Posted on by Justine Adenekan

Justine Adenekan Discussion 4.2

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

As we explore the distinctions and differences between the owners and employees the seperation between the two seems to be labor. We see very clearly that the employees are making very little monetary profit from their labor in the form of salary and wages while the owners benefit exclusively from the labor expended by the employees. Under the system that is set in place employees have to utilize their labor in order to meet their financial needs while the owners have amassed their wealth through the labor of many employees while granting them the wages they require which is only a small percentage of the value they contribute by being essentially the manufacturers of the owners wealth.

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

“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.” This quote by Adam Smith encapsulates some of the main ideas on which capitalism is founded, Smith points out that without the labor of workers/ employees there is no way for a commodity to become a product that can be profited from and therefore no wealth for the owning class. Further, he highlights the fact that though the financial value of these products can be considered their value the true value lies in the labor that was put into its producing and the manipulation of this value is the true capital on which the owning class has built their wealth.

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

The argument that class is not an identity is very faceted and requires a (re)understanding of what is meant by the term class. The liberal argument, simply put, is that class is just another form of identity politics. Liberals believe that socialist seek to highlight the political, social and economic affects of class and the infrastructures that exist within it and in doing so can often belittle or ignore subjects like racism and gender and the discriminatory roles they play in our society. It is argued in reading 4.4 that the liberals perception of class fails to understand that when class is talked about from a socialist stand point it is not just referring to the educational and financial implications of class, but the structure of class as a whole and the very strongly established logic that classism entails. This article argues that because of the hierarchical class system in which we exist and more specifically because of the economic social and political power of the capitalist class we can not approach the idea of reformation in the way topics like gender, race and sexual orientation are spoken about and perceived by society without first acknowledging and confronting the structure of class.

  1. 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?

The close form of dependency highlighted in this article refers to the necessity of workers to have the safety net of employment to meet their needs while the capitalist equally need the workers to ensure their position at the top of the economic hierarchy. Reading 4.4 makes that claim that class is even more hyper-dependent than subjects like. The concept of whiteness encapsulates a whole race of people without depending on their beliefs and ideals to separate one from another, while class requires an interdependency between workers and capitalist to maintain the structure. More than this, the dependency doesn’t end at just workers because capitalist are also in control of productive property which all of society is reliant on, this means that all of society is compelled to make sure profitability continues to stay high so that production can continue.

Posted on by Za’marie

4.2

  1. What is the distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees? Give an example of each. Owners own the wealth of society and employees earn a living through labor. Owners live off of investments and stocks for example and workers live off of wages and salaries.
  2. How do you understand the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28? What is it saying about labor? I understand this quote as recentering the true value of the capitalist system which is in workers aka the people creating the labor that’s generating the wealth that they don’t profit off of nearly as much as the credited means of production of it via capitalist.
  3. What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is NOT an identity? I agree with that stance, considering the points being driven in the reading. Class isn’t identity however it is lens for what position of power we withhold. It isn’t about the lower-upper class axis that as they say liberals define as class. Because the gap is so large that working class people are practically invisible by that scale. Not only that but class doesn’t specifically signal socioeconomic statuses, it signals wealth. Wealth meaning investments , stocks, bonds etc. that have been building and passed down through families that allow wealthier people to live off of alone without even considering a salary or wage. Class as an identity isn’t your label in society that is too vague and doesn’t address what it actually is. Class as an identity reflects your position of power, your wealth, your resources, and capital that you possess. As well as where you exist within a structure that dictates whether you profit off of workers, or if a will capitalist profit off of your labor.
  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? I understand that class structure is built upon the control of resources which creates a dependency on capitalism for workers to be able to buy the things they need to live & simultaneously the capitalist require laborers to work for them in order for them to gain more profit and expand productivity.
Posted on by Daniel Reyes

DB 4.2 – The Liberal and Socialist Perception of Class

  1. The distinction that Michael Parenti makes in his article, “Wealth and Wants in the United States,” between the owner and the worker is based on how each of them make their income. The owner makes a living off of investments like stocks, bonds, and rents. The worker makes their incomes from wages and salaries. The owner usually does not give their labor for their income, it is produced by the value the workers produce. But the worker must give their time in order to make an income. This mostly is based on who owns the means of production, and once you do, you become and owner/capitalist.
  2. I understand Adam Smith’s quote, on page 28, to mean that labor is what constitutes the price of commodities. This, to me, sets up the two interests between the capitalist and the worker that we learn about in Reading 4.4. The capitalist is interested in maximizing profits, while the worker is interested in keeping their position and advancing. If capitalists are profit driven, they may undermine the workers interests, for example, by cutting wages or through layoffs in order to lower overall costs.
  3. At first, I found myself conflicted between these two views of class being considered an identity or not. But when hearing more about the socialist view of the why class is more than just an identity, I couldn’t help but to agree with this ideology. Class does represent more of a structure in our society rather than an identity. It is because of the capitalistic structure that society is divided into two classes that can base their interest and their actions on whether they are a worker or a capitalist.
  4. The close form of dependency around the class structure is the interchangeable dependency between the worker and the capitalist. The worker depends on the capitalist or firm as a means to afford living. The capitalist depends on exploiting the labor of the worker in order to maintain and advance their position in the market. An example of this would be students that are working to pay for school alongside living expenses. These students may be dependent on a wage or salary to continue affording school. Luckily, there are grants and scholarships that students can take advantage of nowadays. But, depending on the cost of the college or university, this can only go so far. If the company the student works for chooses to lower their costs through laying them off, the force of that dependency would show through the student having to now cut costs.

Posted on by Juan Garcia Figueroa · 1 Comment

Juan Garcia Figueroa 4.2

1.The distinction between employees and owners is that the employees usually uses their education to be part of the middle class while owners uses their earns to invest a long term and live from it, employees lives from their salary always seeking a rise
2.I understand from what Adam Smith said that labor is the mean where the the price can be established, people need to keep interested of what they need and want so it keeps the economy’s flow
3. I think that class is just a description of what your income relies on, but i think this might be also an ‘identity’ since the person might feel less or more rich than others and can assume his identity as his social value
4. I think that means that class depends on your income that depends on your sources, so class structures would be the things that make it possible, like income, role, education and so on and it is a form of dependency because the more you get education or income the more you class will change

Posted on by Arto Artinian · 1 Comment

Discussion Board 4.2

  1. What is the distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees? Give an example of each.
  2. How do you understand the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28? What is it saying about labor?
  3. What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that 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?