1. P. Williams writes in her essay, that the war on terror is a new type of a war. What’s new about it, how is it different from traditional wars?
   
   P. Williams argues that the war on terror is different from traditional wars in a few ways. Unlike conventional wars, where you’re fighting a specific country or army with a clear beginning and end, the war on terror is against non-state actors, individuals and groups that don’t belong to a particular country. This means the war isn’t fought in the typical sense, with defined battlefields or enemy lines. Instead, it’s a global, ongoing conflict that doesn’t have a clear endpoint. The problem with this, Williams points out, is that it can blur the lines between wartime and peacetime, giving the government more power to act in ways that might infringe on individual rights. For example, actions like surveillance or detention may be justified in the name of national security even if we’re not officially at war, which could lead to abuses of power.
   
2. In what ways does the “Roving Wiretaps” of the Patriot Act seem to violate the Bill of Rights? Which amendment(s) does it seem to violate and why?
   
   The Roving Wiretaps provision of the Patriot Act allows law enforcement to tap a suspect’s communications even if they switch devices or phones without needing a separate warrant each time. This violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment also requires that warrants be specific, meaning they need to list exactly what’s being searched and where. With roving wiretaps, there’s no need for that level of detail, which could lead to overreach. The government could potentially listen in on people who aren’t even suspects or gather information beyond what’s necessary, thus invading privacy rights. While it’s meant to help in national security, it opens the door to possible misuse and violates what the Fourth Amendment is meant to ensure.
   
3. What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?
   
   “Sneak and peek” warrants allow the government to enter a home or property and conduct a search without notifying the person being investigated until later. The concern here is that these kinds of searches violate the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the right to be informed about searches and seizures. Normally, if the government wants to search your home, they need to tell you and provide a reason. But with “sneak and peek” warrants, you’re not aware that a search has even taken place. The idea behind them is that they help prevent suspects from fleeing or destroying evidence. But critics argue that it’s a slippery slope; if these warrants become too common, they could be abused, leading to unwarranted government invasions of privacy. It also kind of undermines the principle of due process, because you’re not being notified of the search in a timely manner.

1. Describe how you understand the “Establishment Clause” and the related “Lemon Test”.
   
   The Establishment Clause is part of the First Amendment, and to me, it basically means the government can’t create or support a religion. It’s about keeping a clear line between religion and the state so that everyone, regardless of their beliefs, is treated fairly. To help courts figure out if a law crosses that line, they use something called the Lemon Test (from Lemon v. Kurtzman). It has three parts: the law has to have a non-religious purpose, it can’t promote or hurt religion, and it shouldn’t create too much interaction between the government and religious groups. If a law fails any of those, it’s likely unconstitutional. It’s basically a filter to prevent religious favoritism by the government.
   
2. Is burning the US flag protected by the First Amendment? Explain by referring to the relevant court case discussed in the reading.
   
   Yes, it is, although it’s definitely controversial. The Supreme Court made that clear in Texas v. Johnson (1989). In that case, a guy named Gregory Johnson burned an American flag during a protest and got arrested under a Texas law. But the Court said his actions were protected under the First Amendment because they were a form of symbolic speech as he was expressing a political opinion, even if it offended people. The takeaway is that free speech doesn’t only protect speech people agree with, it also protects the kind that makes people uncomfortable or angry. So yeah, flag burning, as a political statement, is legally protected.
   
3. What does it mean when someone says “I’m taking the Fifth”?
   
   When someone says “I’m taking the Fifth,” they’re using their Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. It means they don’t have to answer a question if doing so could get them in legal trouble. You hear it a lot in legal dramas or during congressional hearings, but it’s a real legal protection. It’s meant to prevent people from being forced to testify against themselves in criminal cases. So if someone says that, they’re basically saying, “I’m not going to answer that because it might be used against me.”

1. Differences in the Role of Citizens in Government Systems: 
In a federal system, power is divided between national and state governments, with citizens having roles at both levels. They elect representatives for both state and federal offices, influencing policies at multiple levels.  
In a confederation, the central government has limited power, with most authority resting in individual states. Citizens primarily engage with their state governments, which have more control over laws and policies.  
In a unitary system, power is centralized in the national government, and local governments operate under its authority. Citizens primarily influence government through national elections, as local governments have limited autonomy.  

2. Understanding the Division of Power: 
The division of power refers to how responsibilities and authority are distributed between different levels of government—federal, state, and local. In a federal system like the U.S., the Constitution outlines which powers belong to the national government (for example defense, foreign policy), state governments (education, public safety, etc.), and shared responsibilities (taxation, law enforcement, etc.). This structure helps balance power and prevent government overreach. 

3. Federal Influence on NY During COVID-19:
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government influenced New York’s state and local policies through funding, mandates, and public health guidance. The federal government provided financial relief through the CARES Act and the American Rescue Plan, helping businesses, schools, and healthcare systems. Federal agencies like the CDC and FDA set health guidelines on mask mandates, vaccinations, and social distancing, which NY adapted into state policies. Additionally, vaccine distribution was largely managed at the federal level, with New York implementing local strategies for administration. However, there were also tensions, such as debates over school closures and business restrictions, showcasing the complexity of federal-state interactions in crisis management.

1. What concept that we have already discussed does “faction” remind you of?
   
   The concept of “faction” reminds me of social class divisions and conflicts. In particular, it relates to the idea of competing interests between the wealthy elite and the lower classes. Factions, as described by Madison, are groups of people united by a common interest that may be opposed to the interests of others. This is similar to how we discussed class struggle—where different groups in society (like rich and poor, landowners and laborers) have competing goals.
   
2. According to Federalist #10 (written by James Madison), what is the source of wealth (private property)? What factor explains why some people get to possess wealth by owning private property, and others don’t (thus remaining poor)? This is a key question, because it shows how the authors of the Constitution thought about the difference between different classes of Americans! HINT: focus on the passage that begins: “The diversity in the faculties (WHAT DOES FACULTIES mean or refer to?) of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not les….”
   
   According to Federalist #10, the source of wealth (private property) comes from the “diversity in the faculties of men”—which means that people have different talents, abilities, and skills. Madison argues that because people are born with different faculties (meaning their natural abilities, intelligence, work ethic, and opportunities differ), some will accumulate wealth while others will not. He suggests that this is a natural and inevitable outcome, implying that social class divisions are a result of inherent differences among individuals rather than systemic inequalities.
   
3. Do you agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty?
   
   I would argue that this explanation is problematic because it ignores how historical and structural factors contribute to wealth inequality. While individual talent and effort do play a role, systemic barriers—such as access to education, discrimination, inheritance, and economic policies—have a much greater impact on determining who becomes wealthy and who remains poor. Madison’s view assumes a meritocratic society where everyone has a fair chance, but in reality, power and wealth are often concentrated among those who already have advantages.
   
4. What is the core mission (“first object”) of the US government? Does this surprise you, does it sound different from what our society today seems to suggest the core mission of the government is? Explain.
   
   The core mission (“first object”) of the U.S. government, according to Madison, is the protection of private property. This is surprising because today, many people think of government’s role as ensuring rights, freedoms, and general welfare, rather than primarily protecting the economic interests of property owners. This focus on property protection shows that the Founders were more concerned with safeguarding the interests of the wealthy elite than with promoting economic equality or social justice.
   
5. Given the discussion in questions 1-4, are you surprised that Federalist #10 is not in favor of democracy, and supports a Republican (representative) form of government? Why would d the author dislike a (pure) democratic form of government? Hint: think about how this question connects with the social classes…
   
   No, I am not surprised that Federalist #10 does not support pure democracy and instead favors a Republican (representative) government. Madison feared that in a direct democracy, the majority (poor and working-class people) might unite against the wealthy elite and pass laws that would threaten their property and power. A representative government, on the other hand, ensures that the ruling class remains in control by filtering decisions through elected officials—who, at the time, were primarily wealthy landowners themselves. This reflects the broader theme that the Constitution was designed to limit the influence of the lower classes while protecting the interests of the elite.

1. Based on the arguments presented in Readings 6.1 and 6.2, which social class wrote the Constitution, and which class was excluded and not allowed to participate in this process? In your comment, make sure you clearly specify the difference between the two classes by giving examples from the readings.
   
   The U.S. Constitution was written by the elite landowning class, primarily wealthy white men who were property owners, merchants, bankers, and slaveholders. These individuals, often referred to as the Founding Fathers, had significant economic and political power. They were influenced by Enlightenment ideas but were also concerned with maintaining their privileged status. Some notable figures from this class include James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington—all of whom were well-educated and came from prosperous backgrounds. In contrast, the working-class, poor farmers, enslaved people, women, and Indigenous peoples were completely excluded from the process. These groups had little to no political voice and were not allowed to participate in shaping the new government. For example, Shays’ Rebellion (1786-1787)—an armed uprising by debt-ridden farmers in Massachusetts—highlighted the growing tensions between the wealthy elite and the struggling lower classes. The rebellion was a direct response to heavy taxation and economic hardships, and it terrified the ruling class, reinforcing their fear of too much democratic influence from the lower classes.
   
2. Would say that the social class structure of early United States society, was the same as ours today, or different? Explain.
   
   The social class structure of early U.S. society was similar to today in the sense that economic inequality played a major role in determining political power. The wealthiest individuals had the most influence, while the working class and marginalized groups had little say in government decisions. However, there are differences as well—today, voting rights are more inclusive, and legal protections exist for marginalized groups, though economic disparities and political influence of the wealthy remain significant.
   
3. Why were the people who wrote the Constitution so afraid of democracy? Hint: think about how to answer this question by discussing it in terms of social classes.
   
   The Founders were afraid of democracy because they feared that if power were placed in the hands of the common people, they would challenge elite interests. Many of the Founders were influenced by the idea that pure democracy could lead to “mob rule” and threaten private property. James Madison, for instance, warned in Federalist No. 10 that factions (especially those of the poor majority) could unite to redistribute wealth or pass laws unfavorable to the wealthy class. As a result, they created a government structure—including the Electoral College and the Senate—that would limit direct democratic influence and ensure that decision-making remained largely in the hands of the elite.

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. 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. 

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.

(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.