US and China Protectionism: Will the EU Join?

Protectionism, Militarism, and the Political Situation in the Near Future.

In 2025, the policy of protectionism once again comes to the forefront in the United States with the introduction of 25-percent tariffs on the import of steel and aluminum by Donald Trump. Under the pretext of “supporting national industry” and “reducing the trade deficit,” which reached a monstrous $918.4 billion in 2024, the ruling class is attempting to hide the deepening crisis of the American economy. The United States has long lost its industrial superiority and survives solely on the dominance of financial capital, speculation, the monopoly of the dollar, and the military-economic coercion of its allies. Capitalism in America, in its final imperialist stage, is incapable of solving any of its internal problems. The increase in tariffs is not a defense of production against the crisis, but a frantic attempt to delay the collapse of the rentier economy, which consumes more than it produces and lives at the expense of exploiting the entire world. But any attempts by the bourgeoisie to solve the crisis through artificial restrictions, trade wars, and political intrigues only accelerate the disintegration of the global capitalist system. Who will suffer from these measures? The working class, which will pay with higher prices, unemployment, and an increased burden of exploitation. Who will benefit? The monopolies, which, by taking advantage of the closed market, will raise prices, grab subsidies, and continue to shift all costs onto the shoulders of the working people.

Scenario 1

At first, the tariffs will create the illusion of industrial recovery. In the metallurgical sector, they will announce an expansion of capacities, and capitalists will make several loud statements about new jobs. However, the growth of steel production will inevitably lead to overproduction, as real demand will not increase—it will only be redistributed through administrative measures. Within a few years, companies will face a decline in orders, as the high cost of metal will make American industry’s products less competitive not only abroad but also on the domestic market. Automotive and construction companies, facing rising costs, will begin to cut jobs and move production abroad. General Motors and Ford, which have already lost billions of dollars due to rising steel prices, will be forced to slow down production, leading to a wave of layoffs in related industries. In 2018, the American automotive industry lost 25,000 jobs due to the increase in raw material costs. In 2025, this effect could be even stronger, as a 10-15% increase in metal prices will affect not only the automotive industry but also infrastructure projects, household appliance production, and heavy industry. The rise in prices for final goods will inevitably affect workers, for whom even a slight increase in housing, car, or basic commodity prices becomes critical. A 3-5% increase in wages in metallurgy will not compensate for inflation and price increases, and in most industries, it will not lead to an increase in income at all. As a result, only large metallurgical companies will benefit, temporarily increasing profits, while other sectors will find themselves in a deeper crisis.

The U.S. government may attempt to support the industries through subsidies, but this will only shift the losses to the state budget, increasing the tax burden on the population. As in other similar cases, the final payer for the protection of metallurgists will be the working class, which will be forced to pay for the rise in prices and job cuts in other sectors. All these measures will only delay the inevitable— the crisis caused by artificial interference in the economy will not disappear but will only intensify when the temporary incentives cease to work.

Scenario 2

Trade policy is not limited to unilateral actions. The introduction of tariffs by the USA will inevitably provoke retaliatory measures from its largest trading partners. In 2018, similar protectionism already led to countermeasures from China, resulting in losses of $12 billion for American farmers, and in 2025, the consequences could be even more massive. China, being the largest importer of American agricultural products, will reduce purchases of grain, soybeans, and corn, redirecting contracts to Argentina and Brazil. Beijing is already actively investing in expanding agricultural production in South America, reducing dependence on U.S. supplies. This will lead to thousands of export-oriented farms facing the threat of bankruptcy. In 2018, 30% of farmers in Iowa and Nebraska were on the brink of bankruptcy; in 2025, their number may increase to 50%. Canadian and Mexican markets will also respond to American tariffs. Neighboring countries will not just adopt countermeasures but will also use the situation to expand their own production and strengthen trade ties with Asia and Europe. Those who were recently dependent on American supplies will find alternative suppliers, pushing the U.S. out of its traditional export markets. As a result, major agribusiness corporations like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill will suffer losses estimated at $2-3 billion annually. However, for transnational agribusinesses, this is just a decrease in profits, whereas for medium and small farms, it is a matter of survival. Small farms will be unable to withstand competition under falling prices and a lack of markets, leading to mass bankruptcies and land being taken over by large agribusiness corporations. Meanwhile, workers employed in agriculture will face mass layoffs. According to analysts, up to 100,000 people may lose their jobs. As happened in previous crises, farms will try to compensate for losses by lowering wages and extending working hours. Ultimately, protective tariffs, allegedly meant to protect the American market, will not only fail to revive agriculture but will also accelerate its monopolization, destroying small and medium businesses.

The consequences will not only affect the agricultural sector. The fall in export revenues by $20 billion will lead to a reduction in demand for agricultural machinery, fertilizers, and logistics services. Companies engaged in grain transportation, processing, and storage will also be in crisis. By 2026, this could trigger a chain reaction of bankruptcies in related industries, from railway carriers to agricultural equipment manufacturers. But who will pay for these losses? Of course, not large corporations and agribusinesses, but American workers and farmers. The government, instead of recognizing the failure of protectionist policies, will attempt to compensate for the losses through subsidies, which will lead to an increase in the tax burden. However, this measure will not save agriculture, but only prolong its agony, shifting the problem to the next budget cycles. Ultimately, as in all capitalist crises, profit will be privatized,

Scenario 3

And if we turn our gaze to metallurgy, an even more ominous picture emerges. Production will grow, but without reliable markets. This is no longer news: overproduction crisis is a law of the capitalist system, described decades ago. Artificial interference in the market, stimulating production growth without a real increase in demand, only accelerates the collapse that would be inevitable anyway. The U.S. is trying to protect its producers from competition, but the world economy does not live in a vacuum. As soon as American steel becomes more expensive due to high tariffs and rising domestic prices, producers from other countries—China, India, Brazil, South Korea—will quickly take over the vacated niches. European buyers are already increasing purchases of steel from Asian suppliers, and Latin American countries are shifting to cheaper raw materials from Russia and Africa. By 2026, excess steel stocks could reach 25% of total production, inevitably triggering mass layoffs. Capitalists, blinded by short-term profits, have invested billions in expanding production capacities, but now they will find that demand for their products is catastrophically falling. Nucor, one of the largest steel companies in the U.S., which, at the beginning of 2025, showed profit growth, will by the end of the year face losses of $3 billion. However, capital owners will not pay for this crisis from their own pockets. They will start cutting costs—and first of all, by firing workers. By 2026, 50,000 jobs will be under threat of elimination. Factories will be forced to suspend production, reduce staff, and cut wages to compensate for the falling income. Workers, who were assured just a year ago of the stability of their jobs, will face a choice: unemployment or catastrophic worsening of working conditions. For them, the crisis will not manifest in balances and financial reports, but in frozen mortgages, inability to pay medical bills, and growing debts. The fall in demand for steel will trigger a chain reaction. The automotive industry, shipbuilding, construction, heavy machinery—all these sectors dependent on cheap steel will reduce purchases, worsening the crisis. Medium and small producers will be the first victims. While large corporations may still rely on state support, tax breaks, and emergency subsidies, private workshops, small steel plants, and contractors will lose their last source of income. They will either go bankrupt or be absorbed by large conglomerates, further strengthening market monopolization. However, there are no examples in the history of capitalism where the overproduction crisis has been resolved in favor of the workers. On the contrary, every new economic downturn is used to redistribute property, destroy competition, and finally push workers into dependence on capital. When mass factory closures begin, it will be announced that “the market is not coping,” and the government will propose measures to save the situation. Of course, not for the workers, but for the corporations. Laws on tax breaks for metallurgical giants will be passed, debt buyback programs will be launched at the expense of the budget, investments in new technologies will be financed—but all this money will go not into restoring jobs but into the pockets of shareholders. The ordinary worker will face this crisis differently. He will receive a layoff notice, see prices rising in stores, and hear that “he’ll have to endure.” Millions of people will again be faced with the inevitable choice: either accept even more degrading working conditions, or join the ranks of the unemployed. This is the natural course of capitalism, where crises are never paid for by oligarchs, officials, and corporate shareholders, where the full burden of the crisis falls on the shoulders of the working class, small capitalists, and intellectuals. After all, in the end, this crisis is not an accident. It is embedded in the very structure of the capitalist economy, where production is governed not by the needs of society, but by the thirst for profit. When demand rises, capitalists throw billions into expanding factories, not caring about what happens when the market becomes oversaturated. And when demand falls, they close down plants, without taking responsibility for the fate of thousands of people. This has happened dozens of times and will happen again. The only thing that remains unchanged is the position of the working class, which in every crisis faces the necessity of paying for the deliberate ventures of monopoly banking-industrial capital.

Scenario 4

But even if the situation is stabilized, what will the result be? A short-lived respite, bought at the price of trade wars, subsidies, and artificial price controls, will inevitably turn into a protracted recession. Even now, American industry cannot withstand competition from Asian manufacturers, where cheaper labor, modern technologies, and state support make metallurgical products many times more efficient. Temporary barriers may delay the crisis, but they cannot cancel the laws of the market: steel production in the U.S. remains expensive and inefficient, and without modernization and cost reduction, it will inevitably face another decline. By 2030, steel and aluminum exports could decrease by 30%, leading to the loss of 80,000 jobs. This is no longer a question of theoretical forecasts, but a direct law of the capitalist system: so-called protective measures do not save producers but only delay their inevitable bankruptcy. Enterprises will collapse one after another, striking the economy even harder. If today American metallurgy relies on artificial preferences, tomorrow it will face even harsher competition, as even the domestic market begins to be flooded with imported products entering through bypass schemes. However, it will not only be metallurgy that loses out. The manufacturing sector, dependent on metal, will face a wave of layoffs and wage reductions. A 7-10% wage decline is already expected, which, in conditions of rising inflation, will lead to even greater impoverishment of the working class. The worker, promised “stability” and “protection from the global market,” will ultimately face new waves of layoffs, longer working hours, increased production norms, and a reduction in social guarantees. Large corporations such as U.S. Steel will lose up to 15% of their profits, but even these losses will be compensated through tax breaks and government subsidies. As always in conditions of a commodity-money crisis, the owners of large capital will be able to use the situation in their favor: absorbing small companies, reducing costs, lowering wages. This is the result of PROTECTIONISM. Protectionism has nothing to do with supporting and protecting national production, with stabilizing the economy, it brings no benefit to either small entrepreneurs or large capitalists. On the contrary, it always leads to the oversaturation of trade and financial channels, to even greater destabilization of the economy, to further exacerbation of the crisis, to stagnation, and ultimately to collapse.

America, faced with the results of its own trade wars, will inevitably come to the same solution that all imperialist powers have reached before major crises — a new wave of expansion. When the domestic market can no longer hold prices and provide capital with sufficient profit levels, when costs begin to eat into the income of the largest corporations, the bourgeoisie, as before, will turn its gaze once again to foreign markets.

This is not all!

The rise in metal prices resonates far beyond metallurgy. It will hit all industries, but will most severely affect the construction sector, which has already faced a 12% increase in costs. In 2025, the additional costs for construction companies are estimated at $50 billion. This means not only a rise in costs for developers but also a reduction in construction itself, a slowdown in infrastructure projects, and massive job losses. The goal of capital is profit. And when costs rise, capitalists immediately seek ways to compensate for losses. Companies such as Bechtel, facing a 5–7% drop in profitability, will not patiently wait for market conditions to improve. They will cut staff, freeze projects, reduce wages, fire workers, but NEVER GIVE UP ON PROFITS! The layoffs will affect at least 150,000 people in construction, and the so-called “lucky ones,” who will keep their jobs, will have to face an increase in labor intensity against the backdrop of reduced working hours and lower wages. The new conditions will be intensified labor, lower pay, more unpaid overtime hours, and the relais system — this is the future awaiting workers.

The construction crisis is not just numbers. It is a blow to the most fundamental element of working-class life — housing. In 2025, housing prices have already risen by 8%, and the slowdown in construction will only reinforce this growth. The demand for affordable housing does not decline, but as construction shrinks, only expensive properties remain on the market. This means that the worker, even if he keeps his job, will not be able to afford housing, whether through a mortgage, a payment plan, or otherwise.

In addition to steel and aluminum, tariffs also affect other sectors, including the footwear industry, where the impact of tariffs may be even more destructive. In 2024, the U.S. imported more than 2.4 billion pairs of shoes, of which over 70% came from China and Vietnam. New tariffs increase the cost of imports, which immediately affects the prices for the end consumer.

But one should ask: who do these measures really protect? After all, the American footwear industry has long ceased to exist as a competitive sector. Production capacities have been moved to Asia, and even large American brands such as Nike, Skechers, and New Balance do not produce their products domestically. Therefore, raising tariffs does not lead to an increase in national production, but only raises the price of goods available to the consumer, loading the additional costs onto the workers themselves. This system demonstrates the true essence of capitalism in its imperialist phase. Nike and Skechers have already announced a possible price increase of 20%. How price increases reflect on the poor and the rich.

Example 1.
Price increase of $16.

• A worker earns $12 per hour,
• A rich person earns $650 per hour.

Then the price increase to hourly wages ratio will be as follows:

• Worker – 125%
• Rich person – 2.31%.

Example 2.
Price increase of $40.

The feeling of price increase on one’s own skin:

• Worker – 333.33%
• Rich person – 6.15%.

Rising prices are a form of class oppression, where the poor pay for crises created by the rich.

Scenario 5

As has happened before in history, when state protectionist measures create artificial demand and isolate the domestic market, American industry risks facing the accumulation of unsold goods that will not be able to be sold at market prices. Manufacturers, confident in protection from external competition, will increase production, relying on stable sales. However, this calculation is based not on real demand, but on artificially created barriers that may disappear at any moment. During the 2018-2019 trade war between the USA and China, an abnormal growth in unsold product stocks occurred, especially in the clothing and footwear sectors. Retailers such as Foot Locker and Macy’s faced a situation where, due to price increases, consumers simply stopped buying goods, and inventories in warehouses began to grow. In 2025, the situation may repeat itself on an even larger scale: tariffs will force American companies to import goods in advance, fearing further price hikes, but the reduction in purchasing power and rising household debt will make it almost impossible to sell these goods. The example from 2002 clearly shows what this will lead to. Then, the Bush administration imposed protective tariffs on steel imports, supporting the steel industry but completely ignoring the interests of related sectors. Once these tariffs were lifted, the market was flooded with cheap foreign goods, and American companies that could not compete with foreign suppliers began to go bankrupt in large numbers. The same process awaits American light industry when the time comes, and the tariffs are lifted.

Scenario 6

Let us assume that American corporations will have military orders from NATO countries and demand will remain stable. However, such a policy will also bring ruin, which will take increasingly clearer forms. Out of the 3106 districts in the USA, possibly 300 or 400 will have military facilities or factories where the presence of military objects has some stimulating effect on local businesses. In most other districts, however, militarism brings only losses to local entrepreneurs. The draining of taxes from these areas, which are allocated to pay for military expenses, sharply reduces the purchasing power of the local population, while the diversion of part of the population to serve in the military or work at military factories located in other areas reduces the number of consumers. Indirect benefits associated with militarist activity in other areas only partially make up for these losses. Five states, which account for 28% of the country’s population, receive 50% of the primary military contracts. Some of these states, or rather some areas within these states, benefit economically from militarism. However, almost all of the other 45 states bear the net losses of militarism. In most of them, taxes paid to fund the military program exceed the income generated in the military sector, including the wages of workers in military enterprises, profits from military companies, and salaries of military personnel. Ultimately, despite the short-term revival of industry, when military demand ends, the USA will face an economic crisis even deeper than the recession of the 1930s of the 20th century.

The table presents estimated data on the military business of individual sectors of the metalworking industry, in accordance with current data developed by the U.S. Department of Defense and international analytical centers for the analysis of the industrial production index.

Across the entire metalworking industry, as shown by the data in the table, military production accounts for 12.2 points out of 39.7 points, or 30.7% of the total volume. This figure confirms the high degree of integration of the defense sector into industry.

Aviation manufacturing continues to remain the key sector, but its structure is changing. In recent years, a significant portion of orders has been allocated to the development of unmanned and hypersonic aircraft projects. Currently, 85% of aircraft production is devoted to military orders, which confirms the conclusions drawn regarding an important new feature of modern overripe capitalism — the constant militarization of the economy. The electronics industry plays an increasingly important role in the defense sector. By 2025, two-thirds of its products will be oriented towards military needs, including electronic warfare systems, reconnaissance systems, and satellite communications. According to analytical agencies, more than 60% of all electronic devices used in the military sector are intended to ensure control over air, sea, and cyberspace. One of the most rapidly developing directions remains the production of unmanned and autonomous systems. Data shows that billions of dollars in investments are drawn to this sector annually, and companies operating in this field are actively developing new models of drones and robotic systems. Drones today are used in reconnaissance, combat operations, and even cyberwarfare, making them a key component of modern military strategy.

Thus, the role of military production in the metalworking industry remains significant and has a serious impact on technological development. Despite attempts at economic diversification, government orders and international contracts continue to form the basis of the defense sector, as evidenced by forecasts for the coming years.

We come to the following conclusions:

1.Big business benefits from a militarized economy thanks to contracts for arms supplies and related military business. Such business is particularly sought after because it ensures a rate of profit higher than average, an unusually high share of hidden and, therefore, untaxed profit, and a guarantee against ordinary risks associated with business.

2.Big business benefits from a militarized economy due to foreign investments and the related business abroad. This business is especially desirable because it ensures a higher-than-average profit rate and an opportunity for expansion, which is often unavailable within the country. The position of investments abroad depends on the military power of the country exporting capital, on the deployment of this power to ensure such domestic political conditions, production costs, and tax regimes that are essential for achieving very high profits in the countries where the capital is invested.

3.Military and foreign business account for 25-35% of the total profits of all joint-stock companies. However, this percentage is much higher in industry than in the services sector, and it is much higher in big business than in small enterprises. All of the increase in corporate profits over the last decade has come from these two sources.

4.Profits from enterprises located abroad significantly exceed the profits obtained from domestic industrial enterprises. This fact, which contradicts a widespread assumption, is of great importance. It means that the traditional function of the armed forces of a great power, serving as the instrument for creating an empire, remains effective for the United States even now, and remains effective for the United States, although this is not their only function. While the importance of imperialism as a source of profits has greatly increased, it has not gone beyond its original goals — the creation of an empire. This is, of course, about the modern “neocolonial” empire, which is economically as effective a source of profits as the formal colonial empire was in times when this was politically possible.

5.A special study of the 25 largest industrial corporations in the USA shows that more than 40% of their total profits come from military business and foreign investments, with 29% of profits coming from foreign investments and 12% from military business. Another study, covering 30 smaller industrial companies, also shows that more than 40% of the total profits were obtained from military business and foreign investments, but foreign investments brought only slightly more profits than military business. The clearly expressed difference between these two groups in terms of the relative share of profits from military production and foreign investments reflects the difference in the structure of industry, which depends on the size of enterprises, and particularly the fact that the concentration level in foreign investment is even higher than in the main production area.

6.Foreign investments and military production continue to account for a significant share of profits for large American corporations. By 2025, the share of profits from defense contracts and foreign investments will amount to approximately 40-50% of the total profits of the largest U.S. corporations. As in previous decades, foreign investments bring significantly more profit compared to military production. Military business, thanks to increasing government defense spending and the growth of international contracts, remains an important source of profit for companies such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and other major defense contractors. The reduction of taxes for corporations, especially since the 2017 tax reform, has only strengthened these trends, further increasing profits from military-industrial orders and foreign investments. As a result, it can be expected that in the coming years, by 2030, more than 50% of profits for large American companies will come from these sources, reflecting the inevitable growth of large corporations’ dependence on the militarization of the economy and international investments.

7. Separate companies and industries differ greatly from one another in the share occupied by foreign investments and armament production. Currently, the most militarized industries include the production of unmanned aerial vehicles (drones), rockets, and aircraft, as well as the electronics industry, instrumentation, and machine engineering related to defense technologies. This includes the production of artillery equipment, shipbuilding, and new types of high-tech weapons such as active protection systems, robotic combat platforms, and weapons based on artificial intelligence. The automotive industry and most of the machine engineering sector have become less militarized, as has ferrous metallurgy; however, even in these industries, certain types of products are used for military purposes. The aluminum industry and traditional non-ferrous metallurgy are also increasingly focused on the production of materials for military needs, such as light and super-strong alloys. The oil industry continues to rely on foreign investments, playing a key role in supporting global militarization. The chemical industry, despite its limited connection with traditional military chemicals, is actively involved in the production of materials for missile systems, specialized metals, and new technological materials, which are critically important for modern weaponry and military technologies such as precision missiles, drones, and hypersonic systems. The light and food industries are typically not associated with military production, and the same applies to most of the construction industry and related sectors.

8. For small enterprises and local production, the geographical location of military facilities, including armament production and the activities of the armed forces, is of considerable importance. These facilities are distributed unevenly across the country. The greatest importance in terms of militarization is held by the far west and southwest. The southeast and New England also have a higher level of militarization than the national average, while the Midwest has a lower level of militarization compared to other regions.

9. The production of armaments and foreign investments bring not only profits to big business but also losses associated with the need to pay taxes covering part of the military expenses. Disarmament, on the other hand, would lead to the opposite set of factors — losses from the elimination of military orders, the expected loss of a significant portion of profits from foreign investments, and the benefits from reduced taxes. A significant secondary factor would be, in the future, a shift toward federal government spending on civilian needs rather than military expenditures.

10. The corporate tax rate, reduced to 15% by the Trump administration, is nothing more than a systematic relief for the bourgeoisie, which, on the one hand, profits from military contracts, and on the other hand, benefits from tax privileges. Corporations that derive more than 50% of their profits from military contracts and foreign investments will strongly demand the continuation of militarization, as it brings them colossal profits. But those who earn less may be more inclined to support disarmament to mitigate this pressure. Such a mechanism not only strengthens the military-industrial complex but also increases the state’s dependence on the interests of large capital, ultimately leading to the strengthening of militarist policies. Under such a regime, “disarmament” becomes an empty slogan, a struggle with words over financial interests, where the latter prevails in the capitalist mode of production.

11. Militarism in the economy is the main obstacle to the normal development of the USA. True and real disarmament could eliminate many of these problems, but this is only possible with the destruction of the existing system and not in any other way. To a large extent, the causes of the economic difficulties of the USA lie in militarism. Business circles and banking-industrial corporations in the USA, despite all the claims about the “non-impact of military expenses” on the economy, repeatedly applaud the increase in militarization — the growth of stock prices. It is obvious that financial moguls consider militarism a guarantor of their interests in conditions of the decay of the capitalist system as a whole. However, despite potential fluctuations and short-term benefits for certain corporations, militarism hampers the overall economic growth of the USA and distorts the economy.

12. Some regional groups in the Midwest and California exhibit a more favorable attitude toward disarmament. The position of Midwest groups is logically connected with the relatively small scale of armament production in this region and the absence of extensive foreign connections for some of these groups (but not all). In California, there are groups not linked to major militarism strongholds in the Far West, and they may expect favorable opportunities for trade with China. On the other hand, equally powerful groups in the Far West are the main supporters of militarism.

In short. The scale and aggressive nature of the military activities of American imperialism may create the impression of the power of the imperialists and militarists of the USA, claiming world domination. In reality, such an assessment would be fundamentally erroneous. The rampant aggression is by no means a sign of strength, and military hysteria is not an indicator of self-confidence. In fact, we are witnessing a global arms race, which speaks only of the growing decay of capitalism and the sharpening of the general capitalist crisis. It testifies to the animal fear of imperialists before the rise of revolutionary forces worldwide. The instigation by American monopolistic capital of a third world war between China and the USA on the territory of the former Soviet Union shows that it has taken that fateful path that led to the disgraceful collapse of Tsarist Russia and Nazi Germany. The aggressive plans of American militarists are full of deep contradictions and are built on sand; they are as adventuristic as the bankrupt plans of Hitler. The intentions of the reactionary ruling circles of the USA to once again wage war by proxy, to incite European countries against Russia, are doomed to failure, as the workers of Europe will refuse to serve as cannon fodder for the magnates of Wall Street. The very initiators of the aggressive plans of American imperialism and, in particular, the North Atlantic bloc, are forced to admit that the countries in this military-political bloc do not represent, either individually or together, a serious military force. Therefore, they pin their hopes on creating a revisionist united Europe, using old Nazi tricks. The military plans of the USA are devoid of any real foundation, as they grossly underestimate the growing revolutionary forces both in Europe and in America. The designs of the American big shots also fail to account for the contradictions that inevitably arise among NATO members due to the escalating political and economic struggle within the North Atlantic Alliance. The groundlessness of the aggressive plans of the USA also stems from the ignoring of the true feelings and mental attitudes of the American people themselves. These plans not only do not enjoy the support of the masses, but also provoke hatred from the working class towards the USA. Many global scientific institutions show that American society does not allow its consciousness to be poisoned by the venom of chauvinism and militarism.

Author of the Article
Alex Zarin