Firstly, do you really think that the United States government, given its dismal track record of late, could ever pull off anything as complex and intricate as the sorts of conspiracies you seem to be hinting at?
What do you mean, its "dismal track record of late?" The United States government has over 231 years of a "dismal track record." There's racial slavery and Indian genocide, then imperialist ventures first in Flordia, then against Mexico, then against Spain, then in the Phillipines, then in Korea and Vietnam, and now in the Middle East. The "dismal track record" has been virtually continuous.
Furthermore, I fail to see how accurately pointing out the large number of US military bases around the world is a conspiracy theory. It is a simple fact; the United States has military bases all over the world, in around a hundred countries, in all regions of the globe. And it is not conspiracy to say that crime increases near an American military base, because it does. Nor is it conspiracy to say that much of this crime is perpetrated by American servicemen. Because it is. The top brass confirm it.
This is not about capitalism, this is simply about power. The United States is powerful, simple as that. Power, and human hubris and stupidity. Were the United States communist, they'd be just as irresponsible in wielding that power for the sake of communism.
Were the United States communist, the rest of the world would be communist too. Because communism implies the absense of a state, and the states won't be permanently abolished until there are no states that threaten them. You want to use the word "socialist."
And you're implying that it is in the nature of Americans to be irresponsible? Or are you implying that about the powerful? Because I would agree with you; it is always in the nature of a ruling group to advance its interests at the expense of other groups. However, it is not true that it must be done in an irresponsible manner. Without economic imperialism to enforce, American military power would not be necessary. That was the mistake the Soviets made; they tried to exert their will through military force over other countries, and failed. What you don't realize is that we socialists might have learned from their mistakes.
And as to getting rid of capitalism, might I remind you what happened the last couple of times we tried to do that, i.e. mass starvation, poverty and no decent economy to speak of? The evidence speaks for itself; the best developed areas of the world, the United States, Europe, Japan and so forth, have what when all is said and considered are free and open markets.
I defy you to name me one time where "we" have tried it. What has been tried, in most cases, is imposing economic plans upon an unwilling people. You fail to consider the class interests of the peasantry in China and Russia, to which you seem to be referring; it is in their interest to own their own land, not to collectivize it. You would probably make the argument that that can never change, but right now, in the advanced capitalist countries, it is in the farm workers' interest to own land cooperatively. That would not be an imposition, and would require no military force to enforce it.
In Cuba, for example, most of the rural residents worked, for wages (that is impoertant) on plantations owned and managed by either American or Cuban planters. They had ceased to be peasants; they had become farm workers. Consequently, socialism was not an imposition upon them in Cuba, and they support it to this day. In China, socialism was a patriotic way to drive out the Japanese invaders, and it soon lost its lustre. China has ceased to be socialist precisely because of this.
United States: 1.84
Switzerland: 1.89
Canada: 1.85
Iceland: 1.74
Ireland: 1.58
Luxembourg: 1.60
Sweden: 1.96
Denmark: 1.78
Now, there are a couple of things wrong here. I never said that each capitalist country had to have its
own imperialist military to work its will. Each of the countries you mention, besides the United States, has a small population. Therefore, it has a small tax base, and has a smaller pool to draw from for recruits. None but the United States can
afford such a large military. Besides, it is in the interests of the ruling class of each of these countries to have someone else do their military dirty work for them. That way they don't have to spend money on it. What you fail to see is that the American military is not just the instrument of the American capitalist class; it is the instrument of the international capitalist class.
Your argument therefore fails.
