1. Means of Production and Labor
The means of production are the tools, machines, and materials used to make things, like ovens in a bakery or sewing machines in a factory. Labor is the actual work people do using those tools, like baking bread or sewing shirts. One can’t work without the other. For example, in a coffee shop, the espresso machine is part of the means of production, and the worker making the coffee is doing labor. Both are needed to create the final product.

2. What is value? What makes something valuable?
Value is how much human labor is needed to make something. It’s not just about how much people want the item, but how much work and time went into it. If something takes a lot of time and effort to make using common tools and skills, it has more value. For example, a hand-carved chair has more value than a mass-produced plastic stool because it takes more labor to make. So, value comes from human work.

3. How are labor and value related?
Labor and value are closely connected because labor creates value. Without work, raw materials don’t become useful products. The more time and effort it takes to make something, the more value it has. A shirt made by hand has more value than one made quickly by a machine, because more labor went into it. This is why labor is considered the source of value in Marx’s theory.

4. What’s the difference between labor and labor power?
Labor is the work someone does, like teaching a class or cooking food. Labor power is the ability to do that work—the energy, skills, and time a worker brings to the job. When someone is hired, they’re really selling their labor power to the employer, not just the labor itself. The boss then uses that labor power to make products and earn money. So labor is the action, and labor power is the potential to act.

5. What is surplus value? Why is it important in understanding social class?
Surplus value is the extra money a business makes from a worker’s labor that the worker doesn’t get paid for. For example, if a worker makes $400 worth of salads in one hour but only gets paid $20, the other $380 goes to the company. That extra is called surplus value. It’s important because it shows how companies profit from workers and why there’s a big gap between rich and poor. Workers create the value, but owners keep the profit.

The statistic that made the biggest impression on me was how the bottom 80 percent of taxpayers saw their share of income drop from 50 percent to about 40 percent. This means most people are getting less of the country’s wealth while a small group keeps getting richer. I think this is important because it shows how uneven wealth is in the US, and it feels unfair.

Living in a society with such huge wealth inequalities can cause many problems. It can make it harder for people with less money to get good education, healthcare, or even basic needs like food and housing. It also creates more stress and division between rich and poor.

I see this happening every day. For example, I notice many people working long hours in low-paying jobs but still struggling to pay rent or buy groceries. Meanwhile, some people live very comfortably with lots of money and don’t worry about these problems. This gap affects the whole community and makes life harder for many families.

1. What is a Repressive State Apparatus? Why does Althusser call it “repressive”? Can we explain his choice of words here? Give an example.
A Repressive State Apparatus is a part of the government that controls people through force or the threat of punishment. Althusser calls it “repressive” because it uses things like police, the military, and the court system to make sure people obey. The goal is to stop anyone from going against the system. The reason for the word “repressive” is because it doesn’t try to convince people—it just forces them. For example, if someone is peacefully protesting and the police arrest or pepper spray them, that’s a Repressive State Apparatus in action.

2. What are Ideological State Apparatuses? How do they work?
Ideological State Apparatuses are systems like schools, religion, media, and families that teach us what to believe and how to act. They don’t use violence but instead shape our thoughts and values. These ideas are repeated so much that they start to feel like common sense. ISAs make us follow rules not because we’re scared, but because we think it’s the right thing to do. For example, a school might teach students to respect authority and work hard, which makes them more likely to accept the system as it is.

3. How are the Repressive and Ideological State Apparatuses different from each other?
The main difference is how they control people. Repressive State Apparatuses use force, fear, and punishment to keep people in line. Ideological State Apparatuses use ideas, beliefs, and values to make people accept the system. RSAs are loud—you know when you’re being controlled. ISAs are quiet—you may not even realize it’s happening. Both work to protect the power of those in charge, but they do it in different ways.

4. Post an example of ideology.
A good example of ideology is the scene in The Lion King when Mufasa talks to Simba about the “Circle of Life.” It teaches the idea that everyone has a place in society and should accept it. That message makes inequality seem natural and okay. This is an example of an Ideological State Apparatus because it spreads beliefs about power and order without using any force. It works through storytelling and emotions, not fear or punishment.

The Changing Nature of War: How the War on Terror Differs from Traditional Warfare
Patricia Williams highlights that the war on terror represents a fundamentally new kind of conflict. Unlike traditional wars—fought against identifiable nations, armies, or governments—this war targets an abstract concept: terrorism. Because terrorism is not tied to a single state or military force, the enemy remains undefined, allowing the government to broadly interpret who poses a threat. This ambiguity has dangerous consequences. Since the war lacks clear boundaries, it justifies indefinite surveillance, detention without trial, and military tribunals—measures that would be extreme in conventional wars. Additionally, because terrorism is framed as an ongoing, borderless threat, these emergency powers risk becoming permanent, eroding civil liberties long after the initial crisis.

Roving Wiretaps and the Erosion of the Fourth Amendment
The Patriot Act’s “roving wiretaps” (Section 206) present a serious challenge to constitutional rights, particularly the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and requires warrants to be specific. Traditionally, law enforcement needed separate court orders to monitor each communication device (phone, computer, etc.). Roving wiretaps, however, allow one warrant to cover all devices a suspect might use, eliminating judicial oversight for each new surveillance method. The problem? This broad authority risks spying on innocent people who have only incidental contact with a suspect. If a target uses a public computer or borrows a phone, everyone near them could be monitored without justification. By removing the requirement for individualized warrants, this provision weakens the Fourth Amendment’s core protections, turning privacy into a privilege rather than a right.

The Dangers of “Sneak and Peek” Warrants
Another controversial measure, “sneak and peek” warrants (Section 213), permits law enforcement to search homes or businesses without immediately notifying the target. While the government argues these are necessary to prevent evidence destruction in terrorism cases, their use has expanded far beyond urgent threats. The Fourth Amendment requires that searches be transparent—people must know if their property has been searched so they can challenge it in court. “Sneak and peek” warrants bypass this principle, allowing secret searches with delayed notice. Originally justified for national security, these warrants are now used in ordinary criminal cases, including drug offenses and fraud. This expansion normalizes covert government intrusion, setting a dangerous precedent where secrecy outweighs accountability. Without proper limits, such powers can easily be abused, further distancing law enforcement from constitutional safeguards.

1. Describe how you understand the “Establishment Clause” and the related “Lemon Test.”

The Establishment Clause is part of the First Amendment, and it prevents the government from establishing an official religion or favoring one religion over another. This means the government must remain neutral when it comes to religion, protecting everyone’s freedom to believe or not believe as they choose. To help judges decide if a law breaks this rule, the Supreme Court created what is called the Lemon Test in the Lemon v. Kurtzman case. The Lemon Test has three parts: first, the law must have a clear purpose that is not related to religion; second, the law should neither help nor hurt any religion; and third, it should avoid creating too much connection between government and religion. If a law fails any of these parts, it is considered unconstitutional because it goes against the Establishment Clause.

2. Is burning the U.S. flag protected by the First Amendment? Explain by referring to the relevant court case discussed in the reading.

Yes, burning the U.S. flag is protected by the First Amendment as a form of free speech. The Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson (1989) showed that flag burning is a way people express their opinions symbolically, especially when protesting. Even though many people find flag burning disrespectful or offensive, the Court ruled that the government cannot stop or punish someone just because their message is unpopular. The First Amendment protects all kinds of speech, including symbolic acts like flag burning, as long as it is not harmful to others. This decision made clear that freedom of expression covers even actions that some people strongly disagree with.

3. What does it mean when someone says “I’m taking the Fifth”?

When someone says “I’m taking the Fifth,” they are using their right under the Fifth Amendment to refuse to answer questions that might make them look guilty. This is called the right against self-incrimination. It means that a person cannot be forced to say something that could be used as evidence against them in a criminal case. This protection is very important because it helps ensure that people are treated fairly in the legal system and do not have to prove their own guilt. The phrase became widely known after the Supreme Court’s Miranda v. Arizona decision, which requires police to inform suspects of their rights before questioning them.

1.The Constitution was mostly written by rich men who owned a lot of property—land, money, businesses, or public bonds. These men were part of the upper class. For example, Beard explains that many of the delegates were creditors, merchants, plantation owners, or people who had invested money in government bonds. They wanted a strong national government that would protect their property and wealth.

On the other hand, many people were excluded from the process. These included slaves, poor farmers, workers, women, and people without property. For example, in 1787, most states only allowed men with land or wealth to vote. That means the majority of people—especially small farmers in debt, indentured servants, and the working class—had no say at all in creating the Constitution. Beard says these people were not even considered in the political system unless the wealthy thought of them as a threat.

3.There are some similarities and some differences. Today, we say everyone can vote, and legally, all people have equal rights. But in many ways, money still gives people more power. For example, rich people and big companies often influence laws and elections more than poor people can. In early America, power was mostly in the hands of rich white landowners. So, the class system is not exactly the same, but the idea that wealth brings more power still exists.

3.They were afraid of giving too much power to the common people, especially the poor. Beard shows that many of the writers believed that if poor farmers or working-class people had control, they might vote for laws that cancel debts, take land from the rich, or pass paper money laws that helped debtors. James Madison, for example, warned that if people without property gained too much power, they might attack the rights of property owners. That’s why the Constitution was designed to protect the rich and limit what the majority could do. They didn’t trust full democracy because they thought it could hurt their wealth and status.

1.
“Faction” reminds me of groups or teams of people who share the same ideas or goals. These groups work together to protect what they want or believe is best, even if it hurts others who don’t agree with them. For example, in society, sometimes people form groups that try to get laws or rules that only help themselves, not everyone. So a faction is like a small group with strong interests that can cause problems for others.

2.
Federalist #10 says that wealth comes from people’s different talents, abilities, and efforts. The word “faculties” means the natural skills or powers that people have — like being smart, hardworking, or good at business. Because everyone has different skills and chances, some people get to own more things and money, while others don’t. This difference causes some people to be rich and others poor. So, the Constitution’s writers understood that inequality in skills and opportunities is the reason why wealth is not shared equally.

3.
Yes, it makes sense that different abilities and hard work affect who becomes rich or poor. But I also think it’s not the full picture. Sometimes, unfair rules, luck, or other problems make it harder for some people to succeed. So while skills are important, other things like education, family background, and chance also affect wealth.

4.
According to Federalist #10, the government’s main job is to protect people’s property and belongings. This means the government makes sure no one steals or takes away what belongs to others. This idea might surprise some people today because many think the government should also work to help poor people or solve social problems. But back then, the writers believed protecting property was most important because it helped keep order and encouraged people to work and invest.

5.
I’m not very surprised because the author was worried that in a pure democracy — where everyone votes directly — the majority of people might pass laws that hurt the minority, especially the rich property owners. He thought this could cause unfairness because the poor majority might want to take from the rich minority. That’s why he liked a Republic — a system where people elect leaders to make decisions. The leaders are expected to think carefully and protect everyone’s rights, especially property rights, avoiding unfair laws based on popular feelings or short-term interests.

1. Primary Differences in the Role of Citizens in Federal, Confederation, and Unitary Systems

In a federal system, citizens have an active role at multiple levels of government. They vote for representatives in both the national government and their state or local governments. Power is shared, so people can influence policies in different parts of government. This means citizens participate in a more complex way because decisions happen at both state and national levels.

In a confederation system, most of the power is held by the states or local governments, and the central government is very weak. Citizens mostly interact with their local or state governments. The national government has little control, so citizens’ role in national government is limited.

In a unitary system, the national government holds almost all power. Local governments exist but only carry out what the national government decides. Citizens mainly interact with one central government and vote mostly for national leaders. Local governments do not have much independent power.

2. Understanding the System of Division of Power

Division of power means splitting government responsibilities between the national and state governments. Some things clearly belong to the federal government, like national security and immigration. Other things belong to states, such as issuing driver’s licenses or running schools. Local governments handle smaller, local tasks like garbage collection.

However, sometimes the federal government and states both get involved in the same issue, which can cause disagreements. For example, immigration and marriage equality used to be handled mostly by one level, but now both federal and state governments have roles. Courts often have to decide who has the final say.

3. How the Federal Government Shapes the Actions of State and Local Governments (Example: New York during COVID-19)

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government played a big role in guiding and supporting New York state and its local governments. The federal government set national rules and guidelines, like mask mandates, social distancing, and vaccine approval. They also provided important funding to help hospitals, businesses, and citizens affected by the pandemic.

New York followed many of these federal guidelines but also made its own decisions based on local needs, such as when to open or close schools and businesses. This shows the federal government influences states by providing money and setting rules, but states have flexibility in how they carry out these policies.

Sometimes, federal funding comes with conditions, so states have to follow certain rules to receive the money. This creates a mix of cooperation and control, where the federal government can encourage states to act in certain ways without directly taking over all decisions.

1.Ideology is a system of ideas and beliefs that shapes how we see the world, how we understand our place in it, and how we act. These beliefs often feel normal or natural to us, but they are actually created and spread by society—especially by those in power—to maintain control. We grow up learning these ideas from schools, religion, media, and even our families. These systems teach us what is “right” or “normal,” such as obeying rules, working hard, and believing that success or failure is based only on individual effort. For example, during the U.S. presidential elections, people often choose which candidate to vote for based on the ideology that candidate supports. One may support business growth and military strength, while another may support social programs and equality. People decide which one matches their own beliefs. Althusser says that ideology is powerful because it makes people believe their social role is natural and unchangeable. This way, people don’t question unfair systems like poverty or racism because they’ve been taught to think those things are just the way life works.

2.The main difference between conservative and liberal ideology in U.S. politics is how they think the government should function in society. Conservatives believe in a small government that should not interfere too much in the economy. They support free-market capitalism, where businesses are mostly unregulated, and they think private companies should take care of social needs rather than the government. They believe people succeed through hard work and that those who struggle are responsible for their own situation. Conservatives also support strong military spending, traditional family values, and religious influence in public life. Liberals, on the other hand, believe that the government should play a stronger role in helping people and solving social problems. They support public services like education, healthcare, and environmental protection. They believe in equality, support civil rights, and often push for laws to protect workers and the environment. For example, a conservative might support cutting taxes for wealthy business owners to encourage economic growth, while a liberal might support raising taxes on the rich to fund healthcare or education for everyone. Some key words that describe conservatives include: small government, free market, tradition, and personal responsibility. For liberals, the key ideas are: social programs, equality, civil rights, and public services.

3.Althusser’s definition of ideology is that it’s a system of beliefs that helps powerful groups (like the government or wealthy elites) stay in control—not by using violence, but by shaping how people think. He says that ideology teaches people to accept the social system as normal and to believe that their place in society is natural—even if it’s unfair. Althusser talks about two kinds of state power. First, there are Repressive State Apparatuses (RSAs), like the police, military, and courts, which use force to control people. Second, and more importantly, there are Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs), like schools, religion, media, and family, which spread ideas that keep people obedient without using violence. For example, in schools, we are taught to follow rules, respect authority, and work hard—not just for knowledge, but to become disciplined workers in the future. That’s not just education; that’s ideology working to prepare us for life under capitalism. Althusser believes that by spreading these ideas, the system makes sure people don’t question the unfairness around them because they’ve learned to see it as normal.

1.Similarities between Readings 4.1 and 4.2
Both readings talk about how social class in the U.S. is connected to income, jobs, education, and where people live. They also show that people often don’t see class the same way. Many Americans believe they are middle class, even when their income or situation may not match. So, both readings agree that social class is real and affects our lives, but people’s understanding of it is often unclear.

Differences between the readings
Reading 4.1 focuses on what people think about themselves — this is called subjective social class. It uses surveys where people say if they feel like they are lower class, working class, or middle class.
Reading 4.2 is about facts and real numbers — it shows how much money people make in different neighborhoods using the NYC subway map. This is objective class data.
The main difference is that one is about self-identity and feelings, and the other is based on actual income levels.

2.My neighborhood – Bay Ridge
I live near the Bay Ridge–95th Street station on the R train. According to the subway map, the average income here is between $55,000 and $70,000.
Based on Reading 4.1, people in this range usually see themselves as working class or middle class. In Bay Ridge, I see many people with regular jobs, living in apartments or small homes. A lot of families here are immigrants or longtime working people.
I’m not surprised by this. I think it’s a fair description. People here live normal lives — not rich, but not poor either. So yes, I think it’s an accurate picture of my neighborhood.

3.Patterns in NYC from Reading 4.2
Reading 4.2 shows that social class in NYC changes a lot from one subway stop to the next. You can go just a few stops and find huge differences in income. Some areas are very rich, with incomes over $200,000. Others are poor, with people making under $30,000.
This tells us that NYC has big class differences, even between places that are close together. The subway shows how divided the city can be, with rich and poor living near each other but in very different situations.