- What is the distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees? Give an example of each.
- How do you understand the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28? What is it saying about labor?
- What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is NOT an identity?
- 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?
11 thoughts on “Discussion Board 4.2”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Reading 4.3 explains that the difference between owners and employees is about who controls wealth. Owners live off investments and the labor of others, while employees survive on wages. For example, a corporate stockholder is an owner, but a factory worker earning an hourly wage is an employee.
Adam Smith’s quote on page 28 says labor is the real source of value. A tree only becomes paper or furniture because of human work. To me, that means all wealth comes from workers, even if owners take the biggest share.
Reading 4.4 argues that class is not just an identity like race or gender. It’s a structural relationship where workers depend on capitalists for jobs, and capitalists depend on workers to make a profit. This close dependency is real and material. For example, in a restaurant, servers rely on the owner as well as guests’ pay, but the owner also relies on them to keep the business running. That’s why collective action like strikes can be so powerful.
Adams Smith quote:
The hard work of people is what turns something from nature into a useful product with value. You’re right: the core of all wealth comes from the effort and skill of workers. Even if business owners end up with a lot of the money, it’s the workers’ labor that made that money possible in the first place.
1. The distinction that reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees is that owners are the ones who mostly live off their investments like their stocks and bonds and the ones who own companies but they do not contribute any labor. Now for the employees they are the ones for example who do the labor but live off their wages and salaries, they create the companies product or skill they produce but only receive a very small portion compared to what the owner is profiting from the employee.
2. The way I understand the quote from Adam Smith and his thoughts of labor is that he is trying to explain that the labor is the standard of which a product can be created and has its real price, meaning what ever the price of the labor and or product will be the normal price of out in the market especially the whole context of the paragraph explains it.
3. My thoughts on class is not an identity is that I agreed with the reading, I agreed because there are many liberals that see class as an identity due to social structures and income but socialists reject the view of how class gets treated as an identity. I do think class can be fit into both due to how a person treats their financials and what they own and do with their money, a lot of workers should start investing their money to make their money work for them.
4. The way I understand the argument reading 4.4 makes that class structures are built around a close form of dependency is that for example both owners and employees in a capitalists society depend on one another due employees producing the means of production and owners providing the company itself and paying its employees a portion of the selling products. This form of dependency is a capitalism for example the biggest corporation in the world Amazon and its CEO Jeff Bezos provides millions of jobs and his earnings are Significantly more than what the average worker earns in a warehouse when they are the ones who are make company and him money.
Hello Marvin. I enjoyed reading your response. I also agree that class isn’t an identity. I believe that class can change at any moment therefore it shouldn’t be classified as an identify. I also agree that people should invest in their money because you can lose it in an instant.
4.4 Liberals and socialists have different views on social class. Liberals often see “working class” as one of many identities, similar to race or gender. Class is just another part of a person’s identity. It is seen as a form of identity politics. Socialists see class not just as an identity, but as a part of society based on a person’s finances. They believe that this class classification is the main source of inequality. They can create politics that can handle other forms of discord, like gender inequality in the workforce.
4.2 1
Based on Michael Parenti’s viewpoint, the distinction between employees and owners is about control and power over the workplace and its profits. Owners, who are the capitalist class, control the businesses, make all the key decisions, and own the profits generated. They do this without needing to perform the actual labor themselves. On the other hand, employees, who are the working class, do not own the business or control the decision-making. They sell their ability to work to the owners in exchange for a wage. Employees have little to no say in how the business is run or how the profits are used.
4.2 2
Adam Smith’s quote on page 28 says labor is the real source of value. All wealth comes from worker’s labor. That statement is partially true. I understand that the belief of all wealth comes from a worker’s labor is outdated and does not take into account technology, automatization or ingenuity that is current with the world we live in today.
1. Reading 4.3 shows that owners control resources and profits, while employees sell their labor for wages. For example, a factory owner hires workers, but only the owner gets most of the profit.
2. Adam Smith quote suggests that labor is the true source of value in society. It highlights how workers’ effort creates wealth, not just the owners.
3. Reading 4.4 argues that class is not an identity like race or gender but more about economic position. I agree, since people can move between classes but can’t change who they are racially.
4. The “close form of dependency” means workers depend on owners for wages, and owners depend on workers to keep their businesses running. A clear example is restaurants: servers need jobs to earn money, but owners need servers to run the business.
4.2 3
The identities you choose, and your social class is the role you play in the economy. It’s about where you stand in relation to the people who own the factories and companies, and the people who work in them. You can change your identity, but your class is tied to the rules of society and your place in them. So, it’s not just a personal choice or a group you belong to; it’s a position you hold in a structure that affects everything from your daily life to your future.
4.2 4
The close form of dependency I can think of is one person in a personal relationship constantly makes excuses and takes on the responsibilities of a partner who is lazy or refuses to work. The other person never has to face the consequences of their actions because the other has a sense of purpose and worth from being needed.
1. Michael Parenti makes a clear distinction between owners and employees by explaining that owners are those who live primarily off investments and the labor of others, while employees live off wages, salaries, or fees. Owners, such as wealthy stockholders of large corporations, accumulate wealth not by working themselves but by extracting value from the work of others. Whereas employees must sell their labor in order to survive, which includes not only factory and service workers but also professionals and managers. For example, Jeff Bezos as a shareholder and owner of Amazon profits enormously from the labor of warehouse workers and delivery drivers who create the company’s wealth, while the workers themselves are paid only a fraction of the value they produce, the profit Bezos is pocketing is the unpaid wages of his workers.
2. Adam Smith’s statement that “labor … is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of all commodities can … be estimated and compared” emphasizes that human labor is the true source of value in all goods. What makes a product valuable is not simply the raw materials but the work required to transform those materials into something useful and marketable. For instance, a tree in the forest has little exchange value until it is cut, processed, and made into something by the worker. Smith’s point is that labor, not money, creates the real price of commodities, which supports Parenti’s argument that workers generate wealth but receive only a small portion of it back in wages. This reminds me of fair trade good are more expensive because they are not exploiting, (depending what company), their workers. The true value of a IPhone would likely be in the tens of thousands, but since Apple is using cheap labor and is exploiting the global south, the American consumer can get the IPhone for a fraction of that cost.
3. I agree with Heideman’s point that class is not simply an identity, because it’s something you experience in your daily reality, not just a label you choose. For me, being part of the working class isn’t about how I “see myself,” it’s about the fact that I have to work to survive and that my paycheck never really reflects the full value of what I give. It doesn’t feel like an identity in the same way race, gender, or culture might; it feels more like a condition that shapes what opportunities I have and what struggles I face. Owners live off the labor of others, while workers like me exchange our time and effort for wages that barely cover living expenses. That unequal relationship makes class less about self-identification and more about the real structure of power in society.
4. When Heideman says that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency,” he means that workers and capitalists are bound together in a direct and unequal economic relationship. Workers depend on capitalists for jobs and wages in order to survive, while capitalists depend on workers to produce the goods and services that generate profit. The snake eating its own tail. This interdependency is what makes it so strong. For example, Starbucks baristas rely on the company for a paycheck, but Starbucks executives and shareholders cannot make profits without the labor of baristas brewing coffee and serving customers. Similar with racism, the idea of white privilegelr3 cannot exist without people of color. This close form of dependency explains why strikes are so powerful, when workers withhold their labor, they directly disrupt capitalists ability to remain profitable.