- 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 (factories, machines, land) determines 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 are. Pressure 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 race. In 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 control. The laborers, however, are 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 subordinate, despite 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 market, and not by fixed employment contracts. Here, workers are fully dependent on the platform for earnings, but 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 salaries, erasing 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 costs, maintain family, and survive. Selection of a different career or profession is under the constraint of the capitalist economy that has put labor under subordination. And 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.
