Communism

There are a few

It enables complete equality, no poor, no rich because all assets are divided among everyone.

A bad thing is if there are lazy people that choose to not work, then are still given assets, though that's not corruption, but it's enables people to not work because they are given everything.

That's really the only problem is Laziness. Good things, is when you have a good leader.

In the 1960's there was a Soviet Leader called Kruschev, he offered Millions of jobs, and updated the Whole Warsaw Pact to be more developed then the West, their economy offered everything possible, and made the people happier then ever before. You see, it's really up to the leader, if he "sucks", well then nothing will go, but that also seems to corrilate with Capitalist leaders. Kruschev got rid of Stalinism, which was flawed, and just stupid. He was probobly one of the best Russian Leaders of all, for technical progress, Economical Progress, and Development levels, making every body in the whole country happy.

Thanks

Capitalism

In pretty much every way you can think of. Under Marxism, there is no individual wealth. Under capitalism, that's everyone's goal.

As described by Marx & Engles in their early writings Marxism/Communism is the ultimate inevitable economic system resulting from the historically unavoidable collapse of capitalism. It is seen as a spontaneous transition/break that could be neither hindered nor assisted, but only waited for. When the time was right the change would happen in the vast majority of industrialized capitalist countries almost simultaneously, then spread to the remaining industrialized capitalist countries, then finally to the poor agrarian colonial countries.

Yes, there would be no wealth but also no poverty; the state would know everyone's exact abilities and needs seeing that every individual that could work got their ideal job and whether they could work or not got every need satisfied. The workers would not need to be paid and neither would they need to buy anything. The already preexisting universal capitalist system of company towns housing workers and their families and company stores serving those towns would be used by the new state to provide the needs of the people.

The excess wealth already generated by the preceding capitalist system of the wealthy industrialized capitalist countries was seen as being more than adequate to fund the new communist system replacing it... forever.

Later Marxists like Lenin got impatient with "historical inevitability" and tried accelerating the process before all the required conditions for the collapse of capitalism could come about. We see where that got them.

Many of the conditions that Marx & Engles considered universally inevitable (e.g. company towns & stores) turned out to be only transient phenomena of the business environment of their time.

North Vietnam benefited from assistance by Communist China, but was not communistic at the start of the Vietnam War in the 1960s. It wasn't taken over by Communists until 1976. Today, Vietnam is a socialist state and though ruled by a "Communist" party, is not a true communist state but rather a dictatorship that uses Communism as a front.

Stalin died 1953, on the same day as composer Sergei Prokofiev

By far Joseph Stalin was worse than Lenin. Stalin sent millions of people to their unjustifiable deaths. Although Lenin was the leader of the soviet revolution he was never in power long enough to be responsible for the shear magnitude of human atrocities committed by Stalin. Lenin, however, was responsible for purging parts of some ethnic and government opposition groups. Stalin was one of Lenin's "enforcers" and would kill innocent people without cause, question, or concern. It was after Lenin's death when Stalin took over and had many high ranking military and revolutionary officer/officials executed. Also, he sent millions of innocent Soviets to Siberia as slaves and work them essentially to their deaths.

No, Josef Stalin did. Lenin died in 1924.

The NEP was an acronym for the New Economic Policy that Lenin designed to end the economic problems the peasantry were having with socialism. The policy was an attempt to provide better incentives for more farming production. Its primary features were the abolition of Russia's requisitions system in favor of a fixed tax and the return to legal market transactions. This gave the peasantry an incentive to resume full production. This also required the government to do what was necessary to stabilize the ruble. With these two measures in place, it gave the peasantry a better opportunity to buy finished products with their funds.The NEP was more than that however. Lenin enacted certain other measures. Among these were allowing a certain amount of private enterprise in trade and in some industries was revived. Additionally, foreign capital was invited to make investments in the Soviet Union on a concession basis. This last measure might be considered risky for foreign investments in that Lenin had canceled all payments on loans to western nations and companies upon taking power.

To gather support for the NEP, he decided to speak about the NEP at the Eleventh Party Congress in 1922.

He made the point that the Soviet regime was living on political credit given to it by the peasantry and warned that the credit was not inexhaustible. Lenin was personally taking blame for this in that he and the Bolsheviks had not correctly perceived that their socialist policies might not be acceptable to the masses of peasants. He felt uncomfortable about taking what was called a strategic retreat.

Initially, there were no important Bolshevik leaders who openly objected to these measures.

Beneath the surface, however, unpublished Columbia University documents indicate that very few leading Bolsheviks, nor the Party rank and file, agreed with the NEP measures. In addition, Lenin believed that the NEP was not going to be a short lived policy. He, according to N.N. Volskski, envisioned the NEP to remain as policy for a long period of time. Lenin's untimely death terminated his own opinion on the length of time the NEP would be necessary.

Joseph Stalin

American's feared communism for how it could change their lifestyles and Lenin had the ability to bring communism to America with Russia's army.

Well it depends if the people rules over the government or not. If the government owns everything without having democracy, then it's state capitalism. If the government owns everything, but the people rule over the government, then it's communism. But unlimited government is not even necessary in communism, infact communists main goal is to slowly remove the government through different steps.

Communism doesn't really have anything to do with the size of the government. Communism wants everyone to have equal wealth and power. Everyone should own everything and everything should be public.

Capitalism wants private ownership. A small minority of private people should own the capital.

State capitalism is when the capital is owned by a small group of people in the government.

Communism wants public ownership, Capitalism wants private ownership and State capitalism wants government ownership.

So no, communism is not really about unlimited government.

Th Soviet Union were first on the side of the axis powers. Then, they changed sides. after Hitler invaded the USSR. Later on in the war, Soviet Union had broke through the forces of Germany, and were fighting in Berlin (Germany's capital). They were one step away from reaching victory over Germany. After Hitler heard the news, he committed suicide. Later, the Soviet Union had captured the capital, and Germany had been defeated. At the end of the entire war, the Soviet Union had one of the strongest armies in the world. These are important roles the Soviet Union had played during the war.

The Soviet Union suffered huge losses in troops, civilians and property. It took them a number of years to recover.

Russia was never Communist. The USSR was state capitalist.

My answer would be "None of the above". The Chinese were attracted to the Communists at first because the alternatives were collaborating.

Communism and capitalism are opposing ideas about how the societies of the world should be organized. Each considers the other dangerous for the reason that both dwell on the failures of the other and both often try to incite people to overthow their governments. Both have pluses and minuses. The struggle goes on. Right now, capitalism is frightened to death by the rise of the shining communism of China. They have the fastest trains in the world. Their railroad to Tibet is another type, not fast like a rocket, but a high flyer over the mountains that supplies oxygen masks for part of the trip. Who's to say what system will ultimately prevail? Oh yeah, your question, the USA wants communism stopped at any cost for the reasons stated above.

China, Laos and Vietnam. You're welcome in advance for my expertise in geography. =P =)

It affected us because we did not like the way it was ran and we where afraid they would take us over and make us that way. During the early late 1930s - 1940s the rearing of the ugly head of Communism hit the U.S. It was especially apparent in Hollywood. Many actors were brought in front of a legal panel and were accused of being Communist when many weren't and often asked to "rat" on their peers. Most refused to do so. Many actors were "black listed" without proof of Communistic values. In the US wealth, production, control of labour and means of replenishing the former are controlled by the upper class. Power is centralized. Communism in it's truest sense totally opposes this ideology. If the US adopted Communism, power would be be centralized and distributed amongst the national population. As a result the controlling minority would lose power and status. This controlling minority also controls the media, which is used to influence the views of others. Thus the people controlling the US Government despise Communism and cause the nation to despise Communism because the ideology threatens their power.

Actually, J.F. Kennedy's BELIEFS regarding the spread of Communism abroad HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS PART in US involvement in Vietnam! Now that I've got your attention, here is how it happened. I may not have it all precise, but basically, it's correct. Basically, Kennedy was obligated to assist the non-Communist people and government of South Vietnam when they requested assistance from all the members of SEATO. Here is the background as best I can recall. The Communists, decades before, had determined that they could spread Communism to finally achieve world-wide dominance by slowly, one-by-one beginning to overtake countries directly adjacent to those who were already Communist controlled. Someone eventually applied a nickname to this operation, calling it the "Dominoe Theory." The idea being, like the novelty game of standing dominoes vertically near each other in lines, and then knocking over one which would knock down the next, in a continuing chain of events which would eventually result in ALL the dominoes being down. During President Dwight D. Eisenhower's term of office, the leaders of the free world decided to do something to discourage, and/or prevent the Communists from using this technique. The resultant plan was to set up multinational treaties in various parts of the world, which were thought to be targets of the Communist plans. The parties to the treaties agreed to collectively assist in the defense of any member nation, under assualt by Communism, IF THAT NATION REQUESTED assistance under the treaty. In addition to the local countries in a given area, the nations of major power also participated as members. One high priority target area was the war cripled but still free nations of Europe. The resulting treaty to protect this area was called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [what is commonly refered to as NATO]. In the southwestern Pacific, another such treaty was enacted. This area is commonly refered to as southeast Asia. The treaty organization for this area was called the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization [what we commonly refer to as SEATO]. For many decades prior to World War Two, Vietnam had been a colony of and controlled by France. During WWII, the French were driven out and it was under the control of the Imperial Japanese Army. After WWII, the French retook control of the country, but by then, the Communists had gained a physical and somewhat popular foothold, particularly in the north. Both the Communists and the some of the non-Communist Vietnamese were fed up with French occupation and exploitation of their people and natural resources [mainly natural rubber from French plantations]. The country was "ripe" for removal of the French, and the Communists did just that, finally defeating the French forces at Dien Bien Phu. Once France was out, and as the majority of the Communists were in the north, and the majority of the population of the south were not Communist, civil war was imminent as the Communists naturally wanted it all. To prevent civil war, the United Nations partitioned Vietnam into north and south, as had been done for Communist North Korea, and non-Communist South Korea. Naturally of course, the Communists wanted it ALL, and from the expelling of the French in 1954[?], the Communists continued to fight anyway, attempting to subvert and conquer the south. Finally, the government of South Vietnam invoked the SEATO treaty and asked the other member nations to assist in its defense againt the Commuist agression. I think the member nations responding included: Australia, South Korea, the US, and Great Britain. There may have been others, but these are all I can recall. Now, regarding John F. Kennedy's beliefs about the spread of Communism; he like most supporters of Liberty, believed in participating in resistance to it's spread, but as stated at my opening, it made no difference what he believed, he was comitted to commit the US to fulfill it's OBLIGATIONS under SEATO, as were all US Presidents succeeding him.j3h.

Based on the previous answer to the question of "what are the basic principles of communism"? Marx believed that communism was an inevitable scientific outcome of history and economics. Marx and his wealthy industrial friend Frederich Engels took credit for Communism. Engels' money basically supported Marx.

Lenin was arrested in 1897 because he and several others organized a workers trade union when trade unions under the Tsar were illegal. He went to prison for a year and was exiled to Siberia for three years.

Suppressed religious freedom, killed critics, silenced freedom of expression -labeling people "counter-revolutionary", killed the Czar and his family- all this was done because he believed that change could only come from violent revolution.

If "predecessor of Lenin," is intended to mean predecessor as head of the Russian government, the answer would be Alexander Kerensky. Kerensky was the second person to head the Russian Provisional Government after Tsar Nicholas II abdicated. Tsar Nicholas II was NOT Lenin's predecessor.

He drove Trotsky out by a police force that he created in secret. Then, i think he killed Trotsky or sent him into exile.