Slavery in the Colonies. Emancipation and its Legacy.  6 27 2023

The Reuters news people are writing a history of slavery in America, it is at:

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-slavery-lawmakers/

And:

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-slavery-lawmakers-overview/

“President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached the third year of the Civil War.

Google search emancipation proclamation 

Prior to this there is little real archival information for black slaves, beyond death notices from slave owners, whose wills included slaves, and tax notices filed by the slaveowner.  Sometimes a family kept writings from the ancestors, often 4 or 5 generations removed, that included a record of slaves owned by the person.  Generally it includes a dollar amount, as it was in a will or if the estate was sold after the death of the slave owner.  

Reuters shows a consistent connection between serving as a Congressperson, Senator, Supreme Court Justice, and even president, and having descendants that owned black people.  They found 100 people whose ancestors owned slaves, the southerners more commonly directly linked to slavery.

It is relevant because here we see the legacy of slavery and the position of the descendants of slave owners, who may have suffered abolition, but nevertheless remained politically powerful, and eventually got their fortunes back.  And it only took about 100 years.

It is also relevant that these powerful people in government, our bourgeoisie, are totally opposed to Karl Marx and his writings. They seek to kill by silence his writings such as Capital.  They have convinced their workers Marxism is immoral, as Marx was not a Christian.

Nevertheless we retain records of the real events Marx took part in. Here is an example: 

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

This letter was written by Marx for the International Working Men’s Association on January 25 1856.  

Here is another:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/11/26.htm

The latter shows the contradiction of what the Republicans became, after the Civil War.  At some point the descendants of the slave owners became leadership in the party.  The Reuters article names many, for instance Mitch McConnell, Senator from Kentucky.

According to the Reuters article: 

Direct ancestor: Joseph Farrington

Number of enslaved: 12

Generations removed: 4

In this case we know little detail of the human beings Mr. Farrington owned.  We just see a powerful man whose family history has a rather interesting connection to slavery.

Continuing to delve into Reuters we find: 

“Lindsey Graham

U.S. Senator from South Carolina

DIRECT ANCESTOR: Joseph Maddox

RELATIONSHIP: Great-great-great-grandfather

NUMBER ENSLAVED: 8

“The great-great-great-grandfather of Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina. After the death of Graham’s direct ancestor, Joseph Maddox, a receipt from the sale of his estate was prepared. Dated February 1, 1845, it shows the sale of eight people Maddox had enslaved. Among them were five children: Sela, Rubin, James, Sal and Green. The “Negro man Sam” was sold for $155.25. Their names are listed alongside items including a sorrel horse ($10.50) and a folding table ($9.87).

Reuters see above ibid.

How about this one:

“Pete Sessions

U.S. Representative from Texas

DIRECT ANCESTOR: Richard Sessions

RELATIONSHIP: Great-great-grandfather

NUMBER ENSLAVED: 96

“One of the wealthiest slaveholders was Richard Sessions, the great-great-grandfather of Representative Pete Sessions, a Republican from Texas. A family history written by the congressman’s grandfather in 1975 tells a riches-to-rags story involving the Sessions’ cotton plantation along the Mississippi River: a place called Luna Landing in Chicot County, Arkansas, where more than 80% of the residents in 1860 were Black.

“The family book depicts the affluence of Richard Sessions before the war. It also documents the dependency of his fortune on the labor of those he enslaved.

“Richard Sessions owned about 770 acres of some of the most fertile land in the South. By 1860, census records show, the 43-year-old Sessions was among the richest 1% in America. His land in Chicot County was valued at $75,000. His personal wealth – measured largely in human property – was far greater: $200,000, or $113 million in today’s money by one calculation.

“An 1860 local tax list indicates he owned $1,000 in household furniture, two “pleasure carriages,” and at least eight horses, 30 mules and 40 head of cattle.

“Sessions had 96 enslaved people working his land and tending to his family, according to the slave schedule portion of the 1860 census.

“Many slave schedules listed each person who was enslaved, individually, but almost never named them. The census taker’s entry for those in bondage by Sessions is even more impersonal. It grouped the enslaved by age and sex: There is an entry for three unnamed 55-year-old men, for example. Thirteen 25-year-old men. Twelve 15-year-old girls. And so on.

Reuters ibid.

Although ruined in business by the Civil War, which emancipated his slaves, the family today is still bourgeois.  It would seem to be that way for many of the people in the article; they suffered financially by abolition, but remained powerful, governing America 160 years later.

Another one:

Joe Wilson

“U.S. Representative from South Carolina

DIRECT ANCESTOR: Stephen H. Boineau

RELATIONSHIP: Great-great-grandfather

NUMBER ENSLAVED: 16

“Joe Wilson is the Republican Congressman from South Carolina who famously shouted “You lie!” at America’s first Black president, Barack Obama, during a joint session of Congress in 2009. Wilson has at least five slaveholders among his forebears. His ancestors first enslaved Black people during the 1700s, Reuters found.

“Among the slaveholders was Wilson’s great-great-grandfather, Stephen H. Boineau. In 1860, he enslaved 16 people, ranging from an 8-month-old girl to a 50-year-old man. Boineau also worked for another enslaver as an overseer – a man who enforced plantation rules and monitored the conduct of the enslaved.

“Wilson did not respond to five requests for comment.

Reuters ibid.

“Among 536 members of the last sitting Congress, Reuters determined at least 100 descend from slaveholders. Of that group, more than a quarter of the Senate – 28 members – can trace their families to at least one slaveholder.

“Those lawmakers from the 117th session of Congress are Democrats and Republicans alike. They include some of the most influential politicians in America: Republican senators Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton and James Lankford, and Democrats Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Duckworth, Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan.

“In addition, President Joe Biden and every living former U.S. president – except Donald Trump – are direct descendants of slaveholders: Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and – through his white mother’s side – Barack Obama. Trump’s ancestors came to America after slavery was abolished.

“Two of the nine sitting U.S. Supreme Court justices – Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch – also have direct ancestors who enslaved people.

Article continues

“Reuters found that at least 8% of Democrats in the last Congress and 28% of Republicans have such ancestors. The preponderance of Republicans reflects the party’s strength in the South, where slavery was concentrated.

“Few were willing to discuss the subject: Only a quarter of those identified as having slaveholding ancestors offered any comment to Reuters. Among the silent are politicians who previously have spoken publicly, sometimes eloquently, about the legacy of slavery and the need for racial healing. The reticence underscores the enduring sensitivity of slavery as a political issue, an unease that genealogist Burroughs suggests is greatly amplified for many people when one’s own kin are linked to the brutal institution.

Reuters ibid.

Reuters went so far as to contact the people referenced in this article, and most were silent.  Part of living in America for many includes a past history sometimes hard to face.  For Wisconsin, it is what happened to the natives.  While there was never slavery in Wisconsin, their men marched to Civil War under Lincoln, president from Illinois, to emancipate the slaves, it is a shame they could not have felt the same way towards the suffering of the native peasants who were run off their land to create capitalism as we know it today.

But for many it did not stop there, a legacy of slavery remaining also, especially in the South. Not only did they remove the natives,  they used slave labour to farm the land, often to its demise and then moving further west to do it again.  

If one is to point to a family history, as many a representative will do when trying to gain the sanction of universal suffrage, of hard work and good business sense allowing for a bourgeois to become Congressman,  the reality of many includes human bondage.  Although there are few today who would suggest ending abolition, some of the main protagonists in the story such are Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, whose ideas are still being met with violence.  There is still a sore spot about when the southern man was confronted by the proletariat, and forced to give up ownership of the human beings he held in bondage.  It has yet to be forgiven, and it will not be in my lifetime. It is part of a history few read, it is the real life struggle of the workers in their daily lives, how they labour, their real material conditions. Their non ownership of the means of production, and the human bondage practiced by their so-called “betters” ancestors.

The Reuters article seems to be the first of a series.  More on this soon hopefully.

Nicholas Jay Boyes 

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

6 27 2023

An agreement was reached a few days prior to default on the debt by Washington.  In the agreement reached, there will be no limit to the amount of bonds the government can offer to pay the bills of the state.

Which would seem to have been inevitable, given it was simply the Republican bourgeoisie who were having trouble with how their money was being spent by the less extreme section of the bourgeoisie, the liberal progressives.  

The suggestion they lowered spending, when to pay for their day to day expenses with bonds, rather than straight out taxes, looks absurd.  Rather this money, in bonds, will carry an interest rate, and will be issued by the Central Bank, as bonds. Even if they did lower spending, what is going to be spent will be more expensive than it would be if it were simply paid for by taxes, rather than the roundabout way of issuing bonds to be paid back at a later date.

Although the money comes from selling commodities, as all value is created by labour, it is claimed as profit by the capitalist, and some of it is subdivided out to pay the expenses of the capitalist state.  The worker can claim this to be his, it is produced by him, but so is profit, which he cannot claim as his own.  Taxes on the worker like sales taxes, which tax things like pens and papers, books, computers etc. are all simply repressive.  Given the conditions, you would be hard pressed to find a worker who would agree to pay a sales tax.  Yet that is the argument  when taxes are due, that the state money is property of the worker, and the liberal progressive is spending too much of it. 

Given it is a division of profit, the Republican bourgeoisie who comprise most of the owners of capital must see a conspiracy to spend their money due to universal suffrage they could not control.  But why issue bonds?  Why not lower the cost of the state by simply raising taxes to pay for what the bonds are going to?

Instead any money saved will go to paying off the interest on the state’s debt, as bonds.  So where was the controversy?

In the 2008 recession the debt rating was downgraded. Prior to this, and since then, there has never been default.  This time the rating has fallen, but only because the debt was in question for so long, as capitalists argued about their profits from bonds, and how much to issue.  Although they never intended to not pay for the maturing bonds, a few weeks away from a default has rattled investors.

The whole issuing of bonds is speculation on the ability of the state to pay off its debts at a future date of purchase of the bond.  It comes to 3.7% interest on a ten year note.  There is no commodity involved, it is pure fetish. It is money that creates interest from its power as capital.  It is not machines, or a product speculated on that will be built, like a ship or railroad.  It is pure speculation, the trading of tax money, fictitious capital.  At best the capitalist spreads around the wealth a little, as instate college tuition.  But make no mistake, the repressive power of the state is not being removed.  It just carries an interest rate now.

The industrial capitalist recognizes this, and deducts from his surplus value this money. It is part of the interest, which is going to bonds. Perhaps this sweetens the pot for him, so to speak, as the money is not simply taxes, it has a return date with interest for his fellow capitalists who buy bonds.  But he still has to pay. The financial capital is still all created in production, and its circulation can only be made cheaper by the intervention of credit, in this case bonds. The state is using its authority to issue bonds, financial capital.

The currency is obviously a cost of production, the money stored up here for circulation an expense.  

But with bonds comes interest, making it seem superficially that the state has created a profit, and paid back the bond.  

This is simply not the case, the capitalist state is not running factories to pay off their debts.  If there were assets that could produce a profit that were run by the state they would be privatised.  There is no “ National Debt Incorporated” production facility hidden somewhere in the deep west., making  profit paying off the bonds debts.  

Instead, there is the surplus value, which is calculated by what is left over after the cost of labour, the variable capital, wages, are paid for by the industrial capitalist. The rest of the expenditure comes from the constant capital, the expenditure on machinery and raw materials.  The latter becomes important in drawing  the distinction between surplus value and profit. 

The financial capital carries the interest the capitalist has to pay out as part of  his expenditures.  He calculates for this, and here we have him using the Central Bank for credit.  It’s where the bonds are issued, the money coming from selling commodities.  The fact the commodities have not been built yet changes nothing.  It is a form of credit, and in times of crisis the bonds are considered viable assets, even though there are failing banks containing them.  Loans to smaller banks are made by the Central Bank based on bonds as assets.

Which seems like a great deal of fictitious capital.  And a group of investors who are ultimately speculating on the taxes that will have to be paid if the whole thing goes south.  When the banks become “too big to fail”,  it seems as though there is no cost spared to pay for the bonds that are becoming due. 

The latest exercise in the issuing of bonds expands the credit mechanism of the Central bank further.  With the economy coming back from the Covid crisis, short of a few notable bank failures, it seems prosperity is being felt again.  At least there are still paper products on sale, rather than empty shelves in the pandemic.  The Central Bank looks able to handle issuing large amounts of debt, for the day to day expenditures of the state.  But in the end there will always be a question of just why taxes are being traded, rather than simply paid for by capitalists, the former what bonds really represent.  

Nicholas Jay Boyes 

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

6 5 2023

After the fall of the three banks Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), Signature Bank, and then Signature Bank, is it going to happen again? Pacific Western Bank (PAC) seems to be experiencing some of the same problems the other failures had, as money becomes more difficult to be had.

Things seem to be starting to snowball; the banks fail, making it harder to borrow money.  The interest rate rises, the Central Bank reacts to this by raising the official interest rate, and the banks find it harder and harder to access capital.  

The PAC Bank, which also did considerable business in California, is teetering.  Its depositors are going away to larger banks, as its assets were tied to interest rates on long range investments.  Like in the 2008 crisis, when interest rates spiked, leaving holders of variable rate mortgages subject to a double digit interest rate practically overnight, the speculation on long term loans like mortgages has to be having an effect on the mid sized bank.

As money becomes more difficult to be had,

“Another midsize bank faced a crisis of confidence on Thursday, as Pacific Western Bank said that it had lost nearly 10 percent of its deposits over the last week, sparking a renewed plunge in its already depressed share price.

“The deposit flight, which amounts to billions of dollars, was detailed in a regulatory filing that suggested new trouble at the Los Angeles-based lender. The bank’s stock fell 23 percent, a much steeper decline than other banks that have been the focus of investors’ worries after the recent collapses of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and First Republic Bank.

“PacWest, with $44 billion in assets and branches primarily in California, grew fast as a lender in the technology world, a similarity to some of the fallen banks that has proved unfortunate of late. In its regulatory filing Thursday, PacWest said that the seizure and sale of First Republic at the beginning of May “heightened market and customer fears of additional bank failures, including PacWest.”

“On May 3, the bank confirmed that it was looking to sell itself or raise more money, a sign of weakness in its business that sent its shares down sharply. Around that time, the bank said that it had “not experienced out-of-the-ordinary deposit flows.”

New York Times May 11 2023

The shares are connected to the ability of the bank to use credit to consolidate capital.  Banks are sort of like objects with gravity for capital, they exert a pull from all other capital around them to consolidate into a large mass. The bank holds capital, the deposits are even used as capital, lent out at an interest rate so the bank makes a profit from its deposits. 

That is part of the reason it is important when viewing a bank to look at  their deposits.  It is part of their capital, and if deposits start to wane, the bank cannot make a profit as easy.

The last three failures were tied to a run on the deposits of the banks, resulting in the state having to repay the depositors, who held more than the previous level of $250,000 that was insured by the Central Bank.  The latter rule went to the wayside when the banks failed, even though the average deposit size of an average person was $7,000.

So the millionaires got bailed out with the banks.  SVC’s assets were sold to JPMorgan for a little more than 13 billion dollars, a bank previous to failure holding 200 billion dollars or more in assets.  This sale was accomplished with the aid of the state, the Central Bank overseeing the transaction.

The larger banks were forced by the Central Bank to come up with about $30 billion to help bail out First Republic bank, to no avail. The bank went under, now in the process of its assets being sold at bargain basement prices to another big bank presumably,  like SVB did with JPMorgan.  That was a sizable amount of capital, 30 billion dollars worth.  Where did it go?  It was like a bucket with a hole in the bottom, the Central Bank plan just kept pouring more water into it. 

If PAC fails it will be another bailout, bringing into question how the Central Bank can keep coming up with these massive sums of capital.  The national debt rate is in question, the Congress divided about raising it again.  The banks seem to be where a trillion dollars went in 2008, this time they are in hundreds of billions.  How will they pay? By speculating on commodities that are not yet produced, fictitious capital, raising the debt ceiling, trading the tax money.

The Western Alliance Bank so far has yet to fall, although it is facing deposit problems like the three other bank failures.  Once there is a question of safety of deposits, investments move from small bank to big bank.  The big banks were “too big to fail”, and investors know they will not lose everything if a big bank starts to fail.  The Central Bank will bail them out.

But every bailout seems to raise the national debt further, now at biblical proportions.  Will there be commodities produced that will be able to pay off the debt? It is pure speculation; all we know is capitalists sure think so.  If they did not you would never see the national debt rise. 

So far there has been no effort seen to get the big banks to bail out PAC like they did First Republic.  Perhaps the big bankers are learning their lessons, and conversely the Central Bank.  Clearly the interest rates rose as a reaction to the tightening of credit, with the possibility of bank failure the cause of rising interest rates by the Central Bank.  

You can probably expect the national debt to keep rising, as the Central Bank keeps selling more and more bonds to bail out the banks. The proceeds will come from profit, diverted from the pot for taxes by the bourgeoisie.  It remains to be seen if this is simply a credit problem; if it is being a costly one.  

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Constitutional Democratic Republic

5 13 2023

edit 9 20 2025

Speculation and Financial Capital.  Three Bank Failures.  5 2 2023

There has been a series of bank failures, with Silicon Valley Bank (SVC) bank, Signature Bank, and First Republic bank all going under.  The state has bailed out the banks completely, as in the case of SBC and Signature, although they have suggested the big banks have an insurance policy to bail out banks that is somehow not part of taxes. 

Of course, given taxes are a subdivision of surplus value, it really is only an accounting shell game of where the surplus value is really going.  In the end, value is created by labour, and this surplus value represents the hours worked by the worker producing commodities he is not paid for. 

The failure of the banks was tied to speculative investment. When it became clear the banks were no longer going to be able to make a profit for its investors, the speculative bubble burst, leaving the banks devalued. 

Once the failures became imminent, people fled the banks with their deposits. This led to SVB, and Signature Bank not being able to guarantee its depositors, many of whom had uninsured money in the bank, as the state only provided $250,000 insurance on deposits.

This would change, and SVB and Signature, upon failing, had the state insure the whole investments, and the deposits.  It meant if you were a millionaire, you would be compensated for your millions, even though the banks failed.    

Which is clearly in bailout territory.  The latest bank to fail is First Republic Bank. 

“JPMorgan Chase’s purchase of First Republic Bank is intended to end a budding financial crisis, but it risks doing so by reviving a political battle over the power of the nation’s largest financial institutions.

“California state regulators closed First Republic early Monday after ruling it was “unsafe or unsound” and named the FDIC to sell off its parts.

“JPMorgan’s prominent role in the First Republic saga drew fire from lawmakers such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and highlighted the limits of restructuring implemented in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. JPMorgan — and other supersized banks — benefited in recent weeks as deposits fled regional lenders for the perceived safety of larger institutions, and now gained again by outbidding others for what was left.

Washington Post May 1 2023

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/05/01/first-republic-bank-seized-jp-morgan/

Which marked the end of First Republic Bank. Apparently its assets went on the chopping block, with JPMorgan buying up the devalued investments at bargain basement prices.

It should be noted Elizabeth Warren supported the bailout of SVB and Signature Bank, when its depositors and investors in its paper realized their money was not insured.  They stood to lose billions, much of it in mortgage and securities speculation.

Capitalist state to the rescue; Warren would support a complete bailout for all investments in SVB, and Signature Bank, which resulted in the bailout of the billions in investments of financial capital, tied to speculation.  

And as predicted, investors removed their money from the failing banks to the safety of the big banks, the banks considered “too big to fail” in the 2009 crisis.  

An interesting use of taxes.  Unfortunately, this use does not seem to be making anyone a profit, except perhaps JPMorgan, who saw new investment and deposits, as people removed their money from the smaller failing banks, to them.   The investments JPMorgan just bought could prove to be able to make a profit in time, we don’t know what exactly they just bought.  Probably some sort of speculation on Mortgages, securities, etc., which are now devalued severely, but could one day be worth something.

“All banks with more than $50 billion in assets are required to file with the FDIC a “resolution plan” designed to provide insight into how the institution could be wound down in the event that it fails.

“In its most recent version, submitted at the end of last year, First Republic said that “its focused business model, uncomplicated structure and conservative market share” would make it easy to wind down in a crisis.

““First Republic believes that a resolution of the Bank by the FDIC would not require the use of any extraordinary government support and would substantially mitigate the risk that the failure of the Bank could have a serious adverse impact on the financial stability of the United States,” the bank said in the December document.

“First Republic’s failure is expected to cost the FDIC about $13 billion, the agency said. The money will come from the FDIC’s deposit insurance fund, which insured banks pay into every quarter.

Ibid. Washington Post

As said the FDIC has an accounting technique that allows for the banks to save up money to bail themselves out when their excessive speculation results in a loss of returns on their money.   At best we can say this surplus value is not divided off the state as taxes, rather is a hoard, in case of failure, insured by the FDIC, the state.

“its focused business model, uncomplicated structure and conservative market share” (see above) seems to have put the state’s insurance policy of bailouts for billionaires to the test again. Apparently the 13 billion dollars the state, which supports the FDIC, that just went to bail out First Republic: “…would not require the use of any extraordinary government support and would substantially mitigate the risk that the failure of the Bank could have a serious adverse impact on the financial stability of the United States,” the bank said in the December document.

ibid.

Well that’s an optimistic picture of how much capital is tied up in insuring banks.  The 13 billion dollars certainly would not have a “serious adverse impact” on the FDIC.  

Just how much surplus value does this mysterious investment for insurance in the banks in the FDIC come to?  Apparently, according to First Republic’s bourgeois, this 13 billion dollars will cause no harm at all to the FDIC’s hoard.  A drop in the bucket.

That’s three banks now that have had their assets sold to the highest bidder by the state, their depositors bailed out.  A few more of these smaller banks falling will equal a big bank. As we are constantly reminded, we have no say over where the profit, which taxes are divided off of, is going.  Whether or not it is a special hoard guaranteed by the state for banks when they have trouble investing their financial capital and making a profit, or if it is simply the surplus value created that is part of all commodity production in the land of capitalism, in the end it is the worker who pays.  

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

5  2 2023

In a remarkable case, FOX News, the mouthpiece of the Republican bourgeoisie, was made to admit they lied about the elections, and pay a large amount of money to Dominion company due to defamation. 

“Fox News has settled a defamation lawsuit from the voting machine company, Dominion, over its reporting of the 2020 presidential election.

“In a last-minute settlement before trial, the network agreed to pay $787.5m (£634m) – about half of the $1.6bn initially sought by Dominion.

“Dominion argued its business was harmed by Fox spreading false claims the vote had been rigged against Donald Trump.

“The deal spares Fox executives such as Rupert Murdoch from having to testify.

“The judge in the case is not required to give his approval for the agreement.

“Fox said Tuesday’s settlement in one of the most anticipated defamation trials in recent US history reflected its “commitment to the highest journalistic standards”.

BBC 4 18 2023

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65318654

Under Donald Trump and to this day there are Republicans who only trust FOX News for information. This trial clearly showed FOX knowingly spread lies and propaganda to support Donald Trump’s falsehoods about the electronic voting machines being rigged to reject votes for him in favor of Biden. 

Dominion proved beyond a reasonable doubt FOX knew Dominion voting machines were not rigged, yet published cable news saying the machines were giving fraudulent results in favor of Joe Biden.  Internal documents in the case showed not only that the people behind FOX News knew Trump’s statements about having lost the election due to fraud were false, yet the profit motive reigned over truth, and out of fear of losing customers, did not tell the truth about the election, and supported Trump’s lies. 

The settlement was reached as Dominion had shown that FOX News knew they were lying, yet published the articles on Cable Television anyways, making themselves therefore liable to publishing false claims. 

It would have been interesting to see FOX News owner Rupert Murdoch testify, along with his entourage, and his hosts.  Instead he settled for a sizeable amount of money, 787.5 million dollars, and avoided testifying.

“The Fox statement added without elaborating that the network “acknowledges the court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false”.

“Dominion chief executive John Poulos told a press conference the deal included Fox “admitting to telling lies, causing enormous damage to my company”.

“Justin Nelson, a Dominion attorney, told reporters that “the truth matters”.

“”Lies have consequences,” he added. “Over two years ago a torrent of lies swept Dominion and election officials across America into an alternative universe of conspiracy theories, causing grievous harm to Dominion and the country.”

BBC ibid.

The attachment to cable news like FOX as a source of quality journalism remains a social problem.  The whole format of the system whereby a company or individual can buy time for his political and social message to be on; the advertisements that FOX interrupts a broadcast for every 5 minutes or so, are not only annoying to the viewer,  but is where the money FOX News is reliant upon to stay on air is coming from.  It is not hard to understand how this affects the content of the news; the corporations know they can control the news as they hold the purse strings for FOX News.

Combine this with an election cycle and it just gets uglier.  There are basically no stops, the Citizens United ruling allows unlimited money to flow to companies like FOX for propaganda supporting the Republican bourgeoisie.

The ruling shows FOX News deliberately spread lies on their cable news station, destroying Dominion’s business.  And another company, Smartmatic, is seeking 2.7 billion dollars from FOX for the same reason,  namely defamation suggesting their machines were rigged against Trump.  

The whole thing is really quite ridiculous, given voting is still done on paper.  Whether you get an absentee ballot, or actually go to the polls to vote, you mark a paper ballot, and sign it to show it is yours.  The absentee ballots require a signature from the voter and a witness.  If there was fraud it would be easily proved, simply count the paper ballots. 

But like many Trump fantasies, including the danger of absentee ballots, this fiction of the machines being rigged against Trump, was entertained by FOX News, even though they knew it was not true, resulting in their finally having to admit their news is not always the truth, rather it is infotainment designed to create large profits for the owners of FOX News.

It is not clear how much money FOX is worth, and another lawsuit, if a similar outcome is reached, could result in a large loss of capital for FOX News; 787.5 million dollars is still a lot of money.  We can only assume Dominion will supply Smartmatic with the information they used in their case; after the defamation Dominion voting machines may no longer be used, meaning they are no longer a competitor of Smartmatic.  

Rupert Murdoch seems to have deep pockets. He has settled other lawsuits recently, and the bill is growing.  Just how much profit can FOX News bring in a year?  The 787.5 million dollars is a lot of money paid for advertising.  That’s 78,750 advertisements at $10,000 a piece. The number of minutes a year is 525, 600.  If you divide it up it is one one minute advertisement  every 6 minutes. 

That’s a lot of advertisements.  And given it may cost less than $10,000 for a spot, perhaps at midnight, etc., 787.5 million dollars is going to seriously tax FOX News, and another expensive lawsuit may be coming, Smartmatic for 2.7 billion dollars.

Rupert Murdoch has shown the profits are driving it to lie to his audience, to the viewers who watch his station.  The lawsuit and settlement show FOX News is willing to do this to stay in business providing cable news television, regardless of who it hurts, even other capitalists.  You would think it would rattle his viewers as he had to admit his station does not publish the truth, and knows it.  A day of reckoning seems to be coming, indeed, when it is clear FOX News is a paid for mouthpiece for rich capitalists.

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

4 22 2023

revision 9 20 2025

A Well Oiled Machine 4 18 2021

The mechanisms by which the Republicans use to maintain their position in the social order are becoming more clear.  The latest finding is that the Republican bourgeoisie is rocketing their people to status as legitimate writers who get best selling books.

In reality they are buying hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of their person’s books, often with campaign contributions, making it look like their books are being read by millions, when in reality they were all bought by the Republican Party.

They are flush with cash, all from the businessmen they are controlled by.  In a previous article I wrote I called attention to a practice written about in the Washington Post, where campaign contributions to Republicans were used to pay businesses to produce their propaganda videos.  Contributions to a rising star in the party was used to pump up their press coverage in the bourgeois press.

This is not remarkable, but it becomes interesting when we see the companies contracted to make the propaganda made large amounts of profit from the videos.  They had a system where if there was more contributions to a candidate’s election, they made more profit.  The profit rate was often close to 70%. 

“The machine that produces candidates for political office, used by the Republicans, is becoming an industry that makes a large amount of profit.  The companies provide, for instance, promotional videos that pump up a candidate.  The bourgeois press plays it on television, or online, and the business who has created the video gets a cut of the campaign contributions it generates.

“The amounts of campaign contributions that get siphoned off to capitalists as profit can be as high as 70%.

“A big part of this is the private ownership of the media, where you can pay money to have your propaganda on the air, on television for instance. You can literally be on television news, in the advertisement when the news is on, if you pay enough money.  

“This is the root of the problem.  Now we see the propaganda apparatus of the Republicans is for profit.  It is an industry, a slick product to promote a candidate on FOX News.

“It doesn’t even matter if the candidate wins, just that they can pay.  Of course, if more people view it, and donate money to the campaign, that’s more money in coffers of the business who provided the propaganda.  

Where Your Contribution to the Republican Candidate Really Goes 3 3 2021

ecoligicalera.com

It is a well oiled machine.  It is an industry, built on promoting capitalist politicians, for profit.

What I mentioned earlier about the book publishing goes like this: 

“Rep. Dan Crenshaw’s memoir and social critique, “Fortitude: American Resilience in the Era of Outrage,” soared to the top of the bestseller lists when it was published last year. The book helped raise the former Navy SEAL’s profile and burnished his credentials as a rising star among freshman congressmen.

“As it happens, Crenshaw and his publisher, Hachette Book Group, got a little help from the Texas Republican’s friends.

“The National Republican Congressional Committee, which works to elect GOP candidates to Congress, spent nearly $400,000 on bulk purchases of the book. The organization acquired 25,500 copies through two online booksellers, enough to fuel “Fortitude’s” ascent up the bestseller lists. The NRCC said it gave away copies as incentives to donors, raising $1.5 million in the process.

“The NRCC wasn’t the only outfit providing a big-bucks boost to conservative authors. Four party-affiliated organizations, including the Republican National Committee, collectively spent more than $1 million during the past election cycle mass-purchasing books written by GOP candidates, elected officials and personalities, according to Federal Election Commission expenditure reports. The purchases helped turn several volumes into bestsellers.

“While there’s no prohibition on such second-party purchases, a new complaint alleges that another Texas Republican, Sen. Ted Cruz, crossed the line into illegal activity when he used campaign money to boost sales of his newest book.

“A government watchdog organization, the Campaign Legal Center, filed complaints last week with the Federal Election Commission and the Senate Ethics Committee about the manner in which Cruz’s campaign aides went about bulk buying and promoting the senator’s latest volume, 

“The group said Cruz’s campaign committee effectively converted campaign contributions to Cruz’s personal enrichment, an illegal practice. It alleged Cruz’s staff did so by spending $154,000 of his supporters’ funds on copies of his book, and an additional $18,000 to promote it via Facebook ads reading “Buy my new book!” and “Order it here” over photos of Cruz. Both actions increased sales of “One Vote Away,” which in turn allegedly triggered illegal royalty payments to Cruz, the group said.

“When elected officials use campaign contributions to advance their personal bottom lines, they compromise the integrity of the political process and undermine the public’s trust that their political contributions are being used legally,” the Campaign Legal Center wrote in a letter to the Senate Ethics Committee. The group is seeking unspecified civil penalties against Cruz. The FEC typically requires candidates to repay any questionable expenses to their campaigns.

“Other book purchases by party organizations don’t raise the same self-enrichment issues as those in the Cruz complaint, which hinges on his use of his own campaign funds. But the effect can be the same: A big buy can launch a book to prominence, unleashing a stream of royalties for its author and potentially driving up cash advances for their next book.

“And that can be a significant source of income for lawmakers. Brett Kappel, an attorney who specializes in federal election regulations, said members of Congress are forbidden from earning more than $29,595 in income beyond their federal salaries in 2021. But book advances and royalties are specifically exempted from these limits.

“In addition to Crenshaw’s book, Republican organizations have made large bulk purchases of books by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Donald Trump Jr.

“The Senate Conservatives Fund, a political action committee founded by former senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), committed nearly $90,000 to bulk purchases of Cotton’s book, “Sacred Duty: A Soldier’s Tour of Arlington National Cemetery,” which became a bestseller.

“This appears to be a largely Republican phenomenon. While at least seven Democratic senators published books during the past election cycle, neither the Democratic National Committee nor the party’s two congressional arms reported buying any of them in bulk quantities.

Washington Post 4 18 2021

To those of us who toll in obscurity, like myself, this is another example of the effects of big money on the political system. For years, 8 books now, the bourgeois has been trying to kill my writings with silence.  

They have been largely successful.  But look what happens when one of their number writes a book.  By bulk purchasing hundreds of thousands of copies with the Republicans Party’s money, our member of the ruling class not only gets an ego boost by making the bestsellers lists, he actually cashes in, making a profit of every book the party buys.

A pretty good racket.  People look at bestsellers lists, and feel it credibly tells them what everyone is reading.  It is in the newspaper, it says who sold more books. 

We now see even this is fictional, a book’s popularity is now due to the big money of a political party of businessmen, who buy the books and give them away free at their events.  

Looks like Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), is in on it too.  He has always been a supporter of unlimited donations to political parties, and was the leader of the Citizens United movement who brought us the rule that “corporations are people too”, and can donate large amounts of money to whoever they please legally.  His support for the disgraced former president continues, even after two impeachments by Congress McConnell still supported Trump, and now again we see where his money is coming from.  The article makes clear the politicians are getting money from the bulk buying of their books, another example of where your money really goes when you contribute to Republican candidates.  

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

4 18 2021

Where Your Contribution to the Republican Candidate Really Goes 3 3 2021 

The machine that produces candidates for political office, used by the Republicans, is becoming an industry that makes a large amount of profit.  The companies provide, for instance, promotional videos that pump up a candidate.  The bourgeois press plays it on television, or online, and the business who has created the video gets a cut of the campaign contributions it generates.

The amounts of campaign contributions that get siphoned off to capitalists as profit can be as high as 70%.

“The company that produced the video, Arsenal Media Group, would take a cut. And a firm hired to promote the video, Olympic Media, would keep up to 70 percent of the money it generated, some of which was not disclosed in Klacik’s initial campaign finance filings.

Washington Post 3 2 2021

Klacik is a woman who ran for office as a Republican in Baltimore.  Although she did not win, the businesses who produced her propaganda made off like bandits.

“High-margin fundraising fees — sometimes in excess of 90 percent of a donor’s first contribution — have sucked resources out of conservative politics ever since the movement organized in the 1970s around the costly medium of direct mail. Social media, email and text-message fundraising brought those same steep margins online.

“By the end of Klacik’s campaign, she would raise a staggering $8.3 million and pay nearly $3.7 million of it to Olympic Media, according to campaign finance filings and her campaign manager. Klacik, now a frequent Fox News and Newsmax commentator, lost to Mfume in Maryland’s 7th Congressional District by more than 40 percentage points.

Washington Post ibid.

It just goes to show that any and all transactions with exchange value, money, shed surplus value for capitalists.  Even when they take part in universal suffrage, the ruling classes are running a business, with profit.

It is interesting  to think that the donation to the Republican bourgeoisie for a candidate for office would be mostly used to enrich capitalists.  If a person gave $100 to a Republican, that $90 would be a profit for a marketing company promoting the candidate.  

I guess they have deep pockets?  Apparently it does not bother a wealthy donor that much of the money they donated went to making a profit for Olympic Media.  

A big part of this is the private ownership of the media, where you can pay money to have your propaganda on the air, on television for instance. You can literally be on television news, in the advertisement when the news is on, if you pay enough money.  

This is the root of the problem.  Now we see the propaganda apparatus of the Republicans is for profit.  It is an industry, a slick product to promote a candidate on FOX News.

It doesn’t even matter if the candidate wins, just that they can pay.  Of course, if more people view it, and donate money to the campaign, that’s more money in coffers of the business who provided the propaganda.  

It may be effective, and the publicity pays off.  But it is sort of like paying a lawyer; if you pay enough money you can find someone who will stand up for just about anything you are saying.  This resembles the machine Republicans have built, a multi-million dollar business whose product is promotional videos that are played on FOX television.  And the more money that gets contributed, the more money the companies who created the propaganda get as profit.  

It’s sort of like the best democracy money can buy.  The more money you pay the more publicity you get.  And  it doesn’t even matter whether or not the candidate wins, just that they get contributions.  Every time a person gives money to Republicans, the cash register cha clinks and the business like Olympic Media, for instance, makes a profit. It doesn’t matter if it is misleading, or even lies, as long as the donations keep coming in.  

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

3 3 2021