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.
North Korea. Made a nuclear weapon. Did they learn? And don't call them non-socialist; that's an opinion, not a fact.
Well, I won't call them non-socialist. What I will call them is non-Marxist, undemocratic, and just plain insane. And the former two adjectives are admitted to, proudly, by themselves. Juche is, "our own kind of socialism," and not one that I particularly find atractive. Also, there are two problems with the "they have nukes!" argument. First, they can't really get it anywhere. The delivery systems they've tested have failed. Second, they are, like everyone else, subject to MAD.
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.
The first cavemen were, by all standards, "communist". And are they utopic? Not to mention that if people wanted communism so bad, they had 200 years to start a rebellion and do something. Farmers still own land and livestock, and they DON'T WANT TO CHANGE. Forcing a rebellion of communism onto people will immediately contradict Marx's teachings of imposing economic systems, because there will always be holdouts, much as there are communists in a capitalist society. We're doing nothing to make them buy stuff, they can live by themselves. In a communist society, there are no shops allowed, therefore a capitalist can't object to communism. Communism forces itself on it's people, capitalism doesn't.
"Primitive Communism" is a half-formed notion at best, and, even if accepted, differs from true communism in two respects. First, it lacks productive capacity. Cavemen simply did not have the technology that is available today. Second, it is unmotivated by class consciousness. Cavemen, because of their productive impotence, organized society around very local forms. As the class structure progresses, so do the organizations of society; from family to tribe to clan to city to nation to empire to an international state.
Your "holdouts" are motivated by class interest, just as communists are motivated by class interest in capitalist society. The thing about "holdouts" is, they are by definition a reactionary minority.
And to contradict your point about capitalism forcing itself onto people, I need only bring up...every year of its history. I look at Africa, the West of North America, Asia, and Ocenia and I see capitalism forcing itself onto a people whose class structure wasn't ready to accept it. Just as the Soviets shouldn't have tried to force Communism onto the Eastern Europeans whose class structure wasn't ready to accept it.
Where do you buy your clothing GC? Your house? Anything? Being that you are a communist, you should sew your own clothing, build your own house, and walk everywhere.
Ah, how very wrong you are. Being a communist, I believe that people
should work in factories, and buy from shops. It's just that they should also own the places at which they work, and own collectively the places that distribute goods. Socialism isn't about turning back the clock on production. Socialism concerns itself with remedying the maldistribution of capitalism.
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.
What you fail to see is that the Chinese military is the instrument of international communists. It doesn't matter whether China is socialist or not, until they let corporations into it, they are, for all due purposes, not completely capitalist and therefore, are using their population to NK's, Laos', Vietnam's, and Cuba's advantage.
And that's where you're wrong. China has completely abandoned socialism. The Communist Party continues to exist in power only because its policies, since the 1970s, have remained friendly to its capitalist class. And its name has ceased to carry with it any meaning. China is a party dictatorship with a capitalist economy, as is recognized by Western economists, commentators, and virtually all informed citizens.
