Avtorkhanov, Abdurahman. The Communist Party Apparatus. Vol. 11. Henry Regnery Company, 1966.
Avtorkhanov (1966) specified that Vladimir Lenin was a Russian communist revolutionary, politician, and political scholar. Lenin also served as the primary founder of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in 1917. Moreover, he has been the President of the Soviet Union from 1922 till his death. Precisely, Lenin can be described as a Marxist. However, his views developed his theoretical identity which is known as Leninism.
Stalin, Joseph. The Foundations of Leninism: And, On the Problems of Leninism. Foreign Language Publishing House, 1950.
This is one of the primary sources that can help in evaluating the influence of Stalin on Lenin. Joseph Stalin is deciphered in a wide range of ways; a perverted terrorist who reveled in the incident and agony of his subjects, a selfish dictator whose each activity served to advance his self-intrigues, the political hireling of Vladimir Lenin, and the man who made an interpretation of Communism into useful terms. Regardless of this being a political and ideological study, on account of Stalin, it becomes impossible to consider his translation of Marxist-Leninism and his consequent leadership style without judgment of his character.
Lenin, Vladimir Ilʹich. Lenin, Selected Works. Vol. 1. Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1947.
This primary source will specifically help in understanding the personal character of Lenin. The impact of his identity upon his leadership can be said to be an essential inspiration for a large number of the choices which have been made, including the effect of his tumultuous home existence with respect to his wife and youngsters, his craving to affirm himself as a credible and critical man which was maybe inspired by his sentiments of disregard of his father, and the expanding forlornness that originated from his exceptional neurosis and trepidation of everyone around him.
Lenin, Vladimir Ilich, Leon Trotsky, and Joseph Stalin. Three who made a revolution,[Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin]. 1966.
Again, this primary resource will present a comparative analysis of the three Russian leaders. In an ideological sense, Stalin’s policies are deviations from those which Lenin himself may have executed, however once more this may be as a consequence of the contrasting identities of the two leaders.
Bukharin, Nikolaĭ, and Vladimir Ilʹič Lenin. Imperialism and world economy. Vol. 4. New York: International Publishers, 1929.
The respective resource will specifically help in reflecting on the economic policies of Lenin. The new economic policy delivered by Lenin in 1921, was drastically updated through Stalin’s flood of economic changes in the mid-1930s. Known as the ‘Great Turn,’ this saw an aggregate change in the agricultural and industrial economy taking care of inside Russia. However, in spite of at first inciting feedback from Trotsky and different individuals from the Left Opposition, who felt a more internationalist way to deal with revamping the economy would be fitting, Stalin and Bukharin had been supporters of the NEP, expressing that they trusted that it was enthusiastic and would promote Soviet impact and effect in the universal framework.
Lenin, Vladimir Ilʹich, and Leon Trotsky. Lenin’s fight against Stalinism. Pathfinder Press, 1975.
Respective source highlights possible differences and conflicts between Lenin and Stalin. The explanations behind Stalin’s evidently fraudulent ‘U-turn’ might on a few levels just be down-to-earth reactions to emergencies but can at the same time be deciphered as Stalin’s first invasion into the improvement of ‘Stalinism.’ The NEP had secured the privileges of individual laborers to offer their items unreservedly, whether to private merchants or state agencies. While the state-controlled every single vast enterprise, for example, processing plants, mines, and railroads, few private ventures were permitted. The ordering of farm produce was like this supplanted by an assessment framework, and the workers were allowed to offer their overflow, yet at a state-controlled cost.
Wiles, Peter JD. The political economy of communism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964.
This resource helps in understanding that the NEP had been Lenin’s endeavor to guarantee the survival of the Communist state taking after ‘War Communism’ which had been actualized from 1914 to 1921, to match with World War 1 and the Russian Civil War, and to attempt and reconstruct Soviet generation to its pre-1914 levels. It is obvious to view the NEP as a concession of key communist qualities, and indeed Lenin himself considered it to be a ‘vital retreat.’ This advancement of a relatively blended economy was defended as a type of ‘state free enterprise,’ the last phase of the private enterprise before communism developed. The Grain Crisis of 1928 was ostensibly the impulse for Stalin to revoke the NEP.
Hello, Richard. “The Structure of Modern Russian History.” Russian History1 (1977): 11.
This resource helps in understanding the historical role of Lenin and his contributions to Russia. As more workers started consuming their particular products, as opposed to acquiring the overrated ones that the little private undertakings were delivering, a 2 million ton deficit of grain occurred in 1928. Ordering was dispatched, therefore, increasing the expected rate of industrialization and as a consequence higher agricultural creation as more grain was required to sustain a developing industrial work power and to pay for imports of hardware through exportation. Collectivization was raised past the levels of Sovkhozes energized amid the NEP time. There can be little uncertainty that revoking the NEP was a deviation from Lenin’s points. However, addresses must be gotten some information about the purpose of such a change.
