Universal Suffrage. Fear of Milwaukee’s Workers. 4 5 2026

If you want to talk about how much we are trusted, it should be obvious the conditions of what is called “democracy” should strike one immediately as an example of a bourgeoisie who distrusts its own citizens to make decisions regarding their own conditions.

The ownership structure of capitalism removes the worker from the chain of command, reducing his active output as a producer to that of a mere appendage of machinery he does not control.  The manager is chosen by the same forces that keep him subjugated, in wage labour producing surplus value for the capitalist.

Confronted with this he is supposed to take heart in a democratic government with fair suffrage.  In reality, he finds the Senate, president, and Supreme Court, all elected in ways that favor materially the bourgeoisie.

The Senate gets two votes a state or territory.  Alabama gets the same number of votes as Chicago, two for the state.  This mechanism easily allows for  large scale landowners to stay in power; they hold power in the less populated states, and rural areas that  comprise much of the country.

Who else but the bourgeoisie would settle on conquered land?  Naturally the settlers are in the pocket of the Republican bourgeoisie. So South Dakota, much of Wisconsin, Iowa, etc. all fairly recent settlements with rural populations have a different opinion of what reality is than the proletariat in the cities.

The proletariat is an urban phenomenon, comprised of workers producing commodities in industrial settings.  It is possible for the larger farms to have unions, but it is not there yet. Waiting for it to form on the large farms would prove to be something that could take generations. Compounding the problem is massive state subsidies of more than 50 billion dollars a year, divvied out by the state, controlled by the republican bourgeoisie.

When the  worker votes he is also confronted by the electoral college, that appoints presidents without a majority periodically.  His votes for a woman president are not heard, even if a majority in suffrage support her.  Instead he is supposed to be happy he got Donald Trump instead.

What does this show us but a small group of people in control scared of their own workers, with no intention of giving up power.

When our worker tries to go to legal means for emancipation, he gets Citizens United rulings.  The Supreme Court is appointed by the president, who does not have to control a majority to govern.  And to make it seem more legitimate, it is supported by the Senate, who rubber stamps the decision for Supreme Court Justices. 

Sometimes the more moderate liberal progressive bourgeoisie govern, but it is a miracle there is ever a Senate majority.  It favors the large landowners, who vote republican.

When you look at the demographics, clearly the cities all vote democrat.  The country votes republican; we see it every cycle of elections.  This is an indicator of the presence of large scale land ownership, and its dominance over the proletariat in the city. 

The answer is to nationalize the land. If large scale farming is so great, its benefits should be enjoyed by all of society, not a small group of families who control all the good land around the city.  Small farmers are a small part of modern farming already, at best they can inherit soil, which we should not tamper with. But make no mistake, small scale landowning in time will only produce the same results we have l already come to, dominance of capitalism and the demise of the small farmer. They will find a mechanism to retake their lands, and consolidate  ownership in no time without nationalization of large landownings.  Be it through inheritance, or other means, under capitalism there will always be an effort to concentrate ownership of land in a small aristocracy, who control the food production for the city.

This having been said, it is still imperative to take part in universal suffrage.  Local races in particular, such as the current struggle between Maria Lazar and Chris Taylor looks like landowners vs urban petty bourgeois; the latter more worldly, sometimes favoring the working class.  

Lazar is up against the Planned Parenthood woman.  She is against abortion, probably a Catholic.  And yes, a person’s religion can influence how they vote.

The proletariat has a duty to take part in all suffrage, regardless of how slanted toward management it becomes.  It is still one vote, one person, and numerically the proletariat outnumbers the owning class 10 to one.  It can happen.

As suffrage comes again for supreme court justice in Wisconsin, it is a real battle.  These small contests can attract the big money;  the last local elections brought Elon Musk and his big wealth here. This one no doubt will also bring big out of state money, due to fear of Milwaukee’s proletariat.  The election is in two days, a real test of equality.

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

4 5 2026