In respect to the conflict between Donald Trump. Benjamin Netanyahu, and Iran, it remains to be seen what will come of it. At this point it looks like a successful coup de tet, killing Ayatollah Khamenei, and many of his following who were in power.
But no territory was gained by Israel or America, indicating the lack of a clear victory.
And there is yet to be talk about American capital flowing into Iran, to employ the conquered people, with the goal of making a profit for America.
So it is not a victory yet. There is currently a cease fire agreement, but the American power is blockading Iran’s ports in the Strait of Hormuz, in retaliation for Iran stopping traffic there.
The strait carries massive quantities of oil to foreign markets, including all of Kuwait and Iraqi oil. At best Trump bombed some industry there that was pumping oil in Iran, I guess this looks like victory?
Israel has yet to remove Hamas from Gaza, even with F35 aircraft the Americans gave them. Hamas, with no air force, like Afghanistan, again shows the limitations of airplanes bombing cities. It has been more than 2 years now, Israel has yet to declare victory.
Yet Trump thought this same group was capable of easily conquering Iran, that have industry, and a population twice that of Iraq.
Clearly Trump picks winners. The way we will know if he won if the oil becomes property of ExxonMobil, like it did in Iraq. In which case, it brings home profit for the bourgeoisie, which says the adventure had a purpose rather than simple punishment with destruction of a developing world power.
It will be very difficult to secure the Strait of Hormuz if Iran decides to block it again, as it recently did. You would almost have to remove Iran from the coast, where they could attack boats they didn’t want in the strait.
And if the goal is simple destruction, it is too easy with a missile or grenade launcher to effectively stop the shipping companies from wasting their capital to traverse a dangerous strait when they can do business elsewhere without insurance needed for a trip through the passage,
OIl prices have almost doubled, and American industry is still building fossil fuel vehicles. The non metric trucks from Detroit cost a small fortune to commute in. They are feeling the pressure, as China continues to build electric cars, and the solar panels and wind power to recharge them. By 2030 about a third of China’s energy will be produced by renewable energy.
I guess if they win they get the Standard Oil monopoly’s fields back. But that cannot stop climate change, driving the economy to renewable energy. All the oil in the world cannot stop the fact that burning fossil fuels is damaging the ecology, causing the temperature to rise. It causes freak storms, high temperatures for short periods up north. It is a monster the likes of which no human has ever seen or had to live with.
And there is no question that if Iran’s oil returns to the bourgeoisie they will pump as much as possible, with little or no concern for ecology. At best they will create some surplus value for ExxonMobil, and it will come home to America.
If it stops now it is hard to call it a victory. They know that, and that is why more men are going there in the Army to fight. Nothing has been gained financially from bombing Iran, if anything closure of the Strait of Hormuz has cost capitalists money; the shipping companies cannot sail the ships, oil has doubled in value, and rebuilding Iran will cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
Trump looks like he has committed the young men to another endless war in the Middle East. They just never stop. Real estate there keeps motivating the bourgeoisie to attempt to conquer. This is no different than Iraq or Afghanistan, and the latter should show us the limitations of this style or warfare they think will easily win with.
Universal Suffrage. Fear of Milwaukee’s Workers. 4 5 2026
If you want to talk about how much we are trusted, it should be obvious the conditions of what is called “democracy” should strike one immediately as an example of a bourgeoisie who distrusts its own citizens to make decisions regarding their own conditions.
The ownership structure of capitalism removes the worker from the chain of command, reducing his active output as a producer to that of a mere appendage of machinery he does not control. The manager is chosen by the same forces that keep him subjugated, in wage labour producing surplus value for the capitalist.
Confronted with this he is supposed to take heart in a democratic government with fair suffrage. In reality, he finds the Senate, president, and Supreme Court, all elected in ways that favor materially the bourgeoisie.
The Senate gets two votes a state or territory. Alabama gets the same number of votes as Chicago, two for the state. This mechanism easily allows for large scale landowners to stay in power; they hold power in the less populated states, and rural areas that comprise much of the country.
Who else but the bourgeoisie would settle on conquered land? Naturally the settlers are in the pocket of the Republican bourgeoisie. So South Dakota, much of Wisconsin, Iowa, etc. all fairly recent settlements with rural populations have a different opinion of what reality is than the proletariat in the cities.
The proletariat is an urban phenomenon, comprised of workers producing commodities in industrial settings. It is possible for the larger farms to have unions, but it is not there yet. Waiting for it to form on the large farms would prove to be something that could take generations. Compounding the problem is massive state subsidies of more than 50 billion dollars a year, divvied out by the state, controlled by the republican bourgeoisie.
When the worker votes he is also confronted by the electoral college, that appoints presidents without a majority periodically. His votes for a woman president are not heard, even if a majority in suffrage support her. Instead he is supposed to be happy he got Donald Trump instead.
What does this show us but a small group of people in control scared of their own workers, with no intention of giving up power.
When our worker tries to go to legal means for emancipation, he gets Citizens United rulings. The Supreme Court is appointed by the president, who does not have to control a majority to govern. And to make it seem more legitimate, it is supported by the Senate, who rubber stamps the decision for Supreme Court Justices.
Sometimes the more moderate liberal progressive bourgeoisie govern, but it is a miracle there is ever a Senate majority. It favors the large landowners, who vote republican.
When you look at the demographics, clearly the cities all vote democrat. The country votes republican; we see it every cycle of elections. This is an indicator of the presence of large scale land ownership, and its dominance over the proletariat in the city.
The answer is to nationalize the land. If large scale farming is so great, its benefits should be enjoyed by all of society, not a small group of families who control all the good land around the city. Small farmers are a small part of modern farming already, at best they can inherit soil, which we should not tamper with. But make no mistake, small scale landowning in time will only produce the same results we have l already come to, dominance of capitalism and the demise of the small farmer. They will find a mechanism to retake their lands, and consolidate ownership in no time without nationalization of large landownings. Be it through inheritance, or other means, under capitalism there will always be an effort to concentrate ownership of land in a small aristocracy, who control the food production for the city.
This having been said, it is still imperative to take part in universal suffrage. Local races in particular, such as the current struggle between Maria Lazar and Chris Taylor looks like landowners vs urban petty bourgeois; the latter more worldly, sometimes favoring the working class.
Lazar is up against the Planned Parenthood woman. She is against abortion, probably a Catholic. And yes, a person’s religion can influence how they vote.
The proletariat has a duty to take part in all suffrage, regardless of how slanted toward management it becomes. It is still one vote, one person, and numerically the proletariat outnumbers the owning class 10 to one. It can happen.
As suffrage comes again for supreme court justice in Wisconsin, it is a real battle. These small contests can attract the big money; the last local elections brought Elon Musk and his big wealth here. This one no doubt will also bring big out of state money, due to fear of Milwaukee’s proletariat. The election is in two days, a real test of equality.
Suffrage for Justices to the Supreme Court. 3 24 2026
As we again take the opportunity to engage in suffrage for the supreme court in Wisconsin, it is important to digress on this phenomenon. To begin with, it should be noted the United States Supreme Court is not subject to universal suffrage, Rather it is appointees of the president, rubber stamped by the upper house of Congress.
What this means is twofold: One, the president is not always in control of a majority, yet was still appointed. We have seen this repeatedly in the last 25 years; George II was appointed without a majority, then Donald Trump was appointed without a majority. It seems to be the Republican bourgeoisie who do this, they call it the “electoral college” method of dictatorship. They then appoint the Supreme Court justices for life; then generally last decades. Trump did three this last time when he was appointed.
Secondly, Congress goes along with this. The Senate approves the candidates, giving their rubber stamp of approval in the upper house.
The Senate is appointed by two senators a state, which gives massive amounts of power to the large scale landowners, who till much of the rural areas. They benefit by states like South Dakota having the same power in the Senate as Illinois, home of Chicago. The same is true for New York and LA. The power structure is the same, the founders, Virginia plantation owners, did this for a reason; they feared British industry would force change in the slave owning aristocracy. They chose equal power for large scale landowners to industry by having 2 votes per state in the upper house.
It is basically a miracle the big cities ever win control of Congress. And the stakes are enormous, state assistance to large farmers in 2025 was 40.24 billion dollars according to google. It is allocated by the acre, which results in it being of little help to small farmers, who more intensively cultivate this land.
Nationalization of large farms would help greatly, but instead of just buying land with the 42 billion dollars, the Republican bourgeoisie just gives away this money to large landowners, who all benefit from the subsidies. Basically all large farmers get money; it is part of the land tenure arrangement.
The state is not going to buy land and give it to cooperatives. We would have seen attempts at this by now. No, the state assistance is going to support the Republican bourgeoisie, the state does not purchase land for cooperatives.
If the land was going to be nationalized, there would be no price tag. And it would not be the worst soils that the cooperatives would be farming on.
Anyhow, that is the picture generally. What this has to do with Wisconsin is this:
Supreme Court justices are subject to universal suffrage every 10 years. This may seem like a long time, but compared to the United States Supreme Court, it is brief. Wisconsin justices serve as long as they command a majority, which differs from our appointed counterparts who serve without a majority.
Short of having a politburo, there is no alternative to universal suffrage for the judges on the supreme court. The levels of bold faced white collar crimes the supreme court is involved in, with rulings like Citizens United, should show us WIsconsin has the answer; the Wisconsin supreme court is not electing because they are small, rather this is a movement that is logical, and able to be followed on a larger scale, like selecting United States Supreme Court justices for 10 year terms.
We saw last election for supreme court Elon Musk giving away the million dollar checks to his republican bourgeois supporters to vote against democrat Susan Crawford. DC meddles in Wisconsin elections, even though it is only residents of the state that can vote.
No matter, Citizens United and Musk feel no shame in involvement in Wisconsin’s more radical system of universal suffrage.
Incidentally Musk and his Republicans lost the election. Musk hardly even got a slap on the wrist for his million dollar checks, even after explaining they were vetted to be most likely to be Republicans.
The latest suffrage is between Chris Taylor and Maria Lazar are going at it. Lazar was Scott Walker’s lawyer. She is a Trumper, and will be a yes woman for Trump.
Chris Taylor has“..a legislative voting record full of support for unions and public schools, and endorsements out of the gate from the four sitting liberal justices..
“She worked as the public policy director at Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, and then spent nearly a decade in the state Assembly…”
WPR 3 24 2026
Lazar, on the other hand:
“During the administration of Governor Scott Walker, Lazar worked as an assistant attorney general in the Wisconsin Department of Justice where she handled litigation in support of Walker’s signature anti-labor law, 2011 Wisconsin Act 10, and then in defense of new security rules implemented to crack down on statewide protests against it. Lazar later took on the job of defending a Republican redistricting law that implemented one of the most aggressive gerrymanders in the country.”
Wikipedia Maria Lazar
The choice could; not be put in starker terms. Ten years of Lazar would be a return to Scott Walker.
“As an assistant attorney general, Lazar defended Republican-drawn legislative maps from gerrymandering claims along with laws on voter ID, abortion and Act 10, which restricted collective bargaining rights for most state employees.”
WPR 2 23 2026
So it should be interesting to see where this goes.
“Brad David Schimel (born February 18, 1965) is an American attorney, former judge, and Republican politician. He most-recently served as interim United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, from November 2025 until March 16, 2026, when his interim appointment was not extended by the district court judges. The Department of Justice, however, has announced their intention to appoint Schimel to a senior staff position in the U.S. attorney’s office, leaving him as the de facto head of the office. “
Wikipedia Brad Shimel
So here we see what Trump does when he loses an election. Shimel was appointed leader in federal court even though he did not command a majority. I guess Trump doesn’t mind losers as long as they are yes men. Shimel is now appointed without suffrage, the power struggle between DC and Wisconsin could not be more pitched this election. Clearly the republican bourgeoisie is doing DC’s bidding.
The date suffrage will occur is April 7. It is one to watch.
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.
It is coming to light that the starlink satellite internet service run by Elon Musk is a poor example for providing internet service, unless there are few users at a time. Basically the conclusion is the more users on the service at a time, the slower it goes, or starts to malfunction.
“There’s an irony with Elon Musk’s Starlink internet service beamed from space: The more popular it becomes, the worse its speeds and reliability tend to get.”
“Those limitations are known, but a new analysis estimates the tipping point at which Starlink connections could bog down: With as few as 419 Starlink customers in an area the size of Tacoma, Washington, service for all users in the area could become unusable.”
“They (internet expert Sascha Meinrath’s group) believe that within the geographic coverage area of a single Starlink satellite – an estimated 62.9 square miles or roughly the area of Tacoma – hitting 419 Starlink customers could become a problem. That’s an average 6.7 Starlink customers per square mile.
“At that level of usage, they estimated that internet speeds for Starlink customers in the area would fall below the government’s definition of modern, reliable internet service for sending data out from your device. Service could be unusable under some conditions, they said.”
Elon Musk knew this, but kept it secret, and just kept launching more and more rockets with the starlink satellites on board, regardless of pollution in near orbit, or later on how offensive the militarization of space is becoming.
“All internet services experience those constraints, but internet experts say they’re more acute with Starlink, particularly for uses like sending images or video calls for which you send data out to the internet.”
Washington Post ibid.
“Ookla reports, based on user-initiated speed tests, were cited by the Federal Communications Commission last month when it rejected Starlink’s application to receive $885.51 million in broadband funding that had been tentatively awarded during then-Chairman Ajit Pai’s tenure. The FCC said it doubts whether Starlink can provide the grant’s required speeds of 100Mbps downloads and 20Mbps uploads.”
“”We observe that Ookla data reported as of July 31, 2022 indicate that Starlink’s speeds have been declining from the last quarter of 2021 to the second quarter of 2022, including upload speeds that are falling well below 20Mbps,” the FCC said at the time. Ookla, a private company, operates a widely used speed testing service and boasts that its data is often used by government and regulatory bodies.”
Article continues
“Starlink has more than 3,000 satellites in orbit so far. The Internet provider has FCC permission to deploy nearly 12,000 satellites, including those already being operated, and is seeking authorization to launch tens of thousands eventually.”
From link: internet speeds start to significantly slow. see above in Washington Post
Which one has to wonder, what is the real purpose of this exercise? Who benefits from using starlink?
“Wireline broadband is still the best. Overall, fixed broadband services in the US posted median download speeds of 150.1Mbps, uploads of 21.5Mbps, and 14 ms latency, the Q2 Ookla report said.”
“From the beginning, it was clear that Starlink is most appropriate for people who don’t have a solid cable or fiber connection in their homes. The recent data doesn’t change that overall conclusion, but Starlink users who are getting slower-than-expected speeds have good reason to be frustrated.”
Ibid, arstechnica
So clearly not the average person using starlink, at least not in a city, It costs 7 times more than cable internet, and it functions poorly compared to wire internet.
From here we go to Reuters, an article written yesterday about Elon Musk and the war in Ukraine, which his starlink internet service is providing access to for military purposes.
“KYIV – During a pivotal push by Ukraine to retake territory from Russia in late September 2022, Elon Musk gave an order that disrupted the counteroffensive and dented Kyiv’s trust in Starlink, the satellite internet service the billionaire provided early in the war to help Ukraine’s military maintain battlefield connectivity.”
“According to three people familiar with the command, Musk told a senior engineer at the California offices of SpaceX, the Musk venture that controls Starlink, to cut coverage in areas including Kherson, a strategic region north of the Black Sea that Ukraine was trying to reclaim.”
““We have to do this,” Michael Nicolls, the Starlink engineer, told colleagues upon receiving the order, one of these people said. Staffers complied, the three people told Reuters, deactivating at least a hundred Starlink terminals, their hexagon-shaped cells going dark on an internal map of the company’s coverage. The move also affected other areas seized by Russia, including some of Donetsk province further east.”
“Upon Musk’s order, Ukrainian troops suddenly faced a communications blackout, according to a Ukrainian military official, an advisor to the armed forces, and two others who experienced Starlink failure near the front lines. Soldiers panicked, drones surveilling Russian forces went dark, and long-range artillery units, reliant on Starlink to aim their fire, struggled to hit targets.”
“As a result, the Ukrainian military official and the military advisor said, troops failed to surround a Russian position in the town of Beryslav, east of Kherson, the administrative center of the region of the same name. “The encirclement stalled entirely,” said the military official in an interview. “It failed.””
This is an example of how connected Musk is to Ukraine, and its war with its now capitalist neighbor, Russia. As soon as starlink stopped functioning, everything started to fail.
article continues
“Whatever the reason for Musk’s decision, the shutoff over Kherson and other regions surprised some involved with the Ukraine war – from troops on the ground to U.S. military and foreign policy officials, who after Russia’s full-scale invasion that February had worked to secure Starlink service for Ukrainian forces. Panicked calls by Ukrainian officials during the outage to seek information from Pentagon counterparts, five people familiar with the incident said, were met with few explanations for what could have caused it. “
“As of April 2025, according to Ukrainian government social media posts, Kyiv has received more than 50,000 Starlink terminals. Easily transported and deployed, the pizza-box-sized devices communicate with thousands of SpaceX satellites now circling the globe. An initial batch of terminals was provided to Ukraine by SpaceX itself. Further terminals have arrived from donors including Poland, the United States and Germany.”
“SpaceX is the first company to establish an extensive network of communication satellites in low-Earth orbit, a region of space that is closer to the planet than areas where such satellites historically reside. The proximity of satellites that now make up the company’s constellation allows Starlink to offer space-based wireless connectivity that is faster than any previously available. “
“With more than 7,900 satellites now in orbit, SpaceX has become the world’s largest satellite operator. Its devices, which relay signals among each other to create a network that communicates with the ground, account for about two-thirds of all active satellites in space, according to Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer at the Center for Astrophysics, Harvard & Smithsonian. “
“Compared to the geostationary satellites historically used for communications, the sheer number of SpaceX satellites helps make Starlink less vulnerable to jamming and attacks. Its far reach makes it valuable in remote and hostile terrain – from battlefields to airspace to high seas. In Ukraine, it has facilitated activities including communications, intelligence and drone piloting. “
Reuters ibid.
“Even before the conflict began, documents reviewed by Reuters show, SpaceX had already been in discussions with the U.S. government about providing Starlink in Ukraine. Rollout began after Russian troops crossed the border on February 24, 2022.”
“Two days later, Mykhailo Fedorov, a deputy prime minister in Ukraine, requested Musk’s help. “We ask you to provide Ukraine with Starlink stations,” he wrote on Twitter.”
“Musk responded in 10 hours. “Starlink service is now active in Ukraine,” he tweeted. “More terminals en route.””
“Poland was also instrumental in the early days of the war, shipping thousands of terminals to Ukraine shortly after the invasion. Warsaw this year said it has purchased about 25,000 Starlink terminals for the effort – roughly half the total now in Ukraine – and that it is paying the subscription costs to keep them connected. So far, it has spent about $89 million on Starlink for Ukraine.”
“The equipment has made a critical difference for Ukraine.”
“Day-to-day bureaucracy has also benefited. Early in the conflict, Ukraine stored state data in the cloud and relied on Starlink to access it, helping keep some government operations running. “We wouldn’t be anywhere without Starlink,” said Vadym Prystaiko, Ukraine’s ambassador to Britain until 2023. “The whole state was preserved.””
“On the battlefield, Ukraine quickly deployed Starlink to enable front-line troops to communicate with commanders. The service also allowed drone operators to transmit surveillance video streams and locate and attack Russian targets. Reuters couldn’t establish just when such attacks may have become a concern for Musk or SpaceX.”
“That month (September 2022), in a statement to the United Nations, Russia noted the use of “elements of civilian, including commercial, infrastructure in outer space for military purposes.” It warned that “quasi-civilian infrastructure may become a legitimate target for retaliation.””
“It isn’t clear whether Russia has tried to attack any Starlink facilities. Musk has said, however, that Moscow has repeatedly sought to block its connectivity. “SpaceX is spending significant resources combating Russian jamming efforts,” Musk wrote on X last year. “This is a tough problem.””
“Ukrainian drone specialists and Prystaiko, the former ambassador to Britain, said some attack devices, including maritime and bomber drones, now have Starlink antennas fitted to them. The antennas, in the case of sea drones, help operators guide the devices and view video feeds to classify targets, said Sidharth Kaushal, a senior research fellow at Royal United Services Institute, a London-based defense think tank.”
“Musk himself has boasted of Starlink’s importance to Kyiv. “My Starlink system is the backbone of the Ukrainian army,” he wrote on X in March. “Their entire front line would collapse if I turned it off.””
Reuters ibid.
So here we see what starlink was really designed for; internet service communications in war zones where many users, civilians, etc. along side military users would overload the system. It may hardly provide for civilian internet service, but it seems to work when NATO and their proxies are attacking a de populationed region. Clearly this militarization of outer space is exactly what Musk knew he was doing, when he launched all those satellites into near earth orbit.
There is still no way to return satellites to earth; they just break apart and make near earth orbit space stations vulnerable to space garbage, which damage for example fuel cells for returning to Earth. It also precludes any carbon based life being able to get near the planet without shielding of some sort. Fortunately we have been lucky enough not to have been visited by anything recently, up to this point this sounds like science fiction.
Musk’s system is being used to guide drones and missiles into Russia, some of which are targeting Moscow. It has allowed capitalists there to attempt to join NATO, to leave behind the past attempt to rectify the contradiction between wage labour and bourgeois. Ukraine preferred the material results of capitalism more than the quality of labor emancipated from production for surplus value. In exchange for weapons, luxury items, and modest gains in wages, capitalism returned full force to Ukraine.
Part of this was due to the failure of eastern communism to make the shift to ecological socialism.
Nuclear energy remains an export from capitalist Russia. The reactors built by GE and Hitachi in Japan, at Fukushima. melted down too. Japan has had to release hundreds of millions of liters of tritium polluted water into the ocean. Neighboring countries refuse to buy Japanese fish, or serve it in restaurants.
In Ukraine the largest nuclear reactors in Europe, the Zaporizhyzhia generation facilities, were never shut down, even after Chernobyl melted down. They are now in a war zone, shut down, for how long it is unknown. Clearly the return to capitalism by Ukraine did not have ecological goals.
Musk’s starlink service is the main weapon in the war in Ukraine. It is for communications and targeting of drones and missiles, designed to conquer Russia. What Musk told us about starlink being practical as a service for areas with little internet service seems to only work if you keep your connection a secret to your neighbors. The minute people start to use the starlink in numbers, it fails. But in Ukraine, in a depopulated area where the army uses starlink, it works fine. It is just that it is not really for civilian usage, like it was promised by Musk when he began launching massive amounts of satellites into orbit.
The satellites are essentially military satellites, it should be of no surprise Trump started a military wing called the “Space Force” when he was in office. Although he may not be getting along so well with Elon now, the fact remains he contributed about 275 million dollars to Trump’s campaign to get reelected. Space Force is really militarising space, and passing off starlink as a civilian organization.
Without Musk, no war in Ukraine. Unless you want to pay top dollar for crappy internet service somewhere in America without cable or telephone lines, starlink is not for you. But give it to capitalists in a war zone, it is essential. Musk even said before the war broke out he would deploy starlink for the military in Ukraine. Well there it is, in full glory bombing Moscow from Ukraine.
The answer to why Donald Trump is ramping up tariffs is protectionism, in particular to protect ExxonMobil and Chevron, who control much of the US market for petroleum. Other countries like Britain own Shell and BP,; Total is owned by France. By discouraging competition with tariffs, ExxonMobil and Chevron will control the US market for oil.
Chevron has a history. This work is from Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia.
Chevron is one of two massive companies that control much of the US market. There are 5 large oil companies in the world who control most or all of the market for petroleum production, refining, and selling the gas at gas stations. They are ExxonMobil, the largest, Chevron, BP , Total, and Shell. The Saudi Aramco company is in production of crude and are also a force to be reckoned with.
There was a time not so long ago, in memory, when the gas station was a family business. That began to change in the 80’s and 90’s and now it is rare to find a family or small business owned gas pump. Concentration of ownership by large capitalists removed the small gas stations,
“Since the acquisition of the Pacific Coast Oil Company by Standard Oil, the Standard descendant had traditionally worked closely with Texaco for 100 years, before acquiring Texaco outright in 2001. “
Wikipedia Chevron
There went another large company to Chevron. Texaco used to own gas stations, it is now all Chevron.
“The term “Seven Sisters” refers to seven major, vertically integrated oil companies that dominated the global petroleum industry from the 1940s to the 1970s. They controlled a significant portion of the world’s oil reserves and production. The “Seven Sisters” were: Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later BP), Royal Dutch Shell, Standard Oil Company of California (later Chevron), Gulf Oil (later merged with Chevron), Texaco (later merged with Chevron), Standard Oil Company of New Jersey (later Exxon, then ExxonMobil), and Standard Oil Company of New York (later Mobil, then ExxonMobil). “
Google search 7 sisters oil and gas
Basically Chevron and ExxonMobil are the main American petroleum producers, BP, Shell, and Total also dominate the market for oil. These 5 companies also own gas stations, which as mentioned have become owned by a few large companies, rather than small businesses.
“Hess Corporation (formerly Amerada Hess Corporation) is an American global independent energy company involved in the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas.[3] It was formed by the merger of Hess Oil and Chemical and Amerada Petroleum in 1968. Leon Hess was CEO from the early 1960s through 1995, after which his son John B Hess succeeded him as chairman and CEO.[4] The company agreed to be acquired by rival oil company Chevron in October 2023.[5]
Wikipedia Hess company
This one has ties to the new fields in South America, in French Guyana. It is now owned by Chevron.
Exxon Mobil is the other American company that competes with Chevron, at least, if you believe that this small group of companies does not exert monopoly control of oil.
“ExxonMobil traces its roots to Vacuum Oil Company, founded in 1866. Vacuum Oil later was acquired by Standard Oil in 1879, divested from Standard in 1911 with its breakup, and merged by the Standard Oil Company of New York (Socony), later known as Mobil, in 1931. After the 1911 breakup, Standard Oil continued to exist through its New Jersey subsidiary, sometimes shortened to Jersey Standard, and retained the Standard Oil name in much of the eastern United States. Jersey Standard grew by acquiring Humble Oil in the 1930s and became the dominant oil company on the world stage. The company’s lack of ownership over the Standard Oil name across the United States, however, prompted a name change to unify all of its brands under one name, choosing to name itself Exxon in 1972 over continuing to use the three distinct brands of Esso, Enco, and Humble Oil.[16][17]
“In 1998, the two companies agreed to merge and form ExxonMobil, with the deal closing on November 30, 1999.
Wikipedia ibid
From here we pivot back to protectionism. Oil from Canada is now under a 25% tariff from Trump. This number fluctuates as Trump has repeatedly threatened larger tariffs, and exempted Canadian oil from some tariffs. Trump’s tariffs change from day to day and seem to be more reliant on stock exchange numbers than anything else.
“The predecessor company of Marathon Petroleum Corporation, Marathon Petroleum Company LLC, formerly known as Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC, was formed by the merger of the refining operations of Marathon Oil and Ashland Inc. in 1998.[11] The merger brought together several descendants of the Standard Oil trust, as Ashland had acquired several smaller Standard spinoffs while Marathon itself was directly owned by Standard Oil. It also brought Marathon’s Speedway and Ashland’s SuperAmerica convenience store chains together and were subsequently merged as “Speedway SuperAmerica”.
“As longtime Marathon rivals Standard Oil of Ohio and Amoco were acquired by British company BP, Marathon Ashland adopted the marketing slogan “An American Company Serving America”, with the slogan being adjourned to Marathon fuel pumps. In 2006, it adopted its current slogan, “Fueling the American Spirit” as the company shifts emphasis on work ethic and the contributions of its employees.[12]
Wikipedia marathon petroleum
Mentioned above is a further ending of small businesses in petroleum, BP (British Petroleum) purchased Amaco. Marathon is still a big gas station owner in companies with American ownership. BP is massive, so is Total and Shell, and can leverage power in the market. Marathon does refining, but it is not nearly as large as ExxonMobil or Chevron. Watch for concentration of ownership to consolidate monopoly control of this company by the bigger competitors…
Place tariffs on the oil from outside the country, and these three companies are in position to have monopoly control of petroleum in America. It is probably not a coincidence that ExxonMobil are climate change skeptics, and Trump is too.
These dinosaurs pump and sell as much oil as possible, with little or no concern about climate change. The goal is to make a profit, not to promote proletarian ecological visions.
Consolidation of ownership occurs after every periodic crisis that comes in the business cycle of what we know of as modern capitalism. The economy starts off after the last crisis. Workers return to their jobs, business starts moving again. The unemployed army of workers who work in the precarious position of unskilled labor are slowly reemployed. Business picks up further, the economy starts to pick up a trot. Employment increases, and profit is created.
Then, there comes overproduction. The speculation on the ability of the market to exchange commodities begins to falter. The crisis comes, and the workers are out on the streets again, unemployed. The machines are no longer working, capital is being destroyed. The crisis is social; there are workers hungry and jaundiced, the machines to provide for them unable to be used due to capitalism.
At this point the large companies buy at ridiculously low prices their former competitors. This process gives rise to massive capitalist companies in control of things like petroleum.
American goals of returning to small businesses in control of, for example, gas stations, is a futile endeavor. The Standard Oil monopoly that preceded ExxonMobil and Chevron’s trust was hit with antitrust in the 20th century. As we can see, monopoly control of petroleum came raging back. There we have Trump, climate change skeptic, supporter of large petroleum industries, also throttling forward gasoline powered engines for cars. Built by Detroit, the large engine petroleum motors propel people where they need to go.
Attempts at building electric cars are now dominated by China, where EV’s cost as little as $10,000. Compare that to an American car, the low end is about $33,000, it is more expensive to buy an American petroleum powered vehicle than a Chinese EV..
Trump to the rescue, with 100% tariffs on Chinese EV”s. Protectionism rears its head, bourgeois gas companies are favored to powering cars with electricity. Combine this with Detroit’s failure to go metric, and it all becomes clear.
Protectionism is required to keep 20th century industry moving. The petroleum powered car has reached its climax. It peaked about 4 years ago, and is now being replaced with cheap electric vehicles, in particular from China. A return to a past era is promoted, “make America great again” sums up this desire.
Small business will not be returning, without a massive crisis. The companies are all in trusts, monopoly or duopoly are the real conditions. These same conditions create a class of people who own little or no real property, they do not own the means of production. They are wage labor, they work part of the day for these large companies and are not paid for their labour. Rather surplus value is created. This surplus value is created any time productive labor is employed. And it increases as industry grows larger, more concentrated.
These old industries were all created to make surplus value, essentially profit. The whole pattern of industry and society was shaped by them. What will their end bring?
Will the companies that were most responsible for capitalism, and its surplus value, disappear? Will surplus value go with these monopolies and trusts being dismantled? It shouldn’t seem so ridiculous that with the failure of the 20th century non metric factories socialism is being discussed. The ecological movement taught us about what forms of repression come with asking the bourgeoisie to clean up their act. How can you trust them to clean up the environment when they sell pollution on the market, as carbon credits?
As we slowly leave the 20th century, society is progressing. Our reliance on petroleum is starting to end. Will we leave what we know of as capitalism, when we are no longer reliant on these forms of industry?
Try as they may, regardless of the size or sophistication of their latest technology, there is no changing material conditions. Even with all the new weapons, the fact remains the companies are owned by a monopoly, a duopoly, or cartels.
Every crisis consolidates ownership further, as the companies concentrate ownership. Often bought in crisis conditions, for ridiculously low prices, or merged by companies with larger wallets to absorb functioning capital, more and more joint stock companies dominate industry.
It is rare now to have a large company not listed on the stock exchange, the center for trading of joint stock companies. The days of an industry being private property of an individual have basically come to an end.
With this change competition begins to fall behind making surplus value by setting prices due to monopoly. When there are only a few large companies owning, say, electricity and gas, and distributing this gas to consumers on their own lines, it is not hard to see competition come to an end.
Wisconsin Gas and Electric produce all the electricity from power plants here Milwaukee Wisconsin, and also own the lines for transmission of high voltage to Milwaukee. They also own the gas lines, and distribution facilities, including pipelines. There is no alternative source in any sense, and short of cutting your own wood, the houses are all gas burning forced air heating. Solar is still prohibitively expensive, and Wisconsin Gas and Electric do not pay for excess production from solar generation in homes.
This has been building for some time. It is a common feature of industry to become concentrated in a few hands, often in the form of monopolies. They set prices as they control the production facilities, the distribution,the lines etc., and do not practice competition.
The days of competition regulating the price of major commodities is rapidly fading. The grocery stores are now all consolidated into huge markets, dominated by WalMart, Kroger, Albertsons, and Costco. Smaller family owned stores are becoming rare, only for an item or two needed between visits to the big stores. Kroger and Albertsons attempted a merger, which looks like a failure, but would have meant about half of grocery stores would have been controlled by WalMart and Kroger Albertsons combined as one company.
The largest computers cannot stop the consolidation of industry, the growth of joint stock companies and monopoly conditions. It is a built in condition of late capitalism, described by Friedrich Engels in Anti Duhring in the 1890’s; the growth of joint stock companies, and concentration and consolidation of industry. here is a quote
T0″he period of industrial high pressure, with its unbounded inflation of credit, not less than the crash itself, by the collapse of great capitalist establishments, tends to bring about that form of socialization of great masses of means of production which we meet with in the different type of joint stock companies. Many of these means of production are, from the outset, so colossal that , like the railways, they exclude all other forms of capitalistic exploitation. At a further stage of evolution this form also becomes insufficient. The producers on a large scale in a particular branch of industry in a particular country unite in a “Trust”, a union for the purpose of regulating production. They determine the total amount to be produced, parcel it out among themselves, and thus enforce the selling price fixed beforehand. But trusts of this kind, as soon as business becomes bad, are generally liable to break up, and on this very account compel a yet greater concentration of association. The whole of the particular industry is turned into a gigantic joint stock company; internal competition gives place to internal monopoly of this one company. This has happened in 1890 with the English alkali production, which is now, after the fusion of 48 large works, in the hands of one company, conducted on a single plan, with a capital of &6,000,0000.”
“In the trusts, freedom of competition changes to its very opposite- into monopoly; and the production without any definite plan of capitalistic society capitulates to the production a definite plan of the invading socialistic society. Certainly this is so far still to the benefit of the capitalists. But in this case the exploitation is so palpable that it must break down, No nation will put up with production conducted by trusts, with so barefaced an exploitation of the community by a small band of dividend mongers.”
Anti Duhring First wellread books edition 2017
Part 3 socialism II Theoretical p. 329
Which is optimistic that a society will not tolerate trusts and monopolies, which is precisely what we have learned to do. The important part is trusts and monopoly were recognized by Engels as being the dominant form of capitalism.
This was published in 1890. Vladimir Lenin published Imperialism, the Highest Form of Capitalism, in 1916. Clearly Lenin agreed with Engels, and developed this idea further.
It is all connected, and the presence of these monopolies looks unlikely to change. Internet service is also dominated by two large companies, one of which has been the subject of antitrust activity, American Telephone Telegraph, AT&T. The only choice is Charter, also called Spectrum, and these companies cooperate to keep the price of internet at a set price, by removing, for instance, subsidies by the state to keep the price of internet low for seniors. There is AT&T again controlling prices; last time it was their long distance telephone service, broken up by congress, resulting in the baby Bells.
Computers are dominated by Apple, who produce most often computers used in homes. International Business Machines, IBM, is no longer a competitor of home computers to Apple, who are close to monopoly. Google as the search engine, also a monopoly, caps off much of our computing.
This list could continue, but I think I have made my point. Consolidation and concentration of ownership into joint stock companies, often exerting monopoly power, is a fixture of modern capitalism. Rarely it is addressed as antitrust by capitalists who want to artificially change what is a dominant feature of capitalism, to control the market by monopoly.
Every capitalist wants to drive his competitor out of business. When they are successful at this, they control the market, competition ends, and they then set prices for the commodity they control. It seems to be universal; there are no sectors of the economy left untouched by consolidation of ownership. Breaking them up is only a temporary fix, AT&T for instance is now back to its old self again, in a duopoly of internet service with Charter, as they own the fiber optic cables. Antitrust activity towards AT&T, breaking up the long distance telephone to the baby Bells, did not stop AT&T from again attempting to set prices by control of markets,this time in internet transmission .
This system is a form of capitalism referred to as imperialism in the late 19th century and early 20th century by Friedrich Engels, and later by Vladimir Lenin. It was becoming more obvious then that joint stock companies would dominate capitalism, and consolidation of ownership would only continue.
Names like J Peirpont Morgan, and his domination of 20th century large scale industry, is a case study in the growth of monopolies and trusts. By the early to mid 20th century Morgan’s empire included railroads, Steel production (US Steel), General Electric, AT&T…. Morgan personified the bourgeoisie of the 20th century, with control of markets for just about every large industry.
When the next crisis comes the trend will no doubt continue. Capitalism is at the stage where competition is becoming rare, only lasting a few years in a new industry, until monopoly control and joint stock ownership is achieved. Crisis comes and ownership is consolidated further, the likes of which are a recurrent theme in capitalism. It seems unlikely this will end without leaving capitalism, antitrust does not deter companies from concentration ownership of the means of production (like AT&T) from continuing to exert monopoly power over the industries they own, it just sets them back a decade or so. It is just way too tempting to remove competition by these capitalists , and set prices.
Ecological Era 