conservative values include personal responsibility, self-reliance, and economic freedom. They tend to argue that the government should focus on maintaining law and order, defending national interests, and ensuring that the free market operates without excessive regulation. When conservatives talk about individual rights, they typically refer to things like property rights, the ability to own businesses, and the freedom to pursue wealth. For example, they often oppose high taxes, arguing that they stifle economic growth and discourage entrepreneurship. Liberals, on the other hand, view government as a tool for promoting social equality and protecting vulnerable groups. They emphasize the need for regulation in areas like healthcare, the environment, and business practices to ensure that the interest of individuals are not overshadowed by corporate greed. Liberals support policies like universal healthcare, environmental protection laws, and welfare programs to reduce economic inequality. The core liberals value is the idea of social justice-ensuring that everyone, regardless of background, has equal access to opportunities and resources. For example, liberals may advocate for progressive taxation, where wealthier individuals pay a higher percentage of their income to fund social services for the less fortunate. 

A concrete example of the ideological divide can be seen in the debate over healthcare. Conservatives typically argue that healthcare should be left to the private sector and that the government should not be involved in providing health insurance. They believe that competition in the private market will drive down costs and improve quality. Liberals, however, often argue that healthcare is a fundamental right, and that government should play a role in ensuring that all citizens have access to affordable care. They are more likely to support a single-payer healthcare system or policies like the Affordable Care Act, which aim to reduce the number of uninsured people and make healthcare more accessible to lower-income individuals. The key dividing line is in their views on the role of government. Conservatives want government to stay out of economic affairs as much as possible, focusing instead on individual freedoms and the free market. While liberals, believe that government should step in to protect the public interest, particularly when it comes to issues of inequality, social welfare, and the environment. 

Althusser’s Definition of Ideology

Louis Althusser, a French philosopher, defined ideology as a system of ideas and beliefs that operates to sustain and justify the power structures in society. According to Althusser, ideology isn’t just something individuals hold in their minds-it’s something that is deeply embedded in the institutions and practices of society. It shapes how we see the world and our place within it, without us necessarily being aware of its influence. He famously said that “ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditioned of existence.” This means that ideology shapes the way we think about our lives and society, often masking the true power dynamics at play. In my own words, Althusser’s definition of ideology suggests that it’s not just a collection of beliefs that people actively choose to follow. Rather, it’s a system of ideas that is ingrained in our daily lives through insititutions like schools, the media, the workplace, and even family. These institutions constantly reinforce these ideas, making them feel like “common sense” or even “natural.” Ideology, then, operates to keep people in line with the existing social and economic structures. For example, capitalist ideology often promotes the idea that success is solely the result of individual hard work, which distracts from the systemic barriers that may prevent some people from achieving success. 

Ex:

Althusser’s theory in action can be seen in the way societal views poverty. Capitalist societies often ideologically frame poverty as a result of personal failure-if people are poor, it’s because they didn’t work hard enough or didn’t make the right choices. This perspective overlooks the structural factors that contribute to poverty, such as lack of access to quality education, racial discrimination, or economic policies that benefit the wealthy. According to Althusser, this kind of thinking is shaped by the ideology of capitalism, which maintain s the status quo by encouraging people to blame themselves for their circumstances, rather than questioning the system that perpetuates inequality. Althusser also points out that ideology is reinforced by what he calls “Ideological State Apparatuses” (ISAs), which are institutions that propagate dominant ideologies, like schools, the media, and religious organizations. The institutions help teach us what is “normal” or “acceptable,” often without us questioning it. In this way, ideology operates at a subconscious level, shaping our worldview and our behavior in way that align with the interests of those in power. 

In essence, Althusser’s view of ideology goes beyond personal beliefs or opinions-it is a system that is deeply embedded in society and perpetuated through institutions that shape our understanding of the world, often to the benefit of the powerful.