Interpreting the Ideological and Repressive

Based on the reading, "But now for what is essential. What distinguishes the ISAs from the (repressive) State Apparatus is the following basic difference: the Repressive State Apparatus functions "by violence", whereas the Ideological State Apparatuses function "by ideology" (80). In this passage he is talking about how the two distinguish themselves between each other. The Repressive sets rules that repress the ideological. For example the Agents and Potential Agents. The Potential Agents don't have set limits and since they aren't the ruling class, they test the boundaries and limits until the ruling class (Repressive) comes in and sets in limits to what they can and can't do.

The one that I'm not quite sure about is "In the same way, but inversely, it is essential to say that for their part the Ideological State Apparatuses function massively and predominantly by ideology, but they also function secondarily by repression, even if ultimately, but only ultimately, this is very attenuated and concealed, even symbolic. (There is no such thing as a purely ideological apparatus). Thus schools and Churches use suitable methods of punishment, expulsion, selection, etc., to "discipline" not only their shepherds, but also their flocks. The same is true of the Family....The same is true of the cultural IS apparatus (censorship, among other things, ) etc." (81). I think it's talking about that there is no way we can truly have it one state of being because there will always be someone or something out there that will counter or fight the ideological state. If there is a dictator, they can try and rule in fear and violence all they want to stop uprisings against them, but that won't stop everyone. There will always be a group somewhere that will rebel against them, which is why we have laws and institutions to keep the ideological more realistic.

Responding to another's post will get done after I get back from work.

Ramsey's Post: What distinguishes the ISAs from the (repressive) state apparatus is the following basic difference: the repressive state apparatus functions "by violence" whereas the ideological state apparatuses function "by ideology
I'm back from work at like 10pm, so here we go to finish it. This is exactly what I was talking about. You are correct that the Repressive (not Representative) is an acting class of power (government as you say) that uses violence to repress the lower classes (private companies as you use in your example)

Shen's Post: ""To my knowledge, no class can hold State power over a long period without at the same time exercising its hegemony over and in the State Ideological Apparatuses" (Althusser 81)"
I had to look up the word "Hegemony" because the whole statement threw me off without knowing what it meant since the rest of the statement makes comparisons to hegemony. Hegemony is an indirect form of government which uses connections to imply their power and control through fear and threats of violence. What I think Althusser is trying to say is that no class can hold overall power by ruling with fear and threats while under the impression this is the ideological state they want to keep their status. Ideologically, one would be ruling in power based on the loyalty of their people based on trust not through a threatening power repressing them in fear to keep control.