Samid Sadeem Rahman Discussion 4.2

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

While owners and employees are dependent on each other, two major factors make them differ – their income and range of work. To be specific, the magnitude and source of income make them distinct. For instance, owners earn a significantly higher proportion income than employees as their income rely on investments, stocks, bonds and especially on the production done by their employees. While, employees earn from the wages they receive for being involved in production, from their employers. Contrary to stereotypical views, employees have to work a lot more than owners as employees are involved in the production. Owners earn by making their employees labor for them. An example could be factory owners who own the factory and factory labor workers who work and produce and the products which the owners sell and earn profits.

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

In this quote, Adams emphasizes the fact that human labor is the most important factor for raising the standard of a commodity. It is human labor that makes commodities comparable. There would be no profits or money flow if there was no labor.

3. What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is NOT an identity?
In Reading 4.4, the writer presents a compelling argument that class should not be thought of as an identity. In contrast to gender or race, which are routinely described in terms of individual experience and personal identity, class is deeply embedded in economic and social structures. It is not something that can be reduced to how one sees themselves, but to where they stand in a system defined by ownership, control, and access to resources. Class, as defined in the reading, emerges out of the relation people have to the means of production—those who own and control resources and those who do not. This dynamic is at the heart of the distribution of wealth and power in society. The reading is critical of the notion that class is just an identity because it suggests that class is something one can opt for or simply something based on lifestyle or shared cultural markers. But to Marxists and socialists, class is structural inequality—the way in which control of capital (factoriesmachineslanddetermines a division of labor and economic power. The working class, for example, isn’t identified by shared culture or individual identity, but in their economic position: they are the ones who must sell their labor power in order to survive, with capitalists benefiting from that labor. Class, in this case, is an economic reality that comes into the lives of individuals and groups in concrete forms. This argument, I find, is beneficial in the present reading because it encourages us to think about class in a wider sense than our own or even other individuals’ concept of where we arePressure to a “class identity” might have the tendency to circumvent the real, material conditions structuring class relations and render them subjective experience or political declaration. Class is not something you choose to identify yourself with, and the way in which class functions in society is not a matter of personal experience but one of economic exploitation. The danger of collapsing class into an identity politics framework is that it may end up diminishing the more severe issues of power and inequality that are central to social change. It is not a matter of individuals wishing to identify themselves as “working class” or “middle class,” but matters of how power and resources are allocated, and how they are organized. By classifying class solely as an identity, it actually hides the collective and structural character of class struggles that confront all working people, including along lines of gender and raceIn order to solve issues like poverty, inequality, and exploitation, we need to aim at the elimination of the capitalist system that creates these conditions, not just identity politics that have a tendency to ignore the overall systemic causes.

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?
A “close form of dependency” in class structures indicates the interdependency between the working class and the capitalist class. In a capitalist system, workers depend on employers for work, wages, and survival, and capitalists rely on workers for the labor of the workers to produce commodities and services that generate profits. The dependency, however, is not mutual—capitalists are stronger because they own the means of production and can determine the terms of employment. Workers, on the other hand, have little choice but to market their labor for whatever wage they can get, or else face poverty and unemployment. This dependence creates a condition wherein the working class is vulnerable to the wealth and power of the capitalist class.
Arguably the most obvious feature of this dependence is that it is not something which people choose—it is an inherent aspect of the economic system. The capitalist class does not rely on laborers out of choice, but out of necessity in an effort to safeguard their profits and controlThe laborers, howeverare dependent on the capitalists because the capitalist economy drives them into a situation where they have no option but to sell their labor for survival. This dependency is at the core of the nature of capitalism itself, which relies on the exploitation of labor for profit. In this system, the working class remains subordinatedespite their role to keep the economy in motion.
This reliance can be observed in the modern gig economy, where the workers-employers employment relationship is even more unstable. Gig workers—whether they are driving for Uber, delivering food for DoorDash, or working for Amazon—are possibly without job security or benefits. Their salaries are determined by the variable terms in the marketand not by fixed employment contracts. Here, workers are fully dependent on the platform for earningsbut the platform owners (e.g., Uber or Amazon) are dependent on workers to provide the labor that supports their businesses and yields them revenues. The companies can maximize their profit by cutting salarieserasing benefits, or making the jobs more precarious, and employees have limited choices because of the dependencies created by the system. This is an example of how class relations and dependencies are not abstractions but tangible realities that shape individuals ways of living. What strikes me about this argument is how successfully the normal invisibility of the relationship between workers and capitalists is revealed. In the standard workplace, there is a false appearance of equality—the employer provides the job, the employee does the work, and both benefit from the exchange. But beneath this facade, the capitalist class maintains grip on the resources and wealth fueling the system, while the working classes hang at their mercy. The fundamental dependence of the worker within the system ensures that change will appear so difficult to implement. Without a popular response, e.g., a labour movement, power rests in unbalanced hands.
The close 
dependence also reveals how hard it is to get out of class-exploitation. As a laborer, you would be trapped in your role, dependent on labor to cover costsmaintain family, and survive. Selection of a different career or profession is under the constraint of the capitalist economy that has put labor under subordinationAnd that is why solidarity action is so crucial—only by uniting and organizing can workers resist the power that is exercised over their lives by the capitalists. The gig economy is only part of the ways in which these dependencies are becoming more extreme, and thus is a representation of why the capitalist system must be interpreted as a power regime rather than simply separate exchange relations.

 

 

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.

Richard Williams- Discussion Board 4.2

  1. The distinction that is made in reading 4.3 between owners and employees is the capital and labor. For example, the text states “the owning class live mostly off investments, which include stocks, bonds, rents, mineral royalties, and other property income.” and “employees live mostly off wages, salaries, and fees.” Owners possess the power and ability to make decisions that impact the economy and the lives of employees. Employees unfortunately do not have this power and depend on their jobs to earn a living, making little to no decisions within their workplace. 
  1. The way I decipher the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28 is that labor is more valuable than money itself. Money is the end goal but labor is what drives economic growth. Wealth is built off of the labor of people working in various industries contributing to productivity. 
  1. My thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is not an identity is, class should not be seen in the same regard as gender or race. It should be referred to as a “structural position” because things like race and gender are inherently our identity and determine how we navigate through life. Structural position determines an individual’s place in society while taking their identity components into account. 
  1.  Close form of dependency refers to the relationship that exists between the owning class and employees. For example, the text states, “the socialist theory of class… highlights that workers depend on capitalists for employment, but capitalists also depend on workers to produce the wealth from which they generate profits.” This shows that  owners depend on employees to produce goods and services that will in turn make profits, while employees depend on owners to provide employment and wages.

Ghufran Bairouti- Social Class.

1- The distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees.

“Small businesses are just so many squirrels dancing among the elephants,” as Michael Parenti puts it in Democracy for the Few, underscores the imbalance of power between owners and employees in the capitalist system. The distinction between these two groups is rooted in their control over resources and their roles in wealth production. Owners, or capitalists, control the means of production, such as factories, land, or technology, and accumulate profits primarily through the labor of employees. Employees, in contrast, do not own these productive resources. Instead, they sell their labor in exchange for wages, often without much control over the conditions or outcomes of the work they perform. For example, a CEO or shareholder of a corporation benefits from the company’s profits, while a factory worker or service employee earns a set wage, dependent on the employer’s decision-making, rather than from ownership or control of the business itself. This creates a clear divide in economic power and wealth generation between the two groups.

2-UnderstandIing the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28:

Adam Smith says, “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.” This quote emphasizes the central role of labor in determining the true value of commodities, arguing that labor is the ultimate and real standard by which we measure value. According to Smith, while money is the price we attach to goods in the marketplace, it is labor the effort and work that goes into creating, transforming, and distributing a product that determines its true worth.

3- Class as NOT an identity (Reading 4.4):

In Class Rules Everything Around Me by Paul Heideman, the main argument that class is not an identity challenges the common perception that class is simply a personal or social label that people identify with. Heideman argues that class is not about how individuals see themselves or the lifestyle they choose, but rather about their position in the larger economic system and the power dynamics that come with it. For example, a person may identify with a particular class, but this self-identification doesn’t change their position within the economic system. As a result, the argument encourages a shift from viewing class as an individual identity to seeing it as a reflection of one’s role and power within economic and social structures.

4- Class structures and “close form of dependency” (Reading 4.4):

The idea that class structures are built around a “close form of dependency” means that different classes in society, especially owners and workers, depend on each other. This dependency is close because the success of the owners depends on the work of the employees, and workers rely on the owners for their jobs and wages. However, this relationship isn’t equal. Owners have more power because they control the resources and wealth. For example, in a company, employers need workers to create products or services, while workers need their employers for a paycheck to live. Even though they rely on each other, owners have more control over the money and working conditions, while workers have less control over their wages and work environment.

Jada Black Poll 100 Discussion 4.2

  1. The difference between owners and employees is their source of income. For example , owners make profits by owning and investing in products rather than working for wages. Employees sell their labor for wages. They depend on employment for income. Mark Zekelburg owns Facebook and profits from the company. A digital editor for Facebook earns a wages for editing the design of the app and much more.
  2. The quote by Adam Smith explains that labor is the foundation of economic production, but they don’t get the recognition of how important their work is. I completely agree with Adam Smith because without the workers , there would be no work products.
  3. My main thoughts on class is not an identity is that class is more about social relations rather than something people are born into.
  4. The argument that class structures are built round a close form of dependency means that social classes are connected through relationships driven by economic power. People’s positions within the class hierarchy are dependent on the actions, resources, and the labor of those in other classes.
    An example of close form dependency , is the relationship between owners and workers. Owners depend on workers to produce goods that will generate profit, while workers depend on owners to provide employment and wages.

Aamina Jabbar 4.2

1. Distinction Between Owners and Employees (Reading 4.3)

Reading 4.3 distinguishes owners as those who control businesses, capital, and profits, while employees sell their labor to make a living. Owners accumulate wealth through the work of employees, while employees rely on wages. An example of an owner would be the CEO of a major company like Amazon, while an employee could be a warehouse worker who packages orders.

2. Understanding Adam Smiths Quote on Page 28

Adam Smiths quote on labor emphasizes that workers are the foundation of economic production, yet they often dont see the full value of their work. To me, it highlights how labor is essential in creating wealth, but workers dont always benefit proportionally. It suggests a critique of how wealth is distributed in capitalist systems.

3. Main Argument of Reading 4.4 Class is Not an Identity

I understand the argument as saying that class isn’t just a personal label or identity like race or gender, but rather a structural position in society. Its based on economic relationships, not just personal experience. This means that even if people dont “feel” working class, their material conditions like relying on wages instead of investments determine their class position.

4. Understanding Class Dependency

When Reading 4.4 states that class structures are built around a close form of dependency, I take it to mean that different classes rely on each other in an unequal way. Workers depend on employers for wages, while employers depend on workers to generate profit. An example of this is how fast food workers rely on their jobs to pay rent, but the company owners rely on those same workers to keep operations running and generate revenue. This dependency is what maintains class divisions.

Aliah Diaz Discussion Board 4.2

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.

Module 4.2

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

The distinction from the reading indicates that Owners are defined as the Wealth Class, while Employees belong to the Laboring Class. The Wealth Class does not rely on physical labor to generate wealth; instead, they depend on the Laboring Class to create production, which serves the demand for what consumers are willing to buy. 

When laborers create mass production for organizations, these businesses rely on their efforts to build surplus upon surplus. In contrast, employees primarily live off wages, salaries, and fees from the work they invest through labor, meaning there is no income unless they physically commit to earning it. 

For instance, consider a business like JPMorgan Chase, which holds all the monetary interests of the public. The owners do not need to work there to ensure profits continue to accrue; they do not need to be visible within this infrastructure to maintain profit. Executives, shareholders, and major investors profit from the institution’s success without directly performing frontline labor. 

On the other hand, a bank teller performs customer service, handles transactions, and assists with banking needs, but they do not share in the profits generated by the bank. Instead, they receive a fixed wage for their work. Laborers must clock in for their allotted time, earning a suggested salary based on their experience and education. However, these wages are often low enough to maintain high profits for the bank, ensuring substantial returns for the owners.

If a laborer cannot work any longer, they will face a loss of income, which could lead to homelessness and other dire consequences. 

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

wealthy. . T

How I interpret Adam Smith’s quote hints that the original meaning of true labor is energy exchange. It is not leveraged by money, which is merely a tool with no inherent value. Society has been conditioned to believe that capitalism must endure for its own survival. In truth, without labor, there would be no need for capitalism. Smith’s quote argues that labor is the foundation of value. Before the utilization of minerals( Gold and Silver) for monetary trade to purchase goods, the true cost of anything was measured by the amount of work (labor) required to produce it.

The reliance of laborers on the wealth of the upper class illustrates the issue of wealth inequality, which refers to the uneven distribution of wealth in our society. An extremely small group of people owns a significant amount of the world’s commodities. Statistically speaking, less than 1 percent of the population controls the majority of the market. If this extreme imbalance continues, it can further harm those in poverty and also negatively affect the wealthy, as their fates are intrinsically intertwined. As the poverty level rises, due to a lack of surplus produced by consumers, it will lead to potential economic collapse.

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

My thoughts are that liberals tend to claim that social class intertwines with the same identities we use through race and gender. This is a mistaken attempt to display the discrepancies that arise in social class, as they do not carry the same distinctions. I understand that liberals aim to address the injustices seen in monetary disparities among specific populations and how these issues affect genders through acts of sexism and racism. 

Social class, particularly the division between labor and capital, does have a connection to these societal dilemmas. However, you cannot use identity to distinguish social class because it is fluid and can change depending on the dynamics between capitalists and laborers. For example, if no one decided to engage in work, there would be no capitalists. 

Identity is a fixed aspect related to one’s pigmentation or other characteristics that society uses to assign distinctions, such as gender. In contrast, social class is a dynamic element of identity that refers to aspects of a person’s identity that can change over time due to personal choices, external circumstances, or evolving social conditions. Identity is generally considered to be a more static aspect; for instance, biological sex or racial identity can typically be perceived as fixed, even though they can be viewed differently through cultural or social lenses.

  1. 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?
  2. The close form of dependency is when one cannot live without the other, much like the conditioned relationship between the capitalist and the laborer. The capitalist relies on the laborers to maintain the profits that their organization depends on for surplus, allowing them the comforts of life without indulging in hard labor. In turn, the laborer relies on the capitalist to sustain their ability to fulfill their consumer needs, which include paying for rent, providing for their family, funding college, and affording proper shelter. Without capitalism, laborers would have no occupations to pursue in their quest for the American Dream, which promises that if they work extremely hard, they will be greatly rewarded. I often reflect on this reward in relation to my parents, who were self-proprietors. I understood the message that the capitalist indoctrinate that “hard work”, is the pursuit of the so-called “land of milk and honey” ultimately resulted in their deaths. An example of this relationship is the clothing manufacturer, who acts as the capitalist and relies on laborers to design, sew, and produce clothing for profit. The laborers, or factory workers, depend on the clothing manufacturer to provide them with jobs and paychecks/ wages.

Posted in Discussion Board 4.2

HEAVEN TAYLOR DISCUSSION 4.2

1. Micheal Parenti explains the differences between business owners and employees by highlighting their opposing interests and roles in the economy. Business owners, or capitalists, possess the businesses, resources, and land needed for production. Their main aim is to earn as much profit as possible. On the other hand, employees sell their work for wages but don’t have any ownership or control over production. For instance, if I own a fast food restaurant, I can decide how much to pay my workers and when they work, but the employees have no say in their pay or job security. Owners make money by paying workers less than what they actually produce. Employees want fair pay, but if wages are too high, it cuts into the owners’ profits. Another example is if I run a clothing brand and sell shirts for $50, but it only costs $5 to make one. The worker who sews the shirt might only get $3, while I keep the rest as profit for my business. Parenti argues that capitalism naturally favors owners over workers. Owners hold the wealth and power, while employees rely on their wages and often face exploitation to boost profits for those in charge.

2. Adam Smith’s quote explains his idea about how we determine the value of things in a capitalist economy. He believes that the worth of a product comes from the amount of work that goes into making it, rather than the money spent to buy it. When he says, “labor is alone the ultimate and real standard,” he means that no matter what kind of money is used, the real value of an item is connected to the human effort (like time, hard work, and skills) that went into making it. The phrase “Money is their nominal price only” shows that money is just a way to trade, and its value can change. But the true value of a product is still based on the labor needed to create it. For example, if a product requires a lot of work or special skills to make, it will usually be worth more, no matter what currency is used to buy it. Smith is basically saying that the amount of work put into something is what really determines its value, while money is just a way to show that value in different situations. This idea is really important in classical economics, where work is seen as a key factor in figuring out how much something is worth.

3. The argument in reading 4.4 on “class structures are built around a close form of dependency” means different social classes depend on each other, which helps keep the current power structure in place. The term “close form of dependency” describes how workers and business owners interact in a capitalist system. Workers need business owners to pay them wages so they can live, while owners need workers to make money. However, this situation is not fair because owners have more control—they decide how much workers get paid, how secure their jobs are, and what the working conditions are like. A example of this dependency can be found in fast food restaurants. Employees rely on their jobs to meet their basic needs, but they often earn low wages and have little say in their work conditions. At the same time, the business owner makes a profit from the workers’ efforts while trying to keep expenses, including wages, as low as possible. This creates a cycle where workers stay dependent on their bosses, which strengthens the divide between social classes.

Discussion 4.2

  1. The Owner-Employee Difference in Reading 4.3

Michael Parenti makes a clear differentiation between owners and employees in Reading 4.3 Capital and Labor. Owners are classes that depend on investments made in stock, bonds, and property. Absorbed by the efforts of others, they earn their income from business profits. On the contrary, an employee is one who usually earns income as a payment for services rendered in work done by another. These are the ones who sell their labor to eat and drink but actually do not own the means to put it into practice.

For example:
Owner: A major shareholder in a multinational; earns income dividend and capital gains income;
Employee: Factory worker whose cash flows are from wages of the same corporation.

  1. Understanding Adam Smith’s Quote: Page 28

On page 28, Smith expresses the phrase: Labor is and can be just so much the ultimate and real standard by which to estimate, at all times and all places, and to compare value between all commodities. Really we can speak about their actual price at these-widely we would call this nominal price.” The actual value of goods and services is based on human labor. Money is the form of exchange. It’s the exertion involved in the production of goods attached value to them.

  1. Class Suffering Not an Identity in Reading 4.4: Insights

Class cannot be seen as an identity just like race and gender, the way this counter-argument essay goes. Rather, class is a structural channel within the economic system defined by one’s relation to the means of production. Clearly, the world of classes concerns what one’s role and power are in an economic hierarchy and not an identity of culture and personality. That line of argument embodies the systemic division of class and correlates these structures to the fundamental concern of inequality.

  1. Arguments Over Class Entering Into Reading 4.4 “Structures Built Around a Close Form of Dependency”

The claim according to Reading 4.4 is that class structures are built around “a close form of dependency,” which means that classes depend on one another within the capitalist system. Capitalists rely on workers for producing goods and services, while workers depend on capitalists for jobs and salaries. This mutual dependence leads to such a situation that each class’s status, as well as its power, is defined in relation to the other.

For example:

In a factory, owners depend on workers to operate machines and produce goods. If the workers fail to operate in the factory, the production stops, and the profits would go down. Exchanges, on the other hand, are dependent on owners for their jobs and the payment of wages by which they sustain themselves. Such interdependency shows that classes are interdependent by definition in the economy.