What is a Marxist explanation as to why Clinton chose NOT to self-initiate Section 201, and Bush chose TO do so in regards to “US Steel’s” demands to relieve the US from dumping foreign steel on the American economy?
Karl Marx reviewed this case and was furious:
“The idea that the American proletariat has not risen up and overthrown the biggest capitalist country the world has ever seen is outrageous! In the Standing up for Steel case two successive American Presidents pulled a play right out of the “Communist’s Explanation of Capitalist Government’s Actions” playbook!
“First of all, Clinton, that man decides to not protect his workers’ industry. He chose not to self-initiate Section 201 of the US Trade Act that would have protected the American proletariat from the dumping of foreign steel on the US market. He was obviously ignoring the demands of the United Steelworkers of America, and calling the “Structuralist Marxist” play - ensuring that the survival of the international capitalist system is of the utmost concern. In doing so he chose, over his own Workers, to protect capitalism and the economies of Asia and Russia!
“Secondly, the following President Bush called the “Instrumental Marxist” play. This is what I’ve been reiterating for hundreds of years - “the state is the executive committee of the bourgeoisie”. Bush, the puppet tied to the strings of US Steel, chose to give in to the demands of the US firms by initiating Section 201 action - further prospering big business and hurting workers the world over!
With the exploitative leaders America has, in both business and government, how on earth has the US worker not yet risen up? The capitalists managed to hurt workers on two different occasions, taking two opposite actions, regarding the same case study. Amazing!”
No comments:
Post a Comment