I can largely share that sentiment, but I'm probably much less of a collectivsit, and much more of a Marxist. To me, things like community are only good insofar as they serve the needs of each individual. Individuality, self-interest - these things shouldn't be avoided. They should be embraced as part of a free society. But as they are, they cause more harm than good. The idea of the invidiual is now represented by societies where rights aren't extended universally. Whither dealing with exploitation, hollowed out democracy, or the environment, individualism as we know it has failed. And that's why socialism is so vital, as its currently the only system which effectively represents the interests of all individuals.
Socialism, or at least the kind I favor, is incredibly decentralist. It forms socity into, as Zizek called it, "a global world order", but with small democratic bodies - like co-ops, communes, local councils, and so on - to give each individual more control over their lives. Its not a shift to eastern collectivism, but also not the maintinence of western capitalism. It is for this reason that I have to challenge the fundamental assumptions of your post. Capitalism isn't a negative force in its lack of loyalty, but in the fact that it presents antagonistic social roles. Loyalty and other cultural problems are rooted in the structures of the day – and simple reform of these structures won't work. They need to be uprooted.
As for revolutionary socialism goes. There are two theorists you need to be familiar with in order to understand this: Antonio Gramsci and Karl Kautsky. Gramsci explained the failure of Russia, China, and so on, as a result of revolutionists not fighting for hegemony. They didn't develop a democratic tradition, nor did they make efforts to change the view of capitalism and the revolution. No, they just pushed the revolution forward, working within the sphere of something not culturally ready for a socialist revolution. Kautsky, in his case, explained that it was a result of ignoring one of the fundamental ideas of Marxism. That that socialism needs industrial capitalism to preceed it.
The USA could probably fascilitate it as we stand now, but as Gramsci said, there needs to be another step to the process. Which is why I don't totally oppose revolutionary socialism, but don't think it'll be fully necessary.
* * *
We do agree on a great deal, but you're approaching the problem in an a-beneficial way.