1. The distinction between owner and employees is by the range of income within both classes. The owners live off investments, stocks, bonds, rents, mineral royalties, and other property income. They don’t really do the work. On the other hand, employees live off wages, salaries and fees. Employees do the hard work of labor but are repaid less than the surplus value they make for the owners, which the owners take more.  

2. I think he means that labor is the true source of income to be successful. While money is the pretextual reward to be successful. Labor is the most important resource to depend on to generate wealth and sustainability as long as it exists. There will be supply and demand. The true worth of value relies on labor not the money generated in the end. 

3. I think that class is not an identity as it might seem as with gender and race. On the economic side it might tend to resonate with the inequality of one gender to another and certain races. In that case class may have something to contribute to this issue. Another point is that to target class as an identity has to do with targeting corporate owners who benefit from the struggle of the working class. As they in charge depend on the most valuable source being the people’s labor for their income. 

4. I interpret it as employees and owners both need each other to make a living. This close form of dependency is one sided if there isn’t any backlash from being taken advantage of. As reading 4.4 states the reality, “Workers urgently need employment, while capitalists see a long line of workers applying for any given job”. This is where worker strikes come into act to keep the owners in check with the demands of the workers. This is a somewhat balanced system between both class structures as they need each other to keep the economy going.