Labor, Value, and Class Conflict

Two key concepts in the video are means of production and labor. The means of production are the tools, factories, land, and resources used to produce goods. Whoever controls the means of production has power in society. For example, a factory owner controls the machines and materials needed to make clothing. On the other hand, labor refers to the physical or mental work people do to create something. For example, a worker sewing shirts in that factory is using their labor to make products.

Another important concept is value. In Video 5.1, value is not based on personal opinion or price but is created through labor. Something becomes valuable because of the amount of socially necessary labor time it takes to produce it. That means a product’s value depends on how much work it usually takes to make it under normal conditions, with average tools and skill.

Labor and value are directly connected. Labor is what adds value to materials. For example, wood and metal on their own have some worth, but once a worker turns them into a chair, their labor adds more value to the final product. Without labor, nothing would have real value in the economy.

There’s an important difference between labor and labor power. Labor is the actual work someone does. Labor power is the worker’s ability or potential to work, which is what the employer buys when they hire someone. The employer pays for a full day of labor power, but the worker might produce more value than what they’re paid. That extra value is called surplus value.

Surplus value is the profit made by the capitalist from the worker’s unpaid labor. For example, if a worker is paid $120 for the day, but produces $400 worth of goods, the remaining $280 is surplus value. This is important because it shows how profit in a capitalist system depends on paying workers less than the value they produce. Understanding this helps explain class conflict the constant struggle between workers who want fair pay and capitalists who want to keep more profit.

These ideas show why conflict between classes is a constant feature of society under capitalism. Workers provide the labor that creates value, but the owners of the means of production keep most of the value as profit.

Reading 4.3 by Michael Parenti explains that the main distinction between owners and employees is control over production and profit. Owners (capitalists) control the businesses, land, or machines that generate wealth. They make money through ownership, not labor. Employees (workers), on the other hand, don’t own what they produce. They work for a wage, and their labor creates profit for the owner.

For example, Jeff Bezos is an owner he makes billions not from working in a warehouse, but from owning Amazon. A warehouse worker at Amazon is an employee they do the physical work, but Bezos earns a portion of the value they produce.

Adam Smith’s quote on page 28 says that labor is the real source of all wealth, not gold, silver, or property. This means that everything valuable in society buildings, food, clothes, technology comes from human work. Without labor, nothing gets produced.

The quote reminds us that workers are essential to the economy, yet they often get paid less than the value they create. It’s pointing out a contradiction: workers create wealth, but it’s the owners who benefit most.

I agree with the argument that class is not an identity, but a social relationship based on economic power. The reading argues that class is not about what you wear, how you talk, or where you come from it’s about your position in the economy. Are you someone who owns and profits from the labor of others, or are you someone who sells your labor to survive?

This perspective is important because it shifts our focus from personal traits to systemic structures. It’s not about how someone “feels” about their class, but about the economic forces shaping their life. Class is about power and control, not just culture.

The “close form of dependency” means that capitalists and workers need each other, but in very unequal ways. Owners depend on workers to make their businesses run, and workers depend on owners to provide jobs so they can survive. This relationship creates a built-in power imbalance owners can replace workers, but workers can’t easily replace their source of income.

A good example is during the COVID-19 pandemic. Workers in delivery, healthcare, and grocery stores were labeled “essential,” but many still received low wages and poor benefits. The economy depended on them, but they had little control or power. That’s the dependency the reading is talking about it’s real, but it’s not equal.

Both readings explore how social class shapes people’s lives, but they approach it differently. Reading 4.1 looks at how individuals perceive their class often based on income, education, and lifestyle. Many Americans, regardless of actual income level, consider themselves “middle class,” which shows how class can be subjective.

Reading 4.2, in contrast, uses a visual representation of actual income data from NYC subway stops to show class differences in a physical and geographic way. It reveals that class can be seen spatially with poorer and wealthier communities located in very different parts of the city. So while Reading 4.1 is about how people feel about their class, Reading 4.2 shows how class functions structurally in real life.

The subway station closest to me is 145th Street on the 3 train. According to the New Yorker map in Reading 4.2, the average income in this area is lower compared to neighborhoods further downtown. Based on the concepts in Reading 4.1, this suggests the area is home to the working class or lower-middle class.

I’m not surprised, because it matches what I see every day people working hard to support families, often juggling multiple jobs. However, I also see pride, culture, and resilience that a simple income number doesn’t show. The income data is accurate, but it doesn’t capture the full picture of the community spirit here.

Yes, a clear pattern emerges: income tends to drop the farther you get from Manhattan’s center. Wealthier neighborhoods cluster in areas like Midtown and the Upper East Side, while poorer communities are more common in the Bronx, deep Brooklyn, and Queens.

This suggests a strong connection between geography and class. Where you live often determines your access to good schools, healthcare, transportation, and job opportunities. Social class in NYC isn’t just personal it’s deeply structural and spatial.

Discussion 3.2: Repressive vs. Ideological State Apparatuses

A Repressive State Apparatus (RSA) is a tool the government uses to enforce its power through force or the threat of force. Althusser calls it “repressive” because it controls people physically and punishes those who don’t follow the rules. This includes the police, the courts, the military, and the prison system. The word “repressive” fits because these systems operate mainly through violence or the possibility of violence. For example, if someone breaks the law, the police can arrest them, and the courts can send them to jail. It’s about keeping order by using power and fear.

Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs) are more subtle and work by shaping people’s beliefs and values instead of using force. These include schools, churches, the media, families, and even entertainment. ISAs don’t punish people physically instead, they teach people how to think, act, and believe in a way that supports the system. For example, schools teach us to follow rules, respect authority, and show up on time all things that prepare us for the workforce. The system trains us to believe certain ideas are “normal” or “right” so we follow the rules without being forced.

The main difference is how they control people. RSAs use direct force or threats (like police and prisons), while ISAs shape our thinking and beliefs through everyday institutions (like schools and media). RSAs are about punishment and physical control, while ISAs are about teaching people to accept and follow the system voluntarily. Althusser believes ISAs are even more powerful because they shape our mindset from a young age, making us believe the system is natural or fair even if it isn’t.

An example of ideology is the “Army Strong” commercial from the U.S. military. The ad promotes pride, duty, and strength, suggesting that joining the military is not only honorable but also a way to find personal meaning and success. This is an example of an Ideological State Apparatus. Even though the military is part of the Repressive Apparatus in practice, the commercial itself works ideologically it convinces people to join by shaping their beliefs and feelings about patriotism and identity, not by using force.

“Understanding Ideology: Beliefs, Politics, and Power in Society”

In my own words, ideology is a set of shared beliefs, values, and assumptions that shape how people see the world and how societies are organized. It influences the way people think about politics, economics, race, gender, and power, often without them realizing it. Ideology can justify the way things are, or challenge them, depending on whose interests it serves.

For example, the idea that “anyone can succeed in America if they work hard enough” is an ideology. It promotes the belief that success is based purely on individual effort, and ignores how social systems like class, race, and access to education play a major role in shaping people’s opportunities.

I understand ideology as both obvious and hidden it works by making certain ideas seem “natural” or “common sense,” even if they actually serve powerful interests. It can support the status quo by making people believe that inequality is normal or deserved. At the same time, alternative ideologies can help people challenge the existing system and imagine different ways of living. I also realized from the readings and videos that ideology is not just about personal opinion it’s built into institutions like schools, media, and the law. It tells us what is “normal” and what isn’t, often in ways we don’t notice unless we stop and question it.

The difference between conservative and liberal ideologies in the U.S. comes down to how people view change, government, and equality. Conservatives generally value tradition, limited government, personal responsibility, and free market capitalism. Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to support social change, government programs to help people, and the idea that inequality should be addressed by public policy.

Key concepts that stand out are freedom, equality, and responsibility. Conservatives often emphasize freedom in the sense of economic freedom lower taxes and fewer government regulations. Liberals emphasize freedom as the ability to live a decent life with access to healthcare, education, and social support. Conservatives see inequality as a natural outcome of effort and choices, while liberals tend to see it as a structural problem caused by racism, sexism, or economic exploitation.

A modern example is the debate over healthcare. Conservatives may argue for private healthcare to promote competition and lower costs, while liberals support government-run healthcare like Medicare for All to ensure everyone has access, regardless of income.

According to Althusser, ideology is not just a bunch of ideas we choose to believe. Instead, it’s a system that we live in every day, and it shapes how we see ourselves and the world. He says ideology “interpellates” individuals as subjects, meaning it calls us into roles in society (like student, worker, citizen) and makes us behave in ways that support the system even if we think we’re acting freely.

In simpler terms, Althusser believes ideology is not just in our heads it’s built into schools, media, religion, and families. These are what he calls “Ideological State Apparatuses.” They teach us what is expected of us and make us act in ways that support the dominant system, usually without force.

An example of this is the way schools function. Beyond teaching math or reading, schools teach students to follow rules, respect authority, and accept competition as normal. These values prepare students to fit into the workforce and obey social norms, not question them. That’s ideology in action it works not by telling you what to think directly, but by shaping how you live your life.

In The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander challenges the common belief that high incarceration rates in the U.S. are due to high crime rates, especially drug crime. Instead, she argues that mass incarceration is largely the result of targeted political policies specifically, the War on Drugs which disproportionately affect poor communities of color. According to Alexander, this “war” has been used as a tool for social control, continuing a long legacy of racial oppression that began with slavery, continued through Jim Crow segregation, and was rebranded during the Civil Rights era with calls for “law and order.”

She highlights that the Reagan administration, in particular, played a key role in shaping public perception. On page 5, she explains how officials hired media staff to intentionally hype the emergence of crack cocaine in inner-city neighborhoods. This campaign helped generate public fear and support for harsh drug laws. But Alexander points out that drug use occurs across all racial groups at similar rates—yet people of color, especially Black Americans, are far more likely to be arrested, convicted, and sentenced.

This is why she argues that racial disparities in incarceration rates cannot be explained by drug crime rates. The real issue is not who uses or sells drugs, but how law enforcement chooses to respond—and who they choose to police most aggressively. The system was designed to criminalize certain communities while appearing colorblind on the surface.

When Alexander says the American penal system has become a form of social control “unparalleled in world history,” I understand this to mean that the scale and structure of U.S. incarceration is not just about punishing crime. It’s about managing and marginalizing a specific population mainly poor Black and Brown Americans. Much like the example from British history where gin (a drink of the poor) was outlawed while whiskey (a drink of the wealthy) was not, drug laws in the U.S. criminalize behaviors most associated with disadvantaged groups while allowing similar behaviors among the privileged to go unpunished.

Alexander’s work made me think critically about how laws are written and enforced and who they are really designed to serve or control.

Southern racist politicians strategically framed their defense of racial segregation using the language of “law and order” in order to disguise their true motives. By avoiding openly racist language and instead emphasizing crime control and public safety, they were able to appeal to a broader audience and make their agenda appear more legitimate. This rhetoric allowed them to distance themselves from an explicitly racist platform while still targeting communities of color through policy. It also helped them rebrand their political movement in a way that felt acceptable to moderate or conservative white voters, particularly after the civil rights movement made open racism less socially acceptable.

I do believe that the Southern Strategy continues to influence American politics today. One clear example is the ongoing use of dog whistle politics coded language that signals racial attitudes without stating them outright. Terms like “urban crime,” “illegal immigration,” or even “welfare reform” are often used to stir racial anxieties without direct reference to race. In Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow, she explains how the War on Drugs was not just about drug use, but about controlling Black and Brown communities through mass incarceration. Policies that claim to be “tough on crime” often result in the over-policing and over-incarceration of people of color, reflecting the same logic used by politicians during the civil rights backlash.

This shows that while the language may have changed, the underlying goal of maintaining racial control through the criminal justice system remains deeply rooted in American political strategy.