Supreme Court Decision Returns Power of the Purse to Congress. 2 23 2026

Supreme Court Decision Returns Power of the Purse to Congress

With a single court decision by the Supreme Court, Donald Trump and his constant threat of  tariffs was ended.  The decision was in a court that rarely rules in favor of the worker, where a number of judges were appointed by Trump, 3 in his first term when he assumed power without a majority.  It was a 6 to 3 decision.

That is what makes this ruling so remarkable.

“The blockbuster Supreme Court ruling that invalidated President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs ends one chapter of economic uncertainty….”

“Even as the nation’s high court determined Friday that the president had exceeded his authority by slapping tariffs on goods from just about every country in the world, Trump made clear at a White House news conference that he was determined to do so again, though this time within the bounds of the law.”

“The justices’ 6-3 ruling said the president did not have the authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose a vast array of import levies on goods from nearly all of the nation’s trading partners.”

Washington Post 2 22 2026

All the Supreme said was taxation was the responsibility of Congress; Congress holds the purse strings of government.  As tariffs are a form of taxes; taxes on imports, Congress  has to be where tariffs start and stop.

Immediately following the ruling Trump raised global taxes 15%.  It is like cutting off your nose to sprite your face. 

The next question is how to pay back the tariffs already taken in, 134 billion dollars, which will have to be paid back to the importers who paid tax in the first place.  Given they are all American based brokers, or American companies, they don’t have far to go.   

Trump has promised to use court to delay reimbursing the importers he tariffed, who are now all clamoring for their money back.

The tax man has been rebuked; his constant threats of tariffs now will take months to come in effect, instead of a social media post of a shout on an airplane to a reporter.

Congress is the responsible party when taxes rise. They never fall, even in periods of prosperity.  Nevertheless they are still in control, and reminded us they had the power to use the court to clip Don’s wings.  Without tax threats Don is a loud voice with no real clout behind him.

““The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope,” Roberts wrote. “In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.””

“Trump cannot, Roberts wrote.”

“Roberts pointed out IEEPA made no mention of tariffs and that he could find little in the law to authorize such massive levies, writing bluntly: “Those words cannot bear such weight.”

“He also said Trump’s move ran afoul of the “major questions doctrine,” a rule the court has enunciated in recent years that holds that any presidential action that has major economic or political ramifications must have explicit authorization by Congress.”

“The stakes of the ruling are enormous: The tariffs affect trillions of dollars in trade, and the government collected nearly $134 billion in levies through Dec. 14 under the authority challenged in the case.”

Washington Post ibid.

Perhaps they have been saving the 134 billion dollars, in case something like this happened?  Otherwise it means more taxes on top of what is paid the importer, considering the consumer paid the bulk of the taxes, the tariffs taxes on imports.

Expect export commodities value to fall, as the tariffs made their value higher than what they would have been without the tax.  BYD vs Ford is not here yet, but is getting closer.  

Without protectionism it is questionable how many nonmetric products will be competitive in the world market.  With the declining value of the dollar nominally more will have to be paid by the consumer for the same product, inflation.  Exports were balanced with heavy taxation on competitors’ products, to make American products more competitive.  

The global tax of 15% he has now levied for 150 days seems less personal than the normal tariff for Dons crotchets.  This one is not directed at a single competitor, rather the whole world market.  It sort of admits non metric production will  never be able to compete in the world market. 

Some of the tariffs were on Cuba, the other country adjacent to Mar a Lago, Trump’s palace.  He cut off their oil,will he return the tariff money now illegal?

How embarrassing.  The taxman, who raised everyone’s taxes by heavily taxing imports, now has to contend with Congress.  What happens if Don tries to use tariffs again?  Will the Supreme Court change their mind? Will they have too? They made it crystal clear taxes are Congress’s responsibility, and Trump is president, not congress. 

We will be in for an interesting spectacle when the 134 billion dollars have to be paid back.  They could devalue the currency further, another 10% next year as this makes the debt  normally worth less in real labor time.  This surplus value has already been paid for by the consumer in the form of higher prices.  Now another 134 billion on top of this?

It’s that or the capitalist is honest enough to lower the prices on his goods due to being repaid the tariff. This scenario looks unlikely.

In the end this exercise results in massive inflation, the price of everything has been going through the roof under Don.  The leverage of tariffs as punishment has limits.  Congress does own the purse strings of government, it has been that way since founding.  All this did was test the boundaries of what can happen if the Republican bourgeoisie have control of both houses of Congress and the president. Clearly it was chaos.

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

2 23 2026

Currency Devaluation.  Tariffs.  Disproportionate Representation of Large Landowners in the Senate. 2 12 2026

Currency Devaluation.  Tariffs.  Disproportionate Representation of Large Landowners in the Senate. 2 12 2026

In an attempt to pay off the debt, at 100% GDP, the dollar is being devalued.  It has fallen more than 10% since Trump took power, which  makes the value of the debt smaller as it is in dollars, and if the dollar is worth less nominally the value of the debt falls.

It is simple; a hundred dollars this year is worth $90 instead of 100$ when Trump took power.  Thus if you owed 100$, but the currency was devalued, you would only have to pay 90$ worth of debt in last year’s money.

We see the devaluation clearly when we look at gold prices on the market, up 70% in the past year.

Which points to a greater devaluation, and an attempt to stem losses by investing in a  more stable form of currency.   Silver too was up 130%, a remarkable example of the devaluation of the currency.

When the dollar is worth 10% less, the value of everything goes up 10% in price.  This would be part of  the real inflation rate, about 10% in Trump’s first year in office. A devalued currency also makes the value of wages go down, as more wages have to be paid for the same product as before the devaluation.

So wages have to rise, or workers undergo privations.  Wages must rise, the tariffs also cause  this.  The tariffs make American exports able to be sold for more money, as competitors’ products are raised in value, allowing American export products to rise in value.

It’s like the Corn laws in the 19th century, it made it so British exports of food were able to be sold for higher prices.  It made competition easier for British exports, by raising the cost of grain imported.

It was repealed in 1846, somewhat due to the Irish famine.  It was viewed as a free trade measure.

The combination of tariffs and a devalued dollar mean the  working class are being more heavily exploited, as wages real value fall 10%.  Combined with the rise in price of imported goods,  which are now being tariffed, wages must rise.  But what  if they don’t? It means more hours must be worked to achieve the same wage.  The burden is clearly riding on the proletariat. 

The bourgeoisie says that the tariffs costs will not be paid for by the consumer.  They suggest the cost will be paid for by the producer of the commodity.  In case they haven’t noticed, the price of everything is rising, while the currency keeps falling in value.  Clearly tariffs have risen the prices of commodities, the costs are being passed on to consumers.

The bond market in the form of the national debt may be a safe haven for investors.  As debt increases there may be surplus value to be gained by speculation on the state’s debt.  The assumption is it is going to be paid off, which is probably likely, but first the country’s debt rating may fall, leading to a crisis.  It is a risky venture.

Trump wants to lower the interest rate, making it easier for banks to raise capital.  This will effectively subsidise even greater segments of the economy, like the farm subsidies.

“The legislation Trump has called the One Big Beautiful Bill locked in more than $65 billion over 10 years in agricultural support programs.”

The Washington Post 12 28 2025

Large scale land ownership would be in question without the massive state expenditures of  big farms.   It seems to just be part of American agriculture, and political representation of the large landowners is large. They know Trump has deep pockets,  like the banks who benefit from  low interest rates.

It is the big banks who benefit from the lower interest rates, it allows them to raise capital easier.  Combine this with “too big to fail” legislation, you get a sure fire way to massively increase the power of the big banks.  Given the smaller banks are not “too big too fail”, you see monopoly capitalism brewing.  As the smaller banks fail, the big banks buy their assets for ridiculously low prices, consolidation of ownership on a massive scale. 

The penny being phased out is an obvious effect of devaluation of currency.  Stores were already not paying pennies as of 2026.  The penny is on its way out, the 50$ bill on the way in.

The combination of devaluation of the currency and tariffs makes workers have to work more hours to be able to have the same standard of living they would have had without devaluation and tariffs.   The large landowners benefit as they can export at higher prices due to the rise in the cost of food due to tariffs. But even with this, they still require massive money from the state to stay afloat.  

The corn laws were lifted, as the city had enough of supporting the large scale landowners.  A similar moment could be coming, the Senate will be where you will see it.  It is two senators a state, the large landowners disproportionately  weigh in on the city this way.  Structural change of the senate could be coming, as the cities suffer under the large landowners, represented by  two senators a state.  

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

2 12 2026

Donald Trump and his Past

The Jeffery Epstein case, of the man with the harem visited by many wealthy Americans, as well as British royalty, is still ongoing. Bill and Hillary Clinton are testifying soon on their connection  to Epstein, who was made into a sex offender in 2008 for taking advantage of a 14 year old girl.

There have been other people in the case, and if it were not for Epstein’s death by suicide in jail, there would be more.

At this point Donald Trump, according to Epstein. knew about the girls Epstein was trafficking.  Trump still stayed friends with Epstein, but we have yet to hear anyone fingering out Trump as having used teen prostitutes.  

It is like a freemasonry of sorts.  All Bill Clinton has to do is tell us what everyone believes to be the truth, Trump was using Epstein’s women.

Instead reputational damage to the Clinton  legacy is all the bourgeois press publishes.  Clearly the secrets Epstein kept are part of a freemasonry that extends beyond party lines, into a secretive world of privately owned islands, private jet travel, an estate in Manhattan,etc.

The royal Prince Andrew, now no longer prince due to his involvement with Epstein,  could also incriminate Trump if he would testify before Congress,

But none of these things will come to pass.  The bourgeoisie will not break their secret relationship with Trump and Epstein.   It is beyond party lines, it is some sort of strange brotherhood; a world of billionaires whose wealth does not just buy a diamond, or a luxury car.  Rather it carries the ability to take advantage of young girls, often underage, for sex.

Epstein was a billionaire; an investor in New York, who knew Trump well. Only a fool could not have known about the payments to the underage girls, the massages etc. The pictures relating to Trump; his name on condoms distributed  to guests, with his arm around a young girl all show what everyone knows, Trump is guilty,

But it will not come from Clinton, or any other bourgeois that Trump is guilty.  And even if found guilty, Trump will just lie about his involvement with Epstein, as he has repeatedly done up to now.  The bourgeoisie if nothing else guards its members from public embarrassment and legal repercussions from lifestyles that are scandalous.  

No there will  be no justice.   Millions of pages of documents are still not available, even after lawsuits saying they should be released.  800,000 pages have been redacted.  Trump will not have to answer to his crimes.

I guess it sort of comes with the territory of being a casino owner to have ties with characters like Epstein.  All the gambling, and prostitution that usually goes with it, at least if you’re in Vegas, is still a big part of Don;s persona.  He owned casinos first and foremost.  His wife was an escort, a woman he paid to take out on a “date”. She was a pornographic model from Czech Republic.  She finds the title prostitute offensive. 

Don has always been involved in pornography, and gave $130,000 to porn actress Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet.  Don paid her in 3 checks, yet still denies knowing her.

Justice could be done if Clinton would come clear about what he knows.  But bourgeois freemasonry about Epstein looks too powerful to stop.  Prince Andrew also will not testify to Congress; he feels he is too important to have to answer to the public in the country he chose to use teenage girls for sex in.

Having wealth clearly does not mean having superior morality.  The whole affair of where profit comes from already contains the freemasonry; we are supposed to believe wealth comes from the exchange of commodities, rather than seeing capital as a social relationship between worker and capitalist. Now we see the exploitation of the worker goes beyond working part of the day unpaid.  Her young body is bought and sold in universal prostitution, and the conspiracy extends well into the bourgeoisie.  

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

2 4 2026

Civil Unrest in Minneapolis.  Trump Chooses Violence to Deal With Protestors.

Civil Unrest in Minneapolis.  Trump Chooses Violence to Deal With Protestors.

Well by now everybody  has seen the videos of another death by police in Minneapolis, by individuals connected to the state.   The footage by cellphone shows the man, Alex Pretti, approached officers beating a man, and tried to record it on his cell phone.  The police response was swift, firing 10 shots at Pretti, who was caught up in the chaos, leaving him dead.

The first fibs from the Trump administration was he approached  the officers with a gun drawn.  Well after seeing peoples footage who were watching and filming, it became clear Pretti, although armed with a gun, had it holstered.  Rather he had his cell phone out when he was beaten and shot by riot police. 

It is legal to carry a gun in Minneapolis to a demonstration, WIsconsin has similar laws. We saw this with Kyle Rittenhouse,when it was legal for him to not only carry a gun in Kenosha, but to kill 2 people in the demonstration, and cripple a third. 

Regardless of what  one may think is proper, with some Republican bourgeois trying to say it is illegal to come to the demonstration armed, the right to join a militia in the second amendment of the constitution should lay waste to this concern.

They made their bed now they can sleep in it.  All those years of arguments for less gun control, only to suggest it was illegal for Pertti to have a gun on him. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out. 

If Trump wanted to help local law enforcement, he could have just increased spending on Milwaukee PD.  You would think this would be the first thing he would do; logically to stop a crime problem use the police.

Instead Don has called out the National Guard, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), DHS (department of homeland security), etc,  supposedly to help police in lawless cities.

Instead we see films of ICE killing our countrymen, and it is a worry people will just get hardened to seeing this and soon it will soon not bother them so much.   

It is still a mystery who constitutes the federal government, who trains them, and where they came from to Minneapolis.  What is clear is these are Trump’s men, and are loyal to him.  He is responsible for  his troops like any other commander in the Army.  The buck stops there.

Trump seems to have no guilty conscience, and it would be a surprise if he was to call and talk to Pretti’s  family, and apologize.  Don is not the apology type. He still stubbornly refuses to let  even the local police investigate the shooting of Pretti.

Minneapolis is a day trip by car from Milwaukee.  Chicago is closer to Milwaukee, but Minneapolis is basically the next stop after Milwaukee on the train.  All we can do is hope Trump will not start calling Milwaukee “woke” and send in ICE next.

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

1 26 2026

Demonstrations in Minneapolis.

The epitome of the situation regarding the latest example of a worker getting killed who was innocent is this:

“WASHINGTON, Jan 19 (Reuters) – The Trump administration said on Saturday it was appealing a ruling by a federal judge that put limits on tactics employed by U.S. immigration agents operating in Minneapolis.”

“In a brief filing, lawyers for the Department of Justice told the court they were appealing an order issued by the judge on Friday that barred federal officers from arresting or tear-gassing peaceful demonstrators and observers.”

Reuters 1 19 2026

The judge put “limits on tactics employed by US Immigration agents operating in Minneapolis”.  This sounds like soft language from the judge, yet the reaction was what almost seems humorous.

The Department of Justice was “appealing an order issued by the judge on Friday that barred federal officers from arresting or tear-gassing peaceful demonstrators and observers.”

Wow.  What does that say to you?  I suppose Donald Trump should get the Nobel Peace Prize. 

It is sort of like a moment like his first term., when he had the streets cleared of Black Lives Matter protestors, and brandished a bible upside down in front of the local DC church.  The memories of the leader of the Army in the group striding forth into the tear gassed remains of the demonstration, Trump by his side. What a spectacle!

There has yet to be riots of the scale Wisconsin saw in the last presidential term of Trump.  Remember Kyle Rittenhouse, the northern Illinois man who came to the demonstration with a loaded assault weapon?  Then after shooting it he ran from the other demonstrators running after him, slipping and falling on his long gun, and then fearing the protestors, killed two and crippled another?

And what did he get for this?  No jail time, the north Illinois man had high powered lawyers who got the case completely dropped.  

Well Don has the Nobel Peace Prize now, given to him by the woman who won a primary election in Venezuela against Nicholas Maduro, currently a political prisoner in New York.  

When it happens in Wisconsin we expect it.  The court ruling Trump is appealing, that attempts to suggest it is wrong to use violence against protestors, will probably be overturned.  In the meantime, the demonstrations continue.  

Nicholas Jay Boyes

MIlwaukee Wisconsin 

American Democratic Republic

1 19 2026

Material Conditions and the Bourgeois Press

The capitalist movement in Europe and America reached a crescendo in the late 20th century, and is still with us.  The mechanism of capitalism consolidates ownership of the land, and industry,  increasingly in the hands of a small aristocracy that own everything.

The group in control of the means of production are the modern bourgeoisie.  Cable television, and other outdated mediums such as regular radio fed television broadcasting,  paper newspapers, etc. have been used for propaganda purposes by this aristocracy.  

It is easily accessible, and paid for by capitalist advertising, a form of propaganda that if nothing else portrays a smiling face in the marketplace, the privately owned reality forced upon the ignorant worker.  Its political bent, due to the presence of the people who pay for the broadcasts, the ownership of the companies attempting to sell commodities by advertising, who are all capitalists, and support the more extreme form of them, the Republican bourgeoisie, as this is encouraged by the economic system of modern capitalism. 

Often the industry promoted is not metric, like gasoline powered automobiles from Detroit, a product of an industry intact still in a 20th century condition. The bourgeois press directly uses propaganda when it is time for suffrage, and the broadcast is not in the metric system.  The local political leader is on in 30 second attack ads when the worker wants to see local television news when limited suffrage occurs.

This system uses ignorance to promote a vision of capitalism that is not in tune with reality.  In Europe, the concession  of suffrage to the workers is used to justify expropriating employee owned shops.  Once political leadership can overcome the pressure of its workers, who for one reason or another have slipped back to capitalism, through the mechanism of ignorance and cable television, employee ownership is targeted and removed  by the Republican bourgeoisie. 

Without employee ownership, democracy doesn’t really mean much.  Given the factory is where the worker finds himself most of the time, democracy would seem to be in order there. But where is the suffrage for the manager?  Or the owner? It is no longer present after employee ownership is removed. 

The European Union is best at this expropriation process, all the while suggesting they are expanding democracy.  

The ignorant worker, who tunes into the cable television broadcast, (the station is also owned by the bourgeoisie), receives his social conditioning through this medium.  The internet is gradually removing this old system, corroding the cable television monopoly; ad block technology, and paying for the news rather than the free enterprise method of advertising paying for news is becoming the dominant model. 

The internet is a revolution.  The tech giants are trying to control the system, but can only do so much.  The Washington Post costs 10$  a month, you pay for it.  It is owned by Jeff Bezos, not the journalists.  The New York Times and Reuters are similar, you pay them directly.  Youtube is another one worth paying for, the purpose of this is so there are no advertisements.  

Society is materially changing, the main mechanism of control is ignorance. People are being told to believe things about subjects they need to find out about for themselves, by reading books.  Philosophy and political economy in particular; many people have feelings about what  socialism represents, yet have never read Marx’s Capital, even just volume One.  Or have feelings about the ancient world and have never been exposed to Aristotle or Plato.

The internet again is coming to the rescue; Amazon Prime delivers new and used books we had a hard time getting before, like works by Marx and Engels now accessible by internet for low prices.

Giving up the cable subscription for the internet saves money.  People are paying a hundred dollars a month for cable, and at best we can say it includes the internet., an internet connection costs about 50$,

As the material conditions change, outdated ideas resort to outdated technology to transmit their messages.  Cable television, radio broadcast television, AM radio, are all examples of outdated industry dominated by the Republican bourgeoisie.  Control of cable television consumes these people.   It is their main prerogative, and they control the companies advertising, and even have their political leaders on the station when suffrage occurs,to give us their bourgeois  propaganda.

It is a little harder to control the internet.  It is more advanced, and cheaper to use and produce than the outdated mediums. You have to be able to read and write to use it. 

Thew change in communications, the new medium of he web, is new millennium technology. The old methods of AM Radio and Cable are slowly dying out, but it maybe sometime before the Republican bourgeoisie concedes defeat. Furthermore dumbing down of the internet, connected to Artificial intelligence, attempts to make the internet more personal, more like a humanoid android, has consumed tech capital for years now. Perhaps their followers require a more personalized experience getting the news or shopping. What they encounter online will still be quite a bit of a different experience than going to the mall in the 20th century.

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

12 31 2025      

The Legacy of Colonialism.  Life on the Reservation. 

The Legacy of Colonialism.  Life on the Reservation. 

The pictures of Nicholas Maduro, prime minister of Venezuela being led around in handcuffs, blindfolded, was like a reminder of Saddam Hussein when he  was captured in Iraq.  Another Republican president, another war, just like George I and George II.  George I took Iraq, securing the oil.  Sounds familiar, right? Well he missed Hussein, it was George II, another Republican bourgeois, who finished the job.

Maduro may still be alive,  but he is in no condition to try to lead Venezuela anymore, even if he wants to lead from captivity.  Anything he says or does now is under duress; he is probably drugged and chained in New York where he is imprisoned.  He is no longer in a position to influence things.  The only real question is if they will ever let him out.

Another political prisoner, another open ended commitment to a country in the developing world with oil reserves nationalized.  Iraq had nationalized the oil wells in 1972, from the Iraq Petroleum Company.  This was done by the Baath socialist party, to put Iraq’s oil wealth in a more equitable arrangement, where the proceeds of the oil wealth were no longer making surplus value. 

George II, who got Hussein, expropriated the property of the Iraqis, returning private investment in the oil wells to American and European capitalists.  George II also cited terrorism as a reason to invade Iraq; in the light of when this occurred he tried to suggest Iraq was connected to the 9/11 incident.  

This could not be proved, and it never has been to this day.  Then there were the friends of George II, Labour leader Tony Blair, for instance, who got on the air telling Britons Hussein had an atomic weapon, and could hit Britain in 15 minutes if he launched it.  They also suggested Hussein was developing chemical weapons.   These were called the “weapons of mass destruction” arguments.

There were never any atomic weapons, or chemical weapons found in Iraq.  Considering the country was conquered, there is no reason to believe the weapons could have been hidden.  Instead, after removing Hussein, George II found a new enemy, Islamic State.  He was still trying to link Iraq with Afghanistan, which evidence has yet to be found for.  

Afghanistan ended in American retreat and exit from Afghanistan.  The images of the big airplanes and the hundreds of people running trying to get them is an icon of George II and his Republican war efforts.  Whether he won in Iraq is sort of a matter of opinion; they got the oil back.  But the country remains in shambles after decades of all out war.

Here we have another republican bourgeoisie, and the beginnings of another war, with a similar goal of gaining control of oil fields, and markets. Trump has already said he will be running Venezuela’s  oil wealth, and has committed the Army to war there, abducting the head of state of a neighboring country, and demanding its resources.

In a historical context, Trump looks a lot like a Conquistador, valiantly discovering native land, and conquering its residents.  Perhaps Venezuela will become a 51st state, with reservations for the natives.  How much different it would look from the ICE facilities, packed with Mexicans on the border? A vision of reservations on stolen land from Mexico gained in the Mexican American war that ended in 1848, with Mexico ‘s capitulation to the Americans of the Southwest.

Not really much new here.  The bourgeoisie has been conquering lands in the new world for more than 500 years.  The stain of bloody conquest of native American soil, and black slavery, is part of the history of the country.  Their descendants are still with us,  the Indians are still on the reservations, their fishing and hunting rights on land they ceded in treaties are still controversial.

At some point it is going to have to be left behind, like 20th century industry.  Trump’s only justification for abducting Maduro was drug dealing.  In a country with legal marijuana in half of it, legal alcohol and tobacco throughout it, if you are addicted to drugs, it is nobody’s fault but your own.  You  can’t  sue the alcohol company because you are a drunk.  We view this as a health problem, not a criminal one.  Cocaine is illegal, it is an expensive luxury item only the bourgeois and middle classes can afford.  Penalizing all Venezuelans for drug dealing does not lower demand for cocaine in America. If anything it will strengthen the cartels, who thrive on the lawless luxury trade.

Trump has made a decision to conquer Christianized Incas in their homelands. There is no separation from this and the presence of reservations in America.  For those who  live on the Res, this must come as no surprise.  In 1492, Columbus discovered America.  It’s been 533 years of repression of the native people he found in the Americas. This is part of Trump’s legacy, his hatred of Indians, much like the rural white settlers who still keep the Indians separate from their colonies, on reservations, where poverty  is a scourge.  Trump is no different, it’s been 533 long years, the song remains the same.

Nicholas Jay Boyes
Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

Divide Between Town and Country.  Large Landowners and Unions. 11 28 2025 

Divide Between Town and Country.  Large Landowners and Unions. 11 28 2025 

Much like eastern Europe, America is in a period of reaction.  The bourgeoisie has leveraged the rural people, some of whom are workers in large scale agriculture, to people who believe they are small businessmen growing on farms as capitalists.

The latter group,  not exactly small farmers but also not large scale agriculture, are sort of becoming a petty bourgeoisie, who sell their products as commodities to the merchants.  They may have a few hands, but often are still labouring.  

These people supported Trump.  In so doing, they also supported the large scale production of food,  even though they have seen many of their counterparts lose their farms, to have their lands subsumed by large landowners.  

They feel it is not simply the large scale agriculture bourgeois who have spared them, probably due to their political bent, that has given them prosperity, and allowed them to keep farming.  Although they are clearly the chosen ones, they feel it has been their good business sense that  has kept the farm.  This is why they support Trump, even though economically they are on shaky ground; a few bad harvests and that’s it, bankruptcy follows.

Harnessing this form of ignorance is common throughout capitalist society.  It is rare for one to acknowledge his posh lifestyle simply came through a process of vetting, undertaken by the upper class into their ranks.  Rather ignorance most often restricts the knowledge of this from the petty bourgeoisie.

The view of Trump having made himself rich as a businessman; a sort of man who became rich with his own money and business sense, is fiction.  Trump was born into money, his dad was a real estate tycoon from New York, who helped his son get into casinos at a young age, like Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City. He built a small empire after his dad died in luxury properties, he traded the profit of the bourgeoisie from capitalist industry, the money kept as surplus value by capitalists for their own personal enjoyment.  Trump has been chosen to represent his class, but he has always been a casino owner. It is doubtful he would be intelligent enough to be pulling some sort of scam, supporting the proletariat from his position as president. 

He is leveraging the ignorant by the bourgeoisie, just like in Russia and Eastern Europe, where employee ownership ended due to ignorance of what capitalism really represented.

The large landowners are represented in government by the constitution, that keeps them at the table , so to speak ,with large capitalist industry.  There was a time all the country was only used for agriculture under the British, when America was a colony.  The planters who rebelled  understood that industry would follow revolution, that the north in particular would  build heavy industry, eventually challenging the South where the slave plantations were.  

This was rectified by having the upper house of Congress have 2 seats for each state.

The phenomenon of support for landowners, not the family farm, rather the more industrial form of agriculture, heavily mechanized petroleum dependent large scale agriculture, is what Trump harnessed.  Without unions, large agriculture’s labor is low paid, often m Mexican immigrants many  of whom are in the country illegally.  There is little or no movement to nationalize the land, rather a distant belief in a capitalist who will buck the system, and support the little guy.

You don’t get rich supporting the little guy.  Trump is a billionaire, he represents capital, he is the living embodiment  of capital, it is his hand that creates the surplus value. 

Perhaps it is the idea a person can go to the casino, and walk out a millionaire  It is the roughest place in town, where if you don;’t spend enough you get kicked out.  If you went there hungry you would get bounced  for asking for food. 

In the cities it is a little harder for capitalists.  Libraries, museums, theaters,  etc. are part of urban society,  and the proletariat is thus a little harder to fool.  There is less ignorance in the city, rural society has none of these advantages.  Collectively large scale industry comprises much of the activity in the city, with buzzing ports, retail capital workers, large commodity producing recycling operations.  It is a stark difference to rural America, reflecting a massive divide between town and county. 

Rectifying this divide will take time.  Nationalizing large scale agriculture, large landowners by a union of farmers at the site of harvest and in the fields would put the successful large farms in the hands of the workers, where they owudl be worked for the benefit of all members of society, rather than a cash cow for a small group of large landowners..  The cooperative markets will be where the money comes from, and outreach for the small and large cooperatives that will replace the capitalist landowner will come from here.

The state will not be buying the land for the cooperative. The workers may have to use the money created in production to buy additional land, or nationalizing the land if the landowners refuse to cooperate with their workers. 

This will not be easy, but will start to rectify the huge gap between town and country.  Getting used to being in a union at work on the farm, much like his proletarian cousin in the city, will follow.  

The system is geared against them.   There will be losses, but also victories.  As recognition of membership in the class of laborers comes,  that they do not own the stocks in the means of production,  collectively the poor rural man will support more radical leadership. 

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

11 28 2025

Nationalization of the Land 9 29 2025 

Nationalization of the Land 9 29 2025 

“The property in the soil is the original source of all wealth, and has become the great problem upon the solution of which depends the future of the working class.”

“I do not intend discussing here all the arguments put forward by the advocates of private property in land, by jurists, philosophers and political economists, but shall confine myself firstly to state that they have tried hard to disguise the primitive fact of conquest under the cloak of “Natural Right”. If conquest constituted a natural right on the part of the few, the many have only to gather sufficient strength in order to acquire the natural right of reconquering what has been taken from them.”

Karl Marx Nationalization of the Land

It is a sorry fact that the small farmer is rarely in control of most of the farming that is occurring on the land.  Large corporations have replaced the family farm, just  as they did the grocery store, gas station,  etc.

It is beyond returning control to small farmers; rather the struggle becomes one of unions, cooperatives, and nationalization.  Returning to small scale farming, where the small farmer was his own capitalist, would only revert again to large scale farming, after a few generations as farmers would sell their lands, and ownership would become concentrated in the hands of a few large farmers again.

This does not mean cultivating the land on one’s own, purely for use value, would stop.  It just means labour on the farm would be more like working in a factory, with a union, and the right to strike.  Land will be owned by farmers, but they will be free to cultivate ecology or gardens for themselves on their own land, as a family unit. The man or woman will work for a collective farm, or both, and if they want to own some land it will be available to them, just not for capitalist purposes.

Labor on the large farms is already industrial.  Unloading the trucks, sorting the vegetables for defects, etc.  is all industrial labor. Even tilling the soil becomes an industrial activity of driving the tractor.

The current model of capitalist farming is destroying our ecology, with pesticides, genetically  modified crops, patented seeds from Monsanto,etc. becoming a perfect example of the plunder of land exacted by the bourgeoisie.  

There may have been a golden time when farming was not done by large farmers, when they were a petty bourgeoisie, but now they are heavily weighted towards the big bourgeoisie, Donald Trump’s supporters.

The latter is connected with removal of the farms from the small farmer, through patented seeds and subsidies to large farms based on the number of acres farmed.

“If cultivation on a large scale proves (even under its present capitalist form, that degrades the cultivator himself to a mere beast of burden) so superior, from an economical point of view, to small and piecemeal husbandry, would it not give an increased impulse to production if applied on national dimensions?”

“The ever-growing wants of the people on the one side, the ever-increasing price of agricultural produce on the other, afford the irrefutable evidence that the nationalisation of land has become a social necessity.”

Kar Marx ibid.

The farm worker harvesting today is overworked, using machinery from dawn to dusk, for a few months out of the year.  Often this labor is done by migrants from Mexico, sometimes the only workers who can work long hours with little pay. Sometimes they are illegally working, constantly in fear of deportation. 

Capitalists  obviously have concluded large scale farming is the answer.  As Marx points out, would it not be superior for the nation if the benefits of large scale farming was for all?

The plunder of the soil for capitalist agriculture, and the exploitation of the laborer, could be better addressed with employee ownership of large farms, and nationalization of the land.  

“France was frequently alluded to, but with its peasant proprietorship it is farther off the nationalisation of land than England with its landlordism. In France, it is true, the soil is accessible to all who can buy it, but this very facility has brought about a division into small plots cultivated by men with small means and mainly relying upon the land by exertions of themselves and their families. This form of landed property and the piecemeal cultivation it necessitates, while excluding all appliances of modern agricultural improvements, converts the tiller himself into the most decided enemy to social progress and, above all, the nationalisation of land. Enchained to the soil upon which he has to spend all his vital energies in order to get a relatively small return, having to give away the greater part of his produce to the state, in the form of taxes, to the law tribe in the form of judiciary costs, and to the usurer in the form of interest, utterly ignorant of the social movements outside his petty field of employment; still he clings with fanatic fondness to his bit of land and his merely nominal proprietorship in the same. In this way the French peasant has been thrown into a most fatal antagonism to the industrial working class. “

Karl Marx iibid.

A similar phenomenon is the support from the petty bourgeois farmers of the reactionary bourgeoisie of Donald Trump.  It’s gotten to the point if you are rural and farming, you are expected to support Trump. The residents of the small towns also like Trump, even though they own little land, and work for large scale agriculture.

It has destroyed the very thing we put our hopes in, the ability of the worker own land.  Instead he is landless, or trying to be a small businessman with his land, attempting to obtain as much land as possible, and remain competitive.

“Peasant proprietorship being then the greatest obstacle to the nationalisation of land, France, in its present state, is certainly not the place where we must look to for a solution of this great problem.”

“To nationalise the land, in order to let it out in small plots to individuals or working men’s societies, would, under a middle-class government, only engender a reckless competition among themselves and thus result in a progressive increase of “Rent” which, in its turn, would afford new facilities to the appropriators of feeding upon the producers.”

“At the International Congress of Brussels, in 1868, one of our friends [César De Paepe, in his report on land property: meeting of the Brussels Congress of the International Working Men’s Association of Sept. 11 1868] said:”

“”Small private property in land is doomed by the verdict of science, large land property by that of justice. There remains then but one alternative. The soil must become the property of rural associations or the property of the whole nation. The future will decide that question.””

“I say on the contrary; the social movement will lead to this decision that the land can but be owned by the nation itself. To give up the soil to the hands of associated rural labourers, would be to surrender society to one exclusive class of producers.”

Karl Marx

Iibid

Nationalization of the land would give the cities a larger say over what and how land is farmed.  The large scale agricultural producers now have a lock on the city with Trump.  It has become a matter of guaranteeing the supply of food to the city for affordable prices, which could be an issue if the farmers boycotted the cities their leader keeps calling shitholes to live in.   Then the nation would be forced to exert a say over the land.  

It has yet to come to this, but the decision was already evident in 1872 when this was written.  Things are even further along now, and even attempting to buy land for individual farming is something that just no longer happens.  Jobs in agriculture almost always come from large scale farm farming; at most there is a distant view of a small capitalist farmer making his way up to be a big farmer. 

But once there he remembers not his peasant roots, and supports Trump. His help is wage labour, his motive profit. 

“The nationalisation of land will work a complete change in the relations between labour and capital, and finally, do away with the capitalist form of production, whether industrial or rural. Then class distinctions and privileges will disappear together with the economical basis upon which they rest. To live on other people’s labour will become a thing of the past. There will be no longer any government or state power, distinct from society itself! Agriculture, mining, manufacture, in one word, all branches of production, will gradually be organised in the most adequate manner. National centralisation of the means of production will become the national basis of a society composed of associations of free and equal producers, carrying on the social business on a common and rational plan. Such is the humanitarian goal to which the great economic movement of the 19th century is tending.”

Karl Marx conclusion, ibid.

All one can say is society is still moving in this direction, but has yet to remove the large farms, and the urban bourgeoisie, who work in tandem.  There has yet to be a firm break from this , indicating it will not be imperceivable when it happens. Rather it will be abrupt, a real change felt by all.  At which point “the expropriators will be expropriated” in Marx’s words.

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

9 29 2025

Financial Capital.  A Speculative Bubble. 

At the start of what is looking like what could be a crisis,  the question is if the financial bubble will burst.   The speculation on financial capital is reaching a fevered pitch, with investment in money capital feeding a market that is now further and further away from industrial capital, and is producing a mountain of financial services, hedge funds, money markets, etc.

The bourgeois are in bonds heavily too, speculating on the ability of the state to be able to pay off its debts, with the interest paid for by taxes.

The purpose of circulation capital, merchants capital, is to make the turnover of capital occur more smoothly.  Credit and the large banks are also connected with this, they use the stored money to do banking operations that include loaning out money to capitalists to smooth the exchange of commodities.

But beyond this lies the world of joint stock companies, which are simply companies with several owners.  The stock is a title to ownership of the company, and the companies control capital.

But is all this buying and selling of stocks really a movement of industrial capital?  

To some degree yes.  But it is invested in by money market funds, and other financial services that draw interest from industrial capital.  They are a cost of production, and we should always remember the value of a commodity is the amount of labour contained in it, whether or not it is paid for.  David Ricardo showed us this in his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation.  Clearly circulating capital does not miraculously create value; the exchange of commodities does not create surplus value, what Ricardo called profit (surplus value).  The surplus value is the unpaid section of the workday, based on the amount of labour required to produce a commodity. Profit is calculated on the whole capital expenditure, including the means of production and raw materials.

All this speculation and corresponding financial capital has formed a bubble, and in the end, if it breaks, industrial capital will be all that remains.  And if you are a country that has leveraged other countries resources, with money from the home country, importing much more than exporting, financial capital becomes increasingly more important.

The question becomes how much financial capital has accumulated, and what happens when there is overproduction, and crisis occurs.  At this point large amounts of capital are destroyed, we saw this as the markets were crashing of late. The money is just wiped off, the financial capital rendered useless paper. 

Perhaps this is due to the fact the bank does not produce commodities, rather it makes the process of production turn over more quickly by means of credit, making turnover more smoothly than if the industrial capitalist had to be the one who had to sell his own commodity.

The banks also invest financial capital in industry, in the 20th century they were quickly becoming ever more powerful.  The ability to gain seats in joint stock companies led to the monopoly conditions, led by JP Morgan, who controlled US Steel, most of the eastern railways, General Motors, etc.  Financial capital was connected with this, he used credit to buy companies, which he obtained through the bank. 

But the question remains how much is financial capital used to simply turnover commodities?  The stock market is still called the ‘“Stock Exchange”, implying something tangible is being exchanged. 

“What does a mercantile exchange do?

“The Merc trades several types of financial instruments: interest rates, equities, currencies, and commodities.

Google search mercantile exchange

“Equities, also known as stocks, represent an ownership stake in a company, giving investors a claim on the company’s assets and earnings. Investors purchase equities to gain potential returns through capital appreciation (an increase in share price) and dividends. The value of equities fluctuates based on market demand, company performance, and economic conditions, making them a popular but inherently risky investment.”

Google search equities

Equities seem to now equal stocks., as the jargon in capitalism changes sometimes; Milton Keynes would have been proud of this one. People buy stocks “to gain potential returns through capital appreciation (an increase in share price) and dividends.”

“Capital appreciation is the increase in an investment’s market value over time, leading to a higher price than its original purchase price. This growth occurs due to factors like increased demand, better asset performance, or favorable market conditions. Investors seek capital appreciation for passive growth, while the actual profit realized from selling an asset is known as a capital gain.”

Google search capital appreciation

So now we know profit results from selling an asset, which is an active relationship of the owner of stocks to his glorified hoard.

“Passive growth” refers to growth achieved without continuous, active effort, appearing in several contexts including investment strategies where wealth accumulates over time with minimal management)….

Google search passive growth

And naturally investors in stocks want to think or do as little as possible, and still be able to wring the surplus value out of the workers, whose labour represent the profit..

” increased demand, better asset performance, or favorable market conditions” as reasons for the exploitation of the proletariat is not clear. There are conditions which make it easier or harder for the bourgeois to reap the profits from his ownership of means of production, referred here to as assets. Sort of a more technical term for the accumulation of capital in stock, obtained upon selling, “capital gain”.

google’s explanations are always witty. I don’t know who writes them. It would not seem to be a task to just let a computer so to say wax philosophically about.

The bubble occurs when financial capital is divorced from reality, when circulating capital starts to cease to function,

But it is definitely better to be a producer of commodities than a financial capitalist speculating on  the price of commodities when the crisis comes.  I think that  should be obvious, the bubble may break, and the speculation on financial capital becomes more risky.  The next stage will be in production, when the companies who all rely on China for cheap raw materials and machinery have to pay double for them (Trump’s now on now off again tariffs in 2025).  .   The financial capital may cushion the blow, but when the merchant cannot pay the bill at the port, his creditors will be the first to react.  The spectacle of yards in port, parked, waiting for a consumer, and conversely a working class suffering layoffs and loss of employment, the result of the speculative bubble breaking.  

And there are the exports to China, now tariffed 138% by them to enter, now not tariffed, etc. .   America produces commodities China uses, they may have a huge deficit in overall trade, but they still rely on products from America.  Overproduction will likely occur here too, unless new markets are found for finished commodities. As far as commodities produced in both countries jointly, the tariff would be a real impediment to production.

The speculation on financial capital has created  a bubble.  Overproduction is looking likely, we will probably again see the state in its role to bail out the failing companies and agriculture. We see this taking effect in regard to the threat by Trump to lower the price of money to banks to near nothing. A large subsidy to capitalist industry.  It is also a clever way to use the states money, the segment of surplus value separated off and called taxes, by alternately pulling the taxes out of the surplus value, then returning them to capitalists who are having trouble making a profit. The only question is, is it using the state money to make a profit? The bourgeois has a fetish about state assets capable of making a profit, they are sold off, often at bargain basement prices, to any capitalist who wants to take the risk of running them. I fit is the state making money here, it is quite clever. But it is also not capitalism.

Generally it is agriculture that is subsidized and bailed out; the milk wasted and dumped as it cannot be sold at $2.19 a gallon.  The government paying farmers to dump the milk. At the same time the soup kitchens with long lines, often outdoors in winter.

This is a recurring feature of capitalism.  It may be here again, crisis.  If it is, it was sparked by Donald Trump’s protectionism.  The taxes on imports could cause overproduction, social overproduction, at home and abroad.  He backed off this time, but it could be enough to cause confidence investors had in dealing with Americans to be depleted; how can they be trusted? It is a crisis at least partially of their own making.  

Nicholas Jay Boyes 

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

edit 9 13 2025