As we learned thus far, the capitalist class consists of people who own wealth, as well as the means of production in American society. An important question in understanding how this class works is to ask: how does a capitalist remain wealthy? The answer to this question depends largely on understanding the diagram M-C-M’. So, let’s practice by explaining what happens in this diagram in our own words (but basing our ideas on Reading 5.1). Respond to the following question: Explain M-C-M’ to show how capitalists maintain and increase their wealth. (hint: your answer should weave a summary that includes what you reviewed in the self-assessment exercise question 1-7) 

According to reading 5.1, the small-scale commodity production is called C-M-C, or commodity- money- commodity. To put it simply, at this stage people are exchanging a commodity for money, which then gets exchanged for another commodity. For example, peasants used to sell vegetables and later bought cloth with the money they got for the vegetables, while weavers sold their cloth to be able to purchase vegetables. We sell these commodities in order to buy more things where money is used as a middleman. The value of the commodities remains constant in the first and last stage of C-M-C. However, this money becomes transformed in this new stage M-C-M (money-commodity-money). This is the formula for capital in which the person initially only has money and must figure out how to get the commodity they are looking for. For example, the very same weavers do not personally use the cloth they make but make it to sell or resell it. In this instance we are buying with the intention of selling where money is capital. Therefore, in the first phase you would be turning money into a commodity, but the second would be turning the commodity into money. 

The money at the beginning and end of an M-C-M transaction is substantially different because a capitalist would not buy something without the expectation of getting more money in return. Thus, the final M’ is greater than the initial M, plus small m which is the excess money, profit, or surplus value. The capitalists can only obtain the surplus value if those who make the commodities sell them for much less value than they are worth. The people who make the commodities decide to give them to capitalists, even though they are massively undervalued, because of their desperate need for customers.  

Additionally, in the formula M-C-M, or capital formula, M’ is much larger than M due to the work the factories put in to make that commodity. The machines, raw materials, and labor power that the capitalists bought for the smaller sum is turned into a product with much greater value because of the production process it takes to manufacture that product while still in the factory. As a result, the formula for this is M’= M plus m. The small m is the value created by the manufacturing process brought on by a specific commodity, and once it’s bought and put on the market can create the surplus value for the capitalist. This commodity is known as labor power. How much labor power people offer is up to the particular person. It can either be more or less extreme. The capitalist is responsible for purchasing that worker’s labor power, and the worker decides to sell their labor power to the capitalist. The capitalist then agrees to pay the worker a wage in exchange for their labor power. This wage serves as a representation of the value of the worker’s labor power.  

When the capitalists agree to purchase the labor power of the workers, they also need to purchase the materials to use their labor power successfully. Consequently, each capitalist is transforming money into capital by providing tools, equipment, machinery, raw materials, and any additional provisions, and purchasing labor power. Each worker is able to transform every commodity into the value it should be in order for the product to sell, and the capitalist to make a profit. Money isn’t capital because it is not considered a productive resource. However, money is sometimes used to purchase capital. It’s the capital good, such as the equipment provided that is used to make those goods and services. For this system to work, a worker must work longer than it takes to make their product valuable for what it called necessary labor time, or what is required to replicate their labor power. For example, maybe it takes four hours of someone’s labor power to produce everything needed for one day. If they work a 9 AM to 5 PM shift, they have spent what they are worth by 1 PM., four hours later. However, they still must work till 5 PM so their employer gets an extra four hours of labor out of their worker. This is called surplus labor. This is the extra labor a worker must do their job far beyond just earning a living for themselves. This is generally unpaid labor. Anything the worker does at that point belongs to the employer capitalist. They sell the products their workers make for a profit and keep that profit for themselves. 

1. Two key concepts in this video are the means of production and labor. In your comment, explain how you understand the means of production and labor. Give an example of each. 

In the video, it describes the means of production as the things people do to help produce a specific product. For example, the workers, the machinery, the materials, etc. However, there is still a need for the business or the company to get the product out to the public. The company also consists of owners, just like YouTube is owned by the company Google. For instance, as mentioned in the video, Karl Marx would consider making YouTube videos as a “Capitalistic Production.” This means that the product being released is privately owned opposed to being owned by the laborers, the people who made the product. Eventually the product is sold for a profit, like when google sells ad space on a YouTube video.  

Some more examples of means of production are buildings like factories, land, commodities like gold and silver which can be made into jewelry, potatoes that can be turned into potato chips, tools that the workers use to make the products, or anything else the workers need to make things, such as money. The capitalists own the means of production. They are the ones who receive the capital and provide the items needed to create the product, like natural resources and machinery.  

When labor was discussed in the video, it was defined as the key thing that can increase the value of your product. For example, if you have a block of wood and do not do anything with it, the value of that block remains the same. However, if you fashion that wood block into something useful, like a chair, the value of the wood will increase. You may attempt to raise the price of that chair for, but this won’t affect its value.  

2. Another important concept in understanding social class is value. Based on the ideas presented in Video 5.1, what is value? What gives “value” to value, what makes something 

 valuable?  

According to video 5.1 Karl Marx believed that value was how much labor was put into making a particular item under normal circumstances. The labor used is also measured in time. The more time put into making an item the more valuable that item becomes. Therefore, if a machine performs the same action, the item has less value because it takes less labor to make it. The more time spent on a product by human laborers, the more value the product has. If the job consists of a substantial number of training sessions it means that the item becomes that much more costly. This is because the job cannot be done without the necessary training sessions. This is an example of Marx’s “Theory of Value.” This simply means that time is money. For example, if a pair of shoes takes twice as long to make as a pair of pants, then the shoes are considered more valuable. The price of these shoes would be twice as much as pants regardless of how long it takes to make them.  

This was thought of as an unorthodox theory and isn’t commonly used by modern economists. They prefer the theory of value called marginalism. This is a theory in economics used to explain the difference between the value of goods and services in reference to their marginal use. Therefore, diamonds are more expensive than water because you get more satisfaction from receiving a diamond than you do a glass of water. Thus, the diamond has a more substantial marginal utility. However, some economists prefer to focus on prices rather than value, because you can discover how to gain a profit by looking at the price of a product. Both Marginalists and Marxists have debated these methods of determining value for quite some time.  

3. How are labor and value related? What’s the relationship/connection between the two? 

As per the video, it explains that labor and value are interconnected. Marx believed that the value is the amount of effort put into a product by the hands of the laborers. The more effort put into the product the more value it holds. Labor is the single thing that helps increase the value of what you have. Marx believed that price is comparative to value, but value is how much labor it takes to make something under normal conditions. If you slack off and take two hours to make something that takes two, the value of the product isn’t reduced by half, nor does it double if you do it in a half an hour. It stays the same because it would usually only take one hour to produce. Any product is the result of demanding work and labor. Any price tag in a store would be a representation of the labor people put into making it. Additionally, the exchange of money for products is a demonstration of the labor used to create it. Although the value of certain merchandise can be vastly different, they all are a product of labor. It is the work combined with the materials made to make a product that makes them valuable. For example, for a hammer to work you need the raw materials like iron and rubber, but you also need the human labor it takes to hit the nails. This in turn, is how the two terms are attached to each other.  

4. How do you understand the difference between labor and labor power? Hint: this is a key difference, give it your best shot based on what the video says about it, and your own ideas. We’ll clarify and develop it in our discussions, and in my video comments. 

Labor is not considered a good or service within the Marxist theory, but labor power is. Labor produces the goods which are necessary or useful to human life. However, labor power is the ability to labor and is the most important commodity in the world. This is the only product in its existence that increases its value when the labor is being used. It is what a worker offers to an employer or capitalist and is found only in humans while they are working or looking for work. The capitalist utilizes this labor power by asking the laborer to perform a specific labor-intensive activity, providing tools, machinery, and raw materials. It takes a specific amount of nourishment for someone to provide their labor power such as food, shelter, clothing, so they will have enough energy to work a 9 am-5 pm schedule. The worker is usually paid for their labor power in the form of a wage. While the worker is at work their labor power is owned by their employer for a set period of time. The goal of the employer or capitalist is to receive a specific commodity at the end of the person’s shift, whose value is more than what materials and labor it took to make that product, as well as the wages paid to the laborer for lending out their labor power.  

5. Surplus Value: what is it? Why is it important to know about, in our study of social classes? Think about an example of surplus value? 

Marx defines surplus value as the gap between the value the laborer creates with their labor power and the money that is paid by the capitalist to the worker in the form of a wage. As previously mentioned, the worker’s capability to work, as well as the product they produce, belongs to the capitalist employer. Additionally, the value of the commodity put out by the laborer is greater than the value of the labor power itself. Surplus value is turned into profit for the capitalist, the business, and the company. To put it simply, they sell the products a worker makes and keep the profit for themselves. Marx thought that a worker is always being paid a great deal less than what they are worth. In capitalism you hire people to increase the value of the product you sell, give a worker a small wage, and leave with the majority amount of the money for yourself. Essentially, the capitalists are exploiting the working class for the use of their labor and labor power. 

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

There are many crucial differences between the owners who have most of the wealth in society and the employees who must work to survive. Those who live in owning class families can use their stocks, bonds, rents, payments for minerals, and money for owning property to pay for their necessities and luxuries. Those employed by the owning class are forced to live off their wages, salaries, and fees for their labor. However sometimes it gets confusing because owners can be both the wealthy citizens who have stocks in large corporations and can also be struggling business owners. However, those struggling owners don’t meet the requirements of the wealthy owning class citizens. The smaller businesses usually get eaten alive by the larger corporations run by the owning class.  

The employee class consists of factory and service workers, as well as people who are managers and business professionals who fall in the middle or upper-class bracket. Those who are in managerial and executive positions are considered employees who are hired to get their employees to work harder and produce a superior product in all fields of business. Some employees make enough money to climb up the corporate ladder and become members of the owning class themselves. To put it plainly, you belong to the owning class when you have a substantial amount of income and live off the labor that others put in working for your business. Additionally, owners can accumulate a generous sum of money through multiple investments. You don’t become prosperous just by putting in the effort and working hard. You gain wealth by having laborers put in the effort for you. Therefore, many people who worked in factories all their lives retire with extraordinarily little money to show for it, while owners collect a sizable amount of money.  

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

Adam Smith, a man who is considered one of the founding fathers of capitalism, stated that “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” (Parenti 28). This means that many things begin to become complicated once products are traded for money. Smith explains that not all work is the same and measuring the amount of labor that was put in to produce an object may not have the capacity to tell us how much effort went into making the product. Certain labor involves more skill than others. There is no straightforward way to solve this issue because there is no real way to figure out the accurate measure of labor. However, a lot of work is put into making each product such as manufacturing, shipping, advertising, and selling the item. Furthermore, only a small amount of the money workers receive for their efforts represents the amount of wealth that was accumulated from that one item. 

 I don’t believe this is the right way to reward the efforts these workers put into making these products. It looks like the product itself holds more value than the demanding work it took to create it. Consumers don’t think about the workers who made their products while purchasing them, they think about the value of the product and how it will make their life easier. It seems as if the owners take advantage of this school of thought while selling items their employees worked hard to make to their consumers. They understand that all consumers care about is product value, and as a result, the owners can get away with paying their employees a wage that is much lower than they deserve. As stated in the Michael Parenti article, workers who were under the employment of Intel and Exxon had one ninth of their value added to their wages. Most of the money accumulated from their business was made up of the surplus value, the money obtained by the owners. In businesses like tobacco and pharmaceuticals, the workers only received one-twentieth of their value added. In the United States, rate of value going to the owner has doubled within the past 50 years.   

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

I agree with the main argument that class should not be part of someone’s identity. Class identity can influence someone’s overall happiness, a person’s sense of safety and security, it can impact who we choose to associate and interact with, and even how we experience law enforcement and the justice system. We should learn to eliminate class from our identities and find a better way of labeling ourselves.  

Even people who claim not to use class as an identity incorporate it into their daily lives. In Paul Heidman’s article Class Rules Everything Around Me, Heidman expresses that class politics is just another form of identity politics. Politicians like Bernie Sanders have run on the platform of attacking big business and billionaires on Wall Street. He has publicly rejected the use of identity politics, but according to Heidman, this isn’t completely true. Class is considered an identity, just like race or gender, but to achieve the balance socialists strive for, they see it as the most important identity. When socialists declare that they oppose identity politics they are simply using their own adaptation of it, leaving aside the key factors of racial and gender discrimination.  

An example of this being used in a harmful way would be during the 2016 primary when Hillary Clinton responded to Bernie Sanders ignoring social issues and focusing too much on class politics. Clinton is quoted asking if the banks were suddenly broken up if it would resolve issues with racism, homophobia, and xenophobia? The answer is clearly no. People who are too heavily focused on issues of class and social standing are not putting their energy towards solving the world’s most serious problems. Furthermore, someone whose main goal isn’t to destroy racial, gender, and other varieties of oppression that don’t include class, cannot call themselves faithful to the left side of the aisle. There are very few social and political movements pertaining to class identity and it’s often used during political campaigns just to seek votes from a particular group of people, like Trump going after working class voters during his 2016 and 2020 campaigns.   

 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? 

In reading 4.4 it states that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency.” Unlike the concept of whiteness being reliant on blackness, the notion of “worker” is not contingent on the capitalist to hold value. A worker is reliant on an owner or capitalist to provide them with a job, and a capitalist is supposed to manipulate his workers so he can continue to hold onto his top position. As expressed by Heidman “a white person’s whiteness, by contrast isn’t dependent on any particular relationship with or actions by nonwhite people” (Heidman 4). Both a racist and a non-racist are white in the same way. Now the system of class structures works in a form of interdependency where you’re constantly under the threat of your capitalist employer. Simultaneously the workers have the option of threatening to remove their capitalist employer from their position at the top. Thus, this is a system of threat vs. threat. The capitalists not only have power over their workers but have power within society. The public depends on the capitalists to produce a product, and the capitalists can choose not to produce that product if they think it won’t make enough money. Society is responsible for making sure the capitalists maintain their success, so they keep producing more items for them.  

1. Do you notice any similarities in the way social class is discussed in readings 4.1 and 4.2? Do you notice any differences in the way these two readings DIFFERENTIATE between social classes? 

In readings 4.1 and 4.2 there are few similarities in which social class is discussed. In both readings they focus on total household income. As depicted on both the subway graph and Gallup article, income is key element in as to what social class people place themselves in. People at the lowest household income are most likely to identify at lower, middle, or working class, where those at the highest income bracket identify as upper-middle and upper-class. Additionally, the two readings also center around people’s social class in terms of the location they live in. For example, reading 4.1 states that people who tend to live in rural, countryside locations are less likely to place themselves in the high social class bracket than those who live in urban and suburban areas. In reading 4.2 displayed on the subway map image, you will observe evidence to support this statement. On the map, people who live in the borough of Manhattan tend to have higher incomes than those who live in Brooklyn, Queens, or the Bronx (the only exception being York Street, the first Brooklyn stop on the F line).  

There are multiple differences within these two pieces in terms of making distinctions between the social classes. In reading 4.1 the reader receives a more thorough analysis of the elements that helps one determine their social class. As determined in reading 4.1, they describe social class in terms of someone’s education, race, job, political party affiliation, marital status, age, and gender. The graphs in 41. also provide the specific social class people identify as in relation to their household income, ranging from lower, working, middle, upper-middle, and upper-class. Reading 4.1 additionally provides the reader with details about how education impacts how people view their social class. As stated in the reading, working class identification falls with those who graduated college, thus causing the upper-middle class identification to increase substantially. The middle-class identification stays the same regardless of education level, and less than half categorize themselves as working class at any level of education. As far as age goes, those who are 65 and older tend to put themselves in a higher social class as opposed to those who are much younger. The reading in 4.2 gives extraordinarily little detail as to the specific backgrounds of the people incorporated into the graph. The only details we get are how much money these people make in their respective neighborhoods/subway stops.  

2. Pick the station closest to where you live. Using the concepts from Reading 4.1, what social class tends to live in your neighborhood? Are you surprised (or not) by the answer? Do you feel it is an accurate representation of the people living in your neighborhood?

According to the information found on the graph in reading 4.1 and the subway map in reading 4.2, my neighborhood can be categorized as middle to upper-middle class, with a median income of $98,646. I’m not surprised by this news due to my neighborhood being widely known for its extravagant brownstone buildings, with a verity of expensive restaurants, bars, local coffee shops, parks, and above average schools. Recently my neighborhood made it to the top ten most expensive locations in Brooklyn. However, because there are quite a few families who have lived in my neighborhood for many generations, the income of those who live there may vary. This is due to the probability of them inheriting their homes from older or deceased family members. This is an accurate representation of my neighborhood because I’ve watched it develop and change for over 25 years. It has changed from a nice quiet area, with a lot of schools and parks, into a heavily populated area with quality restaurants, expensive boutiques, and superior nightlife. These new elements are bringing in more young wealthy people with families who would have previously preferred to live in the city due to its impressive accommodations. Additionally, my neighborhood is attracting several travelers from both inside and outside of the country.  

3. Based on Reading 4.2, do you notice a general pattern about social classes in NYC?

In relation to the graph in reading 4.2 I’ve noticed that in the Borough of Manhattan people tend to lean towards the upper-middle and upper-class systems. People in the Bronx tend to have the lowest income, and therefore, part of the lower- or working-class systems. Consistent with the graph, Brooklyn has both lower class, middle class, and upper-class people living within the borough. Queens falls somewhere in the middle with a mostly middle-class population. I additionally observed that those who classify as upper-class New York citizens live around Chambers Street and Park Place both averaging a $205,192 income. What has also come to my attention is that the U.S. Census Bureau left out neighborhoods located in Staten Island because they don’t use the New York City subway system to travel. Therefore, it is not a complete graph of New York City’s social class identification. This leaves me curious as to how the data would change if the income from Staten Island was also incorporated. 

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

Althusser explains that the repressive state apparatus is an ideological concept that is used as a form of power controlled by violence. The Repressive State Apparatus is represented through prisons, courts, the police, the army, and other organizations that manipulate citizens with threats of brutality and aggression. This is why Althusser called it the repressive state apparatus, because these groups are designed to repress the population. These institutions have authoritative power over the citizens of their state and use their power to force the people to fall in line. The repressive state apparatus does not exist just for the purpose of enforcing; however, it is used to teach the citizens the ideology of their respective states and countries and make sure they follow the rules or suffer dire consequences.  When a group of individuals or single individuals attempt to challenge the ideology of their state, the repressive state apparatus steps in to prevent their rebellion and these reactions are always violent. An example of this would be if you don’t follow the rules in school authorities step in and threaten you with detention, a trip to the principal’s office, a phone call to your parents, suspension, and even sometimes expulsion. Violence doesn’t always mean getting harmed physically but it can mean being stripped of your freedoms. 

2. Let’s do the same for the Ideological State Apparatuses. What are they, how do they seem to work? 

The Ideological State Apparatuses prevent change to present circumstances and are comprised of schools, politics, religious institutions, cultural groups, and the mass media. According to Althusser, the ideological state apparatus uses methods other than violence to accomplish the same things as the Repressive State Apparatus. Fear is not the key motivator in our lives. However, being considered normal, accepted, and being welcomed into a group are motivators that are just as powerful as violence. The ideological state apparatus does all the work so the police and the courts don’t have to intervene. The purpose of the ideological state apparatus is that you don’t need to think about the inequality that you may be experiencing. You forget about the injustices around you and don’t do anything to change or rebel against them. The only options you have are the illusion of choice between the status quo and the status quo. For example, this is like choosing between two political candidates who are seemingly different, but both have the same objective, to keep things as they are. According to Althusser, schools are the most essential ideological state apparatus. Initially it was the Church’s job to shape the minds of children, but today it’s the schools who teach children how to behave morally and ethically. They are taught how to behave, how to speak only when called on by their teacher, how to share, think, and act towards their peers, and not to go against the wishes of your authority figures.  There is no true freedom in an ideological state apparatus.  

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

There are many differences between the repressive state apparatus and the ideological state apparatuses. Although they both control citizens by using fear, the repressive state apparatuses, like the military or the police, compel its people into following the State’s ideology with the looming threat of violence. An ideological state apparatus like a church will generate fear amongst its members through the threats of being ostracized within the community. That fear of losing the sense of belonging is just as strong as the threat of violence.  Places such as schools, the church, family life, and work, are institutions whose main function is to program people into accepting the State’s ideology. Different from the repressive state apparatus, the ideological state apparatuses use ideology and also operate while using repression. Therefore, people become compliant not through violence, but by the avoidance of contempt from their peers as well as embarrassment.  

More differences between the two apparatuses include the fact that there is only one repressive state apparatus, violence. However, there are several ideological state apparatuses which extend throughout many aspects of culture. This is due to ideological apparatuses focusing more on the culture of their citizens, such as schools training their students how to think and churches telling their members what to believe in. To put it simply, the repressive state apparatus belongs to the people, or the state itself, whereas the ideological state apparatuses belong to private institutions such as schools, churches, and the family unit.  

4. Post an example of ideology. This could be a piece of writing, an image, video, pdf document, visual art, or music, clip from a movie. Next to your example, specify if this is an example of repressive or ideological apparatuses at work. I’ll start us of off by giving an example. 

I chose an image that depicts the liberal ideology of being pro-choice. The overturing of Roe V. Wade has not only profoundly affected me as a woman, but this decision has reversed a practice that has been essential for the health of women for nearly 50 years. This ruling by the Supreme Court has taken away the rights of women, reduced reproductive care, and dramatically impacted communities of color. The ideology of liberalism is centered around equality for all human beings. They strive to enhance public services, want a cleaner and healthier environment, defend the right to a higher minimum wage, the protection of laborers and their unions, social security, aiding the poor, the civil and human rights of an individual, and supports the government having a strong presence in the lives of citizens in order to protect people from harm.  

Liberals are not anti-military but believe that the country should not pour so much money into them. The defense budget should be cut so they could put the money towards programs they consider more important. Liberals are fundamentality anti-gun, support a women’s right to choose, are pro-immigration, and equality for all genders, races, and sexual orientations. Liberalism and other political affiliations are considered an ideological state apparatus because by definition they prevent you from changing the present circumstances. They maintain the status quo by presenting you with two options that make you feel like you have a voice in society. However, the two political choices both have the same agenda and will not implement the changes the voters are looking for. 

1. Keeping in mind the material covered in this lesson, describe how you understand ideology in YOUR OWN WORDS. 

An ideology is a collection of beliefs and opinions of an individual person or group of people which has an effect on how people view the world they live in. Ideology is used to define the common interests and goals of a particular political party, as well as philosophies regarding cultural groups or religious backgrounds. Most people support several ideologies. For example, someone who affiliates with a certain religion and identifies with a political party follows at least two ideologies.  

Political parties come with an assortment of ideals that range from government and economics to healthcare and constitutional rights. The two major parties of the United States are often said to have major ideological differences. Someone’s chosen political belief dictates how they feel about the role of government in society. For example, the political ideology of an anarchist would be a society without a class system, monarchy, or political group, but instead relies on the people to govern themselves. Ideologies of fascism would be the need for a powerful state to achieve social and economic success, with the help of an authoritarian or totalitarian leader. Fascists often believe in racial supremacy like the ruthless and fascist dictator Adolf Hitler.  

There is also an assortment of cultural and social ideologies that usually have an impact on their actions as well as the political party they side with. For instance, a social ideology that I would relate to personally is feminism. As an ideology, feminism promotes equality for all women in multiple fields such as economic equality, social equality, and political equality. It additionally focuses on the rights of women, including their reproductive rights. The contrasting ideology is referred to as a patriarchal ideology. This is where men are the predominant leaders within a society and hold all power. This power includes the development of laws and practices that must be followed by all citizens. All religions can be considered ideologies and consists of various beliefs. Some people who subscribe to a religion are devout and use the principles of their belief system to help them make important life choices, such as selecting what political party to align with.  

Frequently ideologies are spread by institutions like the church, the government, the media, the law, and sometimes even the school system. These are ideologies that exist in our everyday lives and are things we very rarely question because they are thought of as the norm. This discourages people from fighting back against these policies and in turn keeps society stable. Some examples of ideologies that occur in our day to day lives are beliefs about gender roles, stereotypes about people of a certain race and sexual orientation, and the notion of classism.  

2. How do you understand the difference between conservative and liberal ideology in US politics? What seems to be the big differences, the dividing line? Given an example to back up your arguments. 
 

The ideologies of liberals and conservatives are known to be fundamentally different. However, having two healthy political parties existing together is part of the necessary framework of the United States. Conservatives and liberals have similar goals when it comes to wealth, however, the two parties have opposite ways of achieving them. Conservatives and liberals bump heads on subjects such as the size of the government and how big a role it should play in the average citizen’s life. One party calls for big government that helps their people, while the other prefers that government take a much smaller position in their lives. Understandably, liberals vote for issues that conservatives will oppose, as well as the other way around. In general, it is easy to recognize what party someone affiliates with according to their social status, ethnicity, education, and household upbringing, however, locating them this way is not always accurate. Each group holds their own viewpoints and is a major part of contemporary political thoughts and beliefs in the United States.  

As mentioned before, conservatives believe that a sizable government is a danger to the citizens individual liberty. They wish to have the smallest government involvement possible in their daily lives. Although they agree that the government should aid in our national defense and believe that the spending should not be cut for the military. Nevertheless, ever since President Franklin Roosevelt proposed the New Deal the conservatives think that government has played far too big a role in the lives of the people, and they do everything they can to remedy this. According to conservatives, decisions should be made within each individual state. Organizations that provide disposable income should be controlled by the private sector, the part of the economy that is not under government control. By doing this the conservatives believe they will decrease the amount of money they country is spending. This reduction in spending, according to conservative ideals, will equate to lower taxes. The conservative party believes in the free market. A free market is a system in which all economic decisions and activities concerning money are voluntary and therefore it cannot be corrupted. Conservatives propose that this will provide benefits for many people as well as immense economic opportunity.  

Conservatives dislike flag burning and encourage incorporating faith into our education system because it provides people with their traditional ideological views. Due their religious background conservatives tend to be heavily against abortion, however there are occasions when they stray away from their party’s social believes. This is not the case when it comes to economic views.  

Liberals believe that equality is the most important virtue of their party and government is there to help them promote that virtue. Unlike conservative ideology, liberals rely heavily on the government to resolve any problems that may arise. They particularly appreciate the government getting involved in the form of higher taxes, and when they implement programs to assist marginalized groups such as people of color, women, and the underprivileged. Liberals are equally appreciative when the government helps the environment. This is because, contrasting to the ideological views of conservatives, liberals do not trust the free market and do not believe their decisions will be fair for all people. The liberals are aware that many of their proposals are extremely expensive, so they are in favor of high taxes on the rich as well as large money grabbing corporations. Liberals are not entirely anti-business, but they would rather see them regulated by the government, so the money is evenly distributed. Another major liberal ideology is that they believe that the country spends far too much money on the military. The money should be cut and given to programs that desperately need it. Additionally, liberals are primarily anti-gun and are sometimes labeled as New Deal Liberals because many policies they advocate for come out of President FDR’s New Deal.  

3. How do you understand Althusser’s definition of ideology? Paraphrase it in your own words. Given an example. 

French philosopher Louis Althusser states that people are starting to become obedient to authority figures like politicians, police officers, and even schoolteachers. By complying with these people in charge the population it makes our ideology stronger. People do not do what they want when they want to because they are fearful of the consequences. Althusser proceeds to proclaim that schools are the most powerful state apparatus because it is mandatory for students all over the world. Schools have now taken the place of churches during the medieval feudal system. In school you learn how to read, write, and complete a math problem, but you are similarly taught how to be disciplined by those who outrank you. You follow a precise schedule, take the same classes every day, but you are also taught to surrender to the demands of your teacher, never speak out of turn, keep a tidy desk, and only speak when called on by your teacher. We follow these rules because of the looming threat of violence or punishment. Teachers are part of the ideological system; however, Althusser does not believe they are at fault because they are simply following the rules of the people they answer to, making it never ending cycle of fear-based compliance. 

1. Why do you think Southern racist politicians chose to frame their defense of racial segregation through the language of “law and order”? What special advantages was this choice of words going to give them? 

During the late 1950s, racist southern politicians used carefully chosen rhetoric to defend their use of racial segregation. At the same time, after the case of Brown v. Board of Education, civil rights activists had a hands-on approach to force unwilling Southern states to desegregate their schools and other public spaces. However, according to Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow “southern governors and law enforcement officials often characterized these tactics as criminal and argued that the rise of the Civil Rights Movement was indicative of a breakdown of “law and order” (Alexander 40). This quote indicates that Southern governors and law enforcement believed that the tactics taken by the Civil Rights activists were against the law and must be stopped because their actions are putting their community in danger. If you are a supporter of this movement then you must also be supporting crime. 

This action was strategic because words coming from political leaders holds power. These politicians used fear mongering by calling the Civil Rights movement an issue of “law and order.” White Southerners believed their lives were at risk and thus reacted negatively to the supporters of the movement, as well as desegregation. Fear can serve as a motivator which is why it tends to be such a successful strategy. People who use this tool often make bold declarations to stir up feelings of concern, making it hard for others to see the situation from another perspective. Fearmongers, especially those in politics, use this method to claim that a person or event goes against everything they stand for. For example, Alexander states that “for more than a decade—from the mid-1950s until the late 1960s— conservatives systematically linked opposition to civil rights legislation to calls for law and order, arguing that Martin Luther King Jr.’s philosophy of civil disobedience was a leading cause of crime.” This quote proves that politicians used the rhetoric of “law and order” to blame Martin Luther King Jr. for criminal acts while in tandem, making white Southerners fearful of those crimes. Therefore, this justifies keeping segregation because the black community is committing criminal acts. Alexander added that segregationists felt that “integration causes crime, citing lower crime rates in Southern states as evidence that segregation is necessary.” This choice of words gives the Southern politicians and segregationist the advantage of holding on to segregation with the explanation of the lower crime rates in southern areas that don’t integrate their schools, and other public places.  

Segregationists and politicians used this divisive rhetoric to their advantage, especially since the civil rights movement was depicted as a threat to “law and order” in the media. Alexander confirms that “the FBI was reporting fairly dramatic increases in the national crime rate” (Alexander 41). Even though there was extraordinarily little evidence of the accuracy of these statements, it was publicly depicted as a dangerous movement in the media, and people began to believe it as fact. Instead of allowing people to produce their own personal consensus, politicians and segregationists used fear tactics to sway impressionable and racist people into believing that the Civil Rights Movement was the reason for the rise in crime. Unfortunately exploiting the fears of others is common amongst both politicians and the media to spread lies and embellishments to generate panic. Just like Alexander’s mention of presidential candidate Barry Goldwater whose presidential campaign “aggressively exploited the riots and fears of black crime, laying the foundation for the “get tough on crime” movement that would emerge years later” (Alexander 41).  

2. Do you think the Southern Strategy is still influencing American politics? Give an example supporting your answer. 

It is said that the Southern Strategy was the beginning of the racial and political divide the United States faces today. Originally, presidents like Richard Nixon used this method by appealing to Southern segregationists by using the rhetoric of “law and order” to criminalize black people and win the White House in the late 60s.  Alexander references to Nixon’s advisor stating that “he [President Nixon] emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks” (Alexander 42). She also mentions 

well-known segregationist George Wallace, quoting him saying “the same Supreme Court that ordered integration and encouraged civil rights legislation” was now “bending over backwards to help criminals” (Alexander 42).  

Similar sentiments may be remembered by the current generation when former president Donald Trump ran for office. During his presidential run in 2016, Trump used coded language and racial paranoia with his speech about a possible Muslim ban, the mass deportation of immigrants, his vulgar and unsettling descriptions of Mexicans, and building a wall for which the country of Mexico will pay for. His message had appealed to people who saw the transformation of the United States and became increasingly anxious about the changes taking place, especially when it came to the present visibility of both people of color and women. His slogan “Make America Great-Again” takes the country back to a time where minorities were frequently put in their place and white men experienced privilege and were predominantly in charge.  

There are numerous examples about how Trump has used a modern-day version of the Southern Strategy. He warned the country that if Joe Biden became president the suburbs would be overflown with low-income housing, which is generally the rhetoric politicians use for people of color. He warned the country about a caravan of dangerous immigrants making their way to the United States border, using fear mongering to scare his supporters into becoming more fearful of people with a Hispanic background. Furthermore, when a group of neo-Nazis marched down the streets of Charlottesville, with one driving over and killing a protester of the marchers, he is reported saying there were “very fine people on both sides.”  What I gather from his statement is that he wanted to publicly admit his support for the neo-Nazi’s without saying it forthright. Additionally, he has used the term “China Virus” to describe the 2019 coronavirus pandemic that has supposedly originated in Wuhan China. This rhetoric has caused a slew of xenophobic attacks on people of the Asian community. He has also condemned those who support the Black Lives Matter movement calling them a “symbol of hate,” as well as “thugs and criminals.” It is also reported that he ordered law enforcement and the military to rough up protesters after the killing of George Floyd and has frequently referred to himself as the “law and order president.”  These actions and so much more, serve as evidence that the Southern Strategy is alive and well and didn’t die out when Richard Nixon resigned from office. 

Michelle Alexander raises a number of important and interesting points. Let’s start a discussion centered on the following questions: 
 
1. M. Alexander claims that the main explanation of why so many people are sent to jail in the U.S. today is deeply wrong. Explain her argument by referring to the various examples she mentions to back up her point. (See p. 1-2) 

The most known explanation for mass incarceration in the United States is due to the country reacting to the uncontrollable crack-cocaine crisis that had swept through inner city neighborhoods in the 1980’s and 1990’s. However, Michelle Alexander argues that this is false information. According to her book “The New Jim Crow,” Alexander states that “while it is true that the publicity surrounding crack cocaine led to the dramatic increase in funding for the drug war (as well as to sentencing policies that greatly exacerbated racial disparities in incarceration rates) there is no truth to the notion that the War on Drugs was launched in response to crack cocaine” (Alexander 5). She explains that even though the media and the government had revealed crack cocaine to be a widespread epidemic in the black community, it simply wasn’t the case. In fact, in 1982, President Ronald Reagan proclaimed that crack cocaine had been a problem in both the media and in poor black communities’ years before it emerged in the United States. 

According to Alexander, almost immediately after the War on Drugs was declared by President Reagan, “the media was saturated with images of black “crack whores,” “crack dealers,” and “crack babies” images that seemed to confirm the worst negative racial stereotypes about impoverished inner-city residents” (Alexander 5). What I understand from Alexander’s quote is that due to the public exposure of the so-called “crack related issues” in black America, people of color were more likely to face discrimination within the judicial system. Therefore, they would subsequently face arrests and incarceration, as well as experience harsh sentences and a record that follows them for the duration of their life. These stereotypes perpetuated by the government and the media are the main reasons why there is a mass incarceration problem in America. I believe that the government used America’s racist past to their advantage when announcing this War on Drugs. Government officials and their constituents saw the images on their screens depicted by the media and immediately placed blame on the black community for a crisis that hadn’t even emerged yet.  

The true reason behind the War on Drugs and mass incarceration, according to Alexander, is that it’s the “genocidal plan by the government to destroy the black community in the United States” (Alexander 5). Some people concluded that the CIA physically planted crack or other drugs in poor black neighborhoods to ruin and harm the lives of poor black people. People initially thought these theories were far-fetched. That was until the civil rights group called “the Urban League” started to believe the allegations of black genocide. Alexander quotes a statement from a 1990 report saying “There is at least one concept that must be recognized if one is to see the pervasive and insidious nature of the drug problem for the African American community. Though difficult to accept, that is the concept of genocide” (Alexander 6). This explanation clarifies to the reader that the primary issue facing poor black people is the government deliberately attempting to do them harm. Eventually the CIA admitted to allowing drugs in from Nicaragua that made its way to inner-city black neighborhoods.  

The growth of the prison population is due to this War on Drugs that was previously declared by President Nixon in the 1970s. It has gradually grown under every president ever since. This “war” specifically targets nonviolent drug offenders of color and has led to the United States being number one in incarcerations in the entire world. This then makes clear as to why America has a crime rate that’s lower than most countries across the globe but has an incarceration rate that surpasses everyone else. It’s not the crime that makes us stand out, but how we choose to respond to people who are categorized as criminals.  

 
 
2. Why is it that racial disparities in the rates of incarceration “cannot be explained by rates of drug crimes”?  

Statistically, incarceration rates for black Americans in the United States cannot be justified with the rise in drug related crimes. This is because “studies show that people of all colors use and sell illegal drugs at remarkably similar rates” (Alexander 6). According to Alexander’s book, young white people are more likely to take part in illegal drug crime than people of color. However, nobody would guess this while observing the United States prison system. Alexander describes it as “overflowing with black and brown drug offenders” (Alexander 6). In some places in America as many as 80% of young black men with drug charges must live with these offenses on their record for the rest of their lives, and in turn are ostracized from society.  

Drug crimes were declining, not rising, when the Drug War was declared. I would imagine, because of that piece of evidence, people would have questions as to why Reagan would declare a War on Drugs when drug crime was dwindling. I think it has a lot less to do with keeping drug abuse and addiction at bay and more about racial politics. President Reagan had sought out to get tough on people who in the media were labeled as criminals, the black and brown community. He made several campaigns promises to do so, and therefore enacted the War on Drugs. Alexander discloses that “the Reagan administration hired staff to publicize the emergence of crack cocaine in 1985 as part of a strategic effort to build public and legislative support for the war” (Alexander 6). This announcement not only helped fund law enforcement but turned this government policy into an actual war on people of color.  

 
3. How do you understand the phrase: “the American penal system has emerged as a system of social control unparalleled in world history.”?  

What I presume Michelle Alexander means by this statement is that mass incarceration is a system that is meant to have power over you and follow you for the rest of your life. It is a procedure in which people are shoved into prisons, identified as criminals and drug offenders, and you remain there for an extended period of time, more than most countries allow their prisoners to remain in jail. Later they are released, permanently thought of as inferior and deprived of their rights as citizens such as the right to vote, the right to not be legally discriminated against in your place of work, the right to housing, and the right to have access to all public benefits. It’s a system that is created to have control over others and dominates everything they do in their daily lives, even after serving time for their crimes.  

Although many people seek work years after a conviction they still suffer while searching for employment. People must continuously check the box in an application that indicates if they have been convicted of a felony. I know from my years in property management that it is also permissible to discriminate against those searching for a home who have drug charges against them. If someone falls into that category, they may be denied access to public housing due to management companies frequently asking for references. It is also lawful for private landlords to refuse people due to their criminal record. Facing these difficulties may render someone homeless.  

According to Alexander “one in three young African American men will serve time in prison if current trends continue, and in some cities more than half of all young adult black men are currently under correctional control—in prison or jail, on probation or parole” (Alexander 8). This is an unfortunate statistic, especially since, from the information I’ve gathered, it looks as though the prison system is designed to send people directly back to jail. This is because it is extremely difficult to make a life outside of prison once released, caused by the many obstacles you face while being a former inmate. Add the additional ossicle of being a person of color who has experienced prison time and it’s almost impossible to survive.