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.
   
   Means of production are all the necessary items and ‘infrastructures’ in the production of a commodity. Labor is the amount of time that a person put in the making of the product. For example, if you buy a taco from a local food truck, the means of production might be the truck itself, the as used for stove to operate, the pans, the cooking instruments, the water and soap used to clean the dishes, the plastic plate/utensils, the napkins, the ingredients (of course) and so on. The labor on the other hand would be the time and effort that the cook has put into the making of the dish; chopping and dicing, frying, assembling, etc.
   
2. Another important concept in understanding social class is value. Based on the ideas presented in Video 5.1, what is value?  What give “value” to value, what makes something valuable? 
   
   Value is measured by how much labor it takes to produce a product under normal circumstances. The value is given to a product by the labor and time the was put into its making. What makes something valuable is the fact that the labor that was put into it has changed it into something else, worth more than it was before.
   
3. How are labor and value related? What’s the relationship/connection between the two?
   
   Labor is the time and effort that a person put into the making of a commodity/product. The value of a product increases as more labor is out into it. This indicates that there is a positive correlation between the two terms (meaning that as one increases the other increases as well).
   
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 the actual putting of time and effort into the making of something (product/commodity). Labor power is the potential of that labor to be put to work, the ability to labor. According to Marx it is the most important commodity in the world. It is the only commodity that increases the value of what you have when applied. It is found only in people. When going o work, you ‘lend out’ your labor power for the day. It needs to be sustained (by food, shelter, clothing, etc.).
   
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?
   
   Surplus value is the value that is being generated after the capitalist has already got back from you the labor that was put into you in order to sustain you labor power. Let’s assume that in order to sustain your labor power, 3 hours of labor are needed. You then labor for 3 hours, generating value. At the end of these 3 hours, the labor that was ‘invested’ in you and the labor that you produced are ‘even’ and you paid off the labor that was put into you. From that point onward, until your work-day is over, any additional labor that you produce would be the surplus value that goes directly to the capitalist and increase their gains. Of course you are getting paid for the labor, but the gains of the capitalist are higher than what he pays you, thus making profit. The surplus value of the product is the source of gains for the capitalist.
   

1. 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)

To better understand what M-C-M’ means, let’s take a look at the preceding diagram of C-M-C which stands for Commodity – Money – Commodity.

C-M-C was the main way of trade before the introduction of capitalism. In these settings, people would sell their own-made commodity, made with their own labor and their own means of production like cattle and land. For these commodities they received money, which in turn they would give away in order to get some other commodity which they wanted and someone else had produced with their own labor. For most of history, this is what trade looked like, and it can also be called Small-scale commodity production. Basically, the production of a commodity for the sake of obtaining another commodity of equal value.

With the rise of Capitalism, a new vision was born – buying in order to sell. Those who already had a fair amount of money ‘bought‘ other people’s time and labor and had them producing commodities for them. Those who worked for them basically ‘sold’ their labor power to the owners of the factory/workshop. The commodities that the owners now had, were produced for the owners for a friction of the price that they paid for the labor. They then could sell it for a higher price than what was paid for the workers, thus making profit. The workers added value to the products they made, and the owners sold the product, profiting from the surplus value which they created.

The gains which were made through the ‘buying’ of others’ labor power and selling of the finished products after the added value, is what brings us back to the diagram of M-C-M’.

The money that was used to buy others’ time and labor was used to create commodity and then the commodity was sold in order to gain more money. So at the end, the final purpose of the process is to gain more money then there was in the first place.

Another way to distinguish between the two diagrams of C-M-C and M-C-M’ is the ‘final product’ or actually the final purpose of the whole process. At the end, C-M-C’s purpose is to obtain a commodity of equal value as the one that was sold in the first step, making no gain in the process. On the other hand, the purpose of the M-C-M’’s is to have more money at the end than there was at the first step or the beginning. 

Capitalists maintain and increase their wealth by always keeping a surplus value at the final product. It means that as long as they keep buying people’s labor for less than what they sell their final commodity at, they will always increase their wealth and they will maintain it.

1. Which statistic on wealth inequality in the US (discussed on p. 29) made the biggest impression on you? Explain why?
   
   “The top 1 percent own between 40 and 50 percent of the nation’s total wealth (stocks, bonds, investment funds, land, natural resources, business assets, and so on), more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent.”
   
   This is the statistic thar made the most impression on me because of the unbelievably large gap between those who have and those who do not have, and the comfort gap for these two groups of people. It is really hard to fathom the amount of wealth and money that the top 1% of this nation have. 
   
2. What could be some of the implications of living in a society that has such huge wealth inequalities? Do you see this dynamic getting played out in everyday life in our society? How so? Example?

It is heartbreaking to see people trying their hardest just to survive and get by, living from paycheck to paycheck while others don’t have to worry about a thing and would never have to work another day in their life; their grandchildren might as well not need to work a day in their life. It is sad to know that many people are having to deal with health issues just because they cannot afford seeing a doctor or buying a medicine, while others take medical care for granted. It is sad to know that some people never left their county/state because it is too expensive for them, while others can hop on their private jet and fly just about anywhere they want, whenever they want to.

It is also not so hard to imagine the influence and power that these amounts of money can get you. Politics have always been influenced by the wealthy, and many wealthy people trying to shape policies and have it their way so that they can benefit from them, making the wealthy wealthier and the poor poorer. Money and politics were always seen entangled with each other ever since the greatest civilizations arose. 

(I was able to get to reading 4.2 by using this URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20230516092143/https://projects.newyorker.com/story/subway/)

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?

After reviewing both readings 4.1 and 4.2 I can only see one similarity in both 4.1 & 4.2, which is that people that live in the ‘suburbs’ are more likely to see themselves as middle-class or working-class. This is clearly shown in 4.1 “People living in rural areas are less likely to identify in a higher social class compared with those living in urban and suburban areas“. The graphs in reading 4.2 strongly suggest the same, and are based on data collected by census. The data shows the NYC subway map as a guide to social classes. Each station on the subway map corresponds with an average income level of the people living around that stop. Unlike 4.1, this data is based not on how people see themselves, but rather on ‘cold’ data and statistics.
For example, in reading 4.2, at Jamaica Center – Parsons-Archer station of the Z line, we can see that the median income of the average household is $37,184 which puts the average household at the lower-middle class or the working class. On the other hand we have the Canal St. station or Chambers St. station, which are both located in the heart of Manhattan. We can see that the median income of the average household is $135,573 which puts the average household at the upper-middle class. So as we can see there is a correlation between the two readings on the point that not only do people would more likely see themselves as lower-middle class if they live in the suburbs, they are in fact more likely to be lower-middle class if they live in the suburbs.

Of course the most obvious difference between the two reading is the fact that 4.1 is really about the subjective perception of how people classify themselves and 4.1 is far more fact-based.
Another major difference is that in 4.2 the social classes are based solely on the annual income, but in 4.1 there are multiple different factors that help people classify themselves into social classes (income, age, sex, political affiliation, region of living, etc).

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?

I live on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, and the closest Station to me is the 86th St, station of the 4,5,6 train.
As seen in the map in reading 4.2, the median household income is $104,514 , which would put many nearby household at the upper-middle class. I am not surprised at all by the answer. It is well known that this part of the city is considered strong in terms of socioeconomic classes. There are many luxury buildings in the neighborhood and there are many top-end stored on its avenues. When walking the streets you can sense that this is a wealthy neighborhood, and I am sure that many would agree and see the same. Thus, I do feel it is an accurate representation of the people living in your neighborhood.

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

Based on Reading 4.2, it seems clear that the further away you go from the center of Manhattan into other boroughs, the level of social classes are more likely to go down. It is much more evident in the last/first stops of most subway lines which start/end in the boroughs of Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx.
The stronger population of NYC (in terms of annual income and social class) is more likely to live in Manhattan than other boroughs.

1. What is the distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees? Give an example of each.
   
   The distinction that reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees is that owners are the ones who have many assets (stocks, bonds, shares, real-estate facilities, production factories, etc.) and who make their money by letting others work for them, meaning that the owners are the ones who has control over big firms and company which employee many other employees under them. The employees are the ones who are ‘selling’ their labor in return to a wage or salary (most of the time for just a fraction of the profit that the owners make). The employees, unlike the owners, do not get their income from their assets or holdings, and the money they make come from the labor that they ‘sell’ to the owner.
   
2. How do you understand the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28? What is it saying about labor?
   
   Adam Smit’s quote: “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”.
   
   In my understanding, what Smith is trying to say that the physical hard labor of the employees is the real price for a products and it holds the real value of any commodity. The employees put their heart and soul into the making of each product, and put their time into each product. The amount of time that each link in this vast chain of hands (virtual or physical) put into each product – this is the real value of each commodity, rather than the nominal value. I think what he is trying to say that is that money is one thing, but time (which a person can never get back) that was put into the making of a product is the real price; suffering (physical pain sometimes) in the making of a product is the real price.
   So when we want to understand the real value of a product we should look at the labor that was put into the making of it rather than the price-tag that was put on it. For example, a loaf of bread is priced at around $5-$7 for a loaf, but what about all the hard work and labor that was out into it? What about the time that the farmer spent in the wheat field? The time that was put into making the irrigation systems that water the field? What about the labor that was put to making the wheat into flour? What about the truck driver that brought it from the bakery to the store? And there are many more steps along the way; this is the real labor and real cost of the bread, not just the $5-$7 price-tag.
3. What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is NOT an identity?
   
   I think that class is not an identity. A social class is something that a person get born into, but it is rather a ‘fluid’ definition. Most of the time, an identity is something that you are born with, and cannot change it easily; maybe you have a very strong feelings about a certain topic, which makes it a part of how you define yourself, an idea that you identify with. These are much more harder to change than your class. I have heard many stories about how people started at a very low social class, and by luck or by skill, managed to ‘climb’ up the ladder of social classes. There are also the opposite cases, where people started at a very high social class and then made some bad decision which brought them to the lower social classes.
   Whatever the case is, their identity did not change; They still had their name, religion, world view, skin color, etc. The way they defined themselves did not change along with their social class. This is why I believe that social class is not an identity.
   
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 my understanding, reading 4.4 argue that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency” because the workers (or employees) are much dependent on the income that the owners are providing them. They cannot get by without it, no matter how small it is. On the other hand, the owners cannot make their profit without the employees who work for them and ‘selling’ their labor in the making of the products which the owners in turn sell for a profit.
   The employees are ready to suffer and endure the exploitation by the owners because the owners give them the means to survive and thrive, while the owners are ready to pay whatever it takes (in the bounders of their profitable margins) in order to not lose their employees and their profitability with them.
   This is a very close dependency because one side cannot exist (not for the long-term at least) without the other. The owners cannot make their gains and profits without the employees, and the employees cannot make their income and salary without the owners.
   
   One example I can think about is in the air-traveling industry. The air attendants are the employees/workers who sell their labor for the wages/salary from the owners. The owners of the airlines need the air attendants in order to have someone taking care of costumers, their source of income. The owners will do everything in their power in order to pay the air attendants the minimum that they are ready to get paid – that’s in order to have the most profitability off of their labor. The air attendants can form a union and demand better terms and conditions for them because they know that without them, the owner cannot operate the flights and they will lose their gains/profits, although they will do it carefully because they know that they need the job in order to sustain an income.

1. In my view, ideology is a set of a person’s ideas which builds their view on how the society should address certain issues. These ideas are all based on and derived from core values that the person holds and believe in. Ideology do not have much power when it’s believed by individuals, but have an indefinite power when held by a group of people, in the sense that it can lead that group to make laws and do actions based on their shared ideas and believes.
   A good example would be the conservative ideology which put the individual’s needs and benefits above the greater good’s needs and benefits. This ideology is based on values of freedom and liberty. For example, if a person believe that each individual is responsible for their own success without any ‘outside intervention’ of the government, they will vote for a party which offers the least intervention by the government. That party in turn, once in power, would take the necessary measures to ensure the least regulatory intervention by the government in the individual’s everyday life.
   I also see ideology as the driving power of politics. People would act and react to the government’s action based on the ideology they believe in, the set of ideas that they want to see fulfilled and realized. They will also act to convince other people that the ideas that the ideology promotes are ‘correct’ or worth to fulfill and live by. No person would go to vote, to demonstrate or debate without believing in an ideology.
   
2. Conservatives and liberals in U.S. politics have different views on government, freedom, social values, economy, etc. Conservatives believe in limited government, focusing on free markets and personal responsibility. They value traditional social norms and prioritize economic freedoms like lower taxes. In contrast, liberals think government should actively address inequality, regulate businesses, and provide social services. They support personal freedoms related to lifestyle choices and champion progressive social values.
   A key difference is how much power the government should have. For example, conservatives often oppose government-run healthcare, believing competition is better, while liberals support it to ensure everyone has access to it. Similarly, conservatives may prioritize tax cuts for businesses, while liberals push for raising the minimum wage. In short, conservatives want less government intervention, while liberals see government as a tool to create a fairer society.
   
3. Althusser sees ideology as a system of ideas and beliefs that shapes how people understand themselves and society. It works through institutions like schools, media, and religion to reinforce social norms and keep the current power structure in place. Ideology isn’t just what people think, it also shows up in everyday actions. For example, in school, students learn more than just subjects like math and science; They also learn to follow rules, respect authority, and act in socially acceptable ways. They are being taught since young age that there is punish and reward to their actions depending on if it fits the general acceptable norms or not. This teaches them how to fit into society without questioning how things work. Althusser believes this is how ideology helps maintain the social system. He sees ideology as a ‘tool’ for the high-class to keep and preserve the lower-class in place and keep them obeying the rules and without the urge to rebel or question their place.

1. The Repressive State Apparatus consists of institutions like the police, military, and courts that maintain social order through force or the threat of force. Althusser calls it “repressive” because these institutions enforce compliance directly, often through violence or coercion if necessary. Their role is to protect the ruling class by controlling behavior and suppressing the urge to rebel. For instance, when police break up protests or arrest activists, this is an example of the Repressive State Apparatus maintaining social stability by using physical power. Repressive State Apparatuses serve as visible and direct forms of control compared to more subtle ways that influence social behavior and thought.
   
2. Ideological State Apparatuses are institutions like schools, media, religion, and cultural organizations that influence people’s thoughts and beliefs. Unlike Repressive State Apparatuses, they don’t rely on force but instead work through persuasion and social conditioning. Althusser argues that Ideological State Apparatuses shape people’s understanding of themselves and the world to fit societal norms and maintain the status-quo. For example, schools teach students obedience, discipline, and respect for authority while presenting these behaviors as natural and necessary. By instilling specific ideologies, Ideological State Apparatuses ensure that people accept the social order without questioning it, which makes their role less visible but equally powerful.
   
3. The primary difference between Repressive State Apparatuses and Ideological State Apparatuses is their method of control. Repressive State Apparatuses maintain order through direct, physical force or threats, while Ideological State Apparatuses influence people’s beliefs and behaviors indirectly. Repressive State Apparatuses are more visible, using coercive means such as policing and legal systems to ensure compliance. In contrast, Ideological State Apparatuses work subtly, shaping how people think and act through institutions like schools, media, and churches. Althusser believes both serve the interests of the ruling class but operate differently to maintain societal stability. Repressive State Apparatuses handle resistance, while Ideological State Apparatuses instill ideologies that make resistance less likely in the first place.
   
4. Example – ideology
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETxmCCsMoD0
   
   I chose to bring ABBA’s song ‘Money, Money, Money” as an example of ideology. This is of course Ideological State Apparatus and not a Repressive State Apparatus because it doesn’t use force or threatens it.
   The song is talking about a person’s dream and desire to be rich, but something is keeping them from achieving this goal:
   
   “I work all night, I work all day, to pay the bills I have to pay
   Ain’t it sad?
   And still, there never seems to be a single penny left for me
   That’s too bad”
   
   Whether it is because of taxes or low wages, the writer is complaining that although they work very hard to promote themselves in life and fulfill their dreams, the money they earned doesn’t stay with them for long. In both cases, it is criticizing the capitalistic approach to pay low wages for one’s work. Also, in capitalism, the rich portion of society are paying little to no taxes on their assets while the poorer portion pay more taxes in relation to their income.
   This is in my opinion a call for some sort of action to change the way society is treating those who work hard for their paycheck.