1. P. Williams says the war on terror is different because it’s not a normal war between countries with soldiers and battlefields. It’s more confusing, there’s no clear enemy or country to fight. Terrorists can be anywhere, even within the U.S., and the war doesn’t really have an end.

2.Roving wiretaps let the government tap phones or devices without saying exactly which one. With these wiretaps, they can basically follow someone around and listen in without being very clear about what they’re doing. This is violating the first amendment.

3. These warrants let the government come into your house or place without telling you right away. They can search your stuff and only let you know later. That seems unfair and kind of shady. Most say the provision allows the use of “sneak and peek” warrants for even minor crimes, not just terror and espionage cases.

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.

1. The idea of a “faction” in Federalist #10 reminds me of interest groups or political parties. These are groups of people who share the same interests and work together to influence decisions in government. Madison describes factions as groups of people with common interests that might go against the rights of others or the common good.

2. In Federalist #10, Madison says that wealth, or private property, comes from people’s skills, abilities, and talents. The word “faculties” refers to people’s natural abilities or qualities, like their intellect or physical abilities, which allow them to earn property. Madison believes that the differences in people’s faculties lead to some gaining wealth, while others, who lack those qualities or opportunities, remain poor.

3. While personal skills and abilities definitely matter, I don’t think this explanation fully captures why some people are wealthy and others are poor. There are other important factors like access to education, social inequality, and opportunities that influence wealth. So, while personal abilities can help, they don’t explain everything about wealth and poverty.

4. Madison says that the main goal of government is to protect private property. This might surprise some people today, because many would argue that the government should focus more on things like equality, welfare, or protecting the public good. Today, it often seems like the government’s main job is about economic prosperity or civil rights, which feels different from Madison’s focus on property.

5. I’m not really surprised. Madison and the other framers were worried about pure democracy. They thought it could lead to the majority overpowering the minority and making decisions that might harm property owners or cause instability. Because they were part of the wealthy elite, they feared that the lower classes could disrupt the system. They believed a Republican government would protect the interests of the wealthy and keep things stable.

The idea of “faction,” which is explained in The Federalist Papers, especially in Federalist No. 10 by James Madison, is closely tied to the idea of class conflict and the battle between different economic groups. This connection is also seen in the writings of Charles Beard and Michael Parenti. Madison describes factions as groups of people who come together because of a shared interest that can harm the rights of others or the common good. Beard and Parenti argue that the Constitution was influenced by economic factions, particularly the wealthy elite, who created a government that would protect their wealth and power. The struggle between different classes can be seen in the way the framers of the Constitution worried about a majority faction, like poor farmers or laborers, using democracy to take wealth from the rich. To prevent this, they set up a system that limited direct influence from the public, such as the Electoral College and the Senate, along with property requirements for voting. In today’s world, we can see political parties and interest groups acting as factions, where organizations backed by corporations push for policies that benefit the wealthy, while labor unions and grassroots movements fight for the interests of the working class. Overall, the concept of faction connects to our discussions about class power, highlighting how political disagreements often reflect deeper economic struggles. Madison aimed to manage factions through a republic, but Beard and Parenti argue that this system was actually designed to support elite factions over the general population.

Madison believed that differences in who owns property came down to how hard individuals work and their personal abilities. However, the modern perspective suggests that things like racial discrimination, the wealth passed down through generations, access to education, and unfair labor practices have a much bigger impact on a person’s economic success. For instance, research shows that if someone is born into a rich family, they are much more likely to stay wealthy, no matter how skilled or hardworking they are. Madison thought that the government should protect people’s rights to their property, making sure that those who earn wealth can keep it. But many critics today argue that government actions often help the rich even more, making inequality worse instead of promoting fair competition. For example, tax laws that give lower rates on capital gains for wealthy individuals and subsidies for big corporations tend to benefit those who are already wealthy.

Madison acknowledged that groups, including those formed around wealth, would naturally come about, and he believed a republic would balance these different interests. In contrast, the modern view is that wealthy individuals have too much influence over politics, which means that laws and policies often cater to their needs. Research by political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page in 2014 showed that government decisions usually reflect what the rich want, while the opinions of regular people have little effect on what happens. Overall, while Madison thought that wealth inequality was just a result of individual talent and hard work, today’s views emphasize the importance of historical and structural issues that keep economic differences alive. Critics now point out that things like past discrimination, corporate influence, and inherited wealth play a much bigger role in how wealth is built than Madison realized.

Madison’s view that wealth and poverty stem primarily from individual talent and effort is overly simplistic and ignores crucial structural factors contributing to economic inequality. While personal drive is important, systemic issues like historical wealth accumulation, access to education, and discrimination play a larger role in determining financial success. Historical barriers significantly impact wealth distribution. Many wealthy individuals inherit their fortunes, while those born into poverty face obstacles such as inadequate education and job opportunities. For example, redlining policies historically restricted Black Americans from homeownership, limiting their wealth-building potential. Additionally, government policies often favor the wealthy, as seen in the 2017 tax cuts that primarily benefited corporations and the top 1%, widening the wealth gap. Furthermore, the link between political and economic power allows the rich to influence policies that protect their interests, making it harder for lower-income individuals to gain economic power, as illustrated by the Citizens United ruling that enables unlimited campaign donations from the wealthy.

In Federalist No. 10, James Madison asserts that the government’s primary role is to protect individuals’ abilities, which translates to safeguarding property rights. This focus on private property aligns with American values, as early founders emphasized property rights for landowners and merchants. However, contemporary views often see the government as primarily responsible for promoting democracy and public welfare, such as healthcare and education. Despite this, economic policies frequently prioritize the wealthy, exemplified by the 2008 financial crisis when banks were bailed out instead of homeowners. While there are calls for improved social services, the government often prioritizes financial markets and business interests.

It’s not surprising that Federalist No. 10 doesn’t support pure democracy and instead favors a republican form of government. Madison’s thoughts connect to the larger ideas about class power, groups with different interests, and the need to protect property rights. Madison was concerned about the dangers of majority rule, which he called the “tyranny of the majority.” He feared that in a pure democracy, the majority, often made up of poorer citizens, could band together to create laws that would take wealth from the rich or go against the interests of those who owned property. Since most people weren’t wealthy, they might vote for laws that taxed the rich or controlled property, which Madison believed could lead to instability and disrupt the economic order. He also emphasized that one of the main roles of government is to protect private property. In a pure democracy, where everyone votes directly on laws, the majority could easily pass laws that would hurt wealthy landowners and businesspeople. A republican government, where representatives are elected to make decisions, would help shield against drastic changes that could threaten the interests of the wealthy. Madison recognized that factions, especially those based on economic differences, were unavoidable. However, he thought that a large republic with elected representatives would lessen the power of any one faction, making it tougher for lower-class groups to push through policies that would take from the rich. By spreading power across a large republic, he aimed to stop any single group, particularly the lower classes, from having too much control. I’m not really surprised by this. Madison had some big worries about protecting property and stopping the majority from having too much power, which is why he liked the idea of a republic. He wanted a system that would keep power in the hands of the wealthy and educated landowners, who he thought were the best people to make decisions. Even now, you can see Madison’s ideas in how the U.S. government works. Things like the Electoral College, the Senate, and rules about campaign money make it so that richer and more powerful groups have a bigger say in what happens than regular people do. The argument about whether the U.S. is a real democracy is still going on, especially with problems like voter suppression, gerrymandering, and the influence of big companies in politics showing that the system isn’t perfect for letting everyone’s voice be heard.

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.

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.

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.

1. In Marxist economics, the means of production are the material, equipment, and infrastructure needed in the production of goods and services. Some examples include factories, raw materials, and land. An example would be the sewing machines, cloth, and other equipment that are used to make clothing in a clothes factory. Labor, however, is the human effort, both physical and mental that is utilized during the transformation of raw materials into finished products. In the same clothing factory, labor would be the people who operate the sewing machines, cut the fabric, and produce the clothing products. These two words—means of production and labor—are core to explaining how goods and services are made and how wealth is shared.

2. Value in Marxist theory is explicitly tied to the amount of labor that is embodied in producing a commodity. Such a concept, known as the labor theory of value, is that the more labor time spent in producing something, the higher its value. But value isn’t merely price or scarcity; it is also human labor input into its production. For example, a bespoke leather jacket will be more valuable than a mass-produced one since it involves so much more labor to make. The value of an object, then, is ascertained through the amount of socially necessary labor time required to make it under average conditions. In capitalist economies, market forces such as demand or branding may cause a product to be devalued, yet at its core, value reflects the labor involved in the item.
3. Labor-value relationship is central to Marxist doctrine, which states that labor gives rise to value. As employees perform labor, they increase the value of raw materials and turn them into products that can be sold. For instance, a laborer in a factory who constructs a car through work adds value to steel and rubber and transforms them into a car that can be sold. However, under capitalism, the workers do not get the full value of their work. The bosses compensate them with wages less than the value they produce. This distinction is essential to account for the exploitation of capitalism, where added value due to labor exceeds wages earned, giving rise to capitalist accumulation.
4. The distinction between labor and labor power is a core concept of Marxist economics. Labor refers to work performed, the tasks and jobs that workers do to create goods or services. For example, a bricklayer at the workplace is doing labor. Labor power, however, means the ability to perform labor—essentially the worker’s capability to work, including their talents, energy, and time. Workers exchange their labor power with employers for pay. For example, a graphic designer exchanges their labor power (their graphic design talent) to an employer for pay. The real distinction is that labor is the work done, while labor power is the ability to work. This explains why workers can create more value than they get, since their labor power has been sold for less than what they create.
5. Surplus value refers to the additional value created by workers which doesn’t find its way into their wages. It is the gap between the value that labor produces and what the laborers receive. Suppose, for instance, a factory worker produces goods with a value of $500 over a 10-hour work shift but receives only $100. The excess $400 is the surplus value, which is the employer’s profit. This is a central concept to understand exploitation in capitalism. The workers create more value than they get, and this surplus—surplus value—is being stolen from them by the capitalists. This is the important process in accumulating wealth among the few elites, since the working class is economically vulnerable and marginalized. Understanding surplus value is central to the study of social class since it explains profit-making processes within capitalist economies and emphasizes the class antagonisms produced by the uneven distribution of wealth.

The statistic that surprised me the most is that the wealthiest 1% of Americans own between 40% and 50% of the nation’s total wealth, more than that of the combined wealth of the lower 90%. The statistic surprised me because it shows the enormous disparity in the wealth distribution and how a tiny percentage of people have an out-of-proportion amount of assets. The result of such disparities in wealth runs deep and into all aspects of society, from individual opportunity to the overall economic system. Such concentration of wealth generates systemic barriers that trap individuals into cycles of inequality and preclude them from escaping poverty or even into simply financial security.

Breakdown in social mobility is one of the major results of hyper-wealth inequality. In a more balanced society, people would have opportunities to improve themselves according to their hard work and availability of money, but when the wealthiest control much of the country’s wealth, this becomes increasingly improbable. The children of those who live in poorer families, for example, might have several obstacles to thriving, like bad schools and fewer choices. More affluent families, though, can afford to send their children to private school, after-school programs, and college prep classes, which set them ahead. This creates a cycle in which social class remains fairly consistent across generations, despite the myth that anyone can succeed in life regardless of their background.

Another implication of wealth inequality is the concentration of political and economic power within the control of a small group of people. If most of the wealth in a country is held by a few wealthy individuals and corporations, they are able to have a great deal of control over political decisions. This control can result in unfairly favoring the wealthy, such as cutting taxes for the richest or deregulating industries that allow corporations to hold even greater control. Therefore, the needs and interests of the majority are normally sacrificed in a bid to uphold the set order that benefits the richest. Power disparity has the effect of weakening trust in democratic institutions as well as leading to political instability because the population gets disillusioned with a regime that seems to benefit the wealthy.

Everyday life is lived with the impact of wealth inequality in many facets. For example, in education, the inequality of wealth between families will often decide on the quality of education one receives. Richer children are able to go to private schools or hire tutors, while poorer children are sent to underfunded public schools where there is little. This lack of ability to access good education limits upward mobility and keeps individuals trapped in poverty. Similarly, healthcare access is another area where income inequality significantly comes into play. Individuals who are wealthier are able to afford private medical treatment or comprehensive insurance coverage, while many lower-income families receive substandard quality of care or must rely on overburdened public health systems. This makes wealthier individuals live healthier and longer, while the poor suffer from poor health outcomes and a worse quality of life.

Housing is another clear example of how inequality of wealth plays out in everyday life. In all of the big cities, housing prices have gone astronomically high, and home ownership is now out of reach for the majority. Wealthy investors and corporations can buy multiple homes and inflate prices, pushing working-class families out of the market. It helps to cause gentrification, where poorer citizens are driven out of their neighborhood and must relocate elsewhere at cheaper prices, often far from their job or social circle. It widens the gap between the wealthy and the rest of society, with the wealthy getting richer and the poor barely able to afford necessities.

In summary, excessive wealth inequality has extensive implications, not just for individuals but also for the stability of society in general. The concentration of wealth among a few results in a system where opportunities are unequal, social mobility is restricted, and political power is vested in the hands of the affluent. This is felt every day in inequalities within education, health, housing, and pay. Systemic changes need to be made to correct these so that money is more evenly distributed and all citizens, regardless of where they are from, have an equal chance to succeed.

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 (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.