Is hereditary succession compatible with socialism?
Do you guys think it's just a coincidence that the only socialist countries which managed to successfully resist both imperialism and revisionism up until the present day are both hereditary regimes?
It's not hard to see why hereditary succession would be more stable than any other kind of transition of power. The children of great revolutionaries, both thanks to genetics and upbringing, are less likely to end up betraying the revolution than random bureaucrats who happen to win the power struggle after the leader's death.
Hypothetically, let's say Stalin's son never dies in WWII, and assumes power after Stalin's death, thus forming the Stalin dynasty (much like the Kim dynasty in the DPRK). Is there anyone who would argue things wouldn't have gone way better? Even if Stalin's son might not have been a genius, it's extremely unlikely he would betray his father's legacy and turn revisionist. Definitely less likely than Khrushchev, or Bulganin, or Mikoyan, or any of the other opportunist mediocrities infesting the Politburo by the time of Stalin's death.
First pic unrelated I guess. There is no hereditary succession in NK, the Kim find themself in that position because the party wants them there, you really don't know what that name means to North Korean people. Also Stalin son was a git. I don't support hereditary succession. You can't trust his sense of duty to his father name.
What makes you think that?
Is this bait?
There are various accounts of him acting like a twat because he was the Joe's son. Nothing to do with humility of his father
No. Do you disagree that the only socialist governments that have survived to this day have utilized hereditary succession of power?
Most people in their 20s act like twats. Do you think he would be worse than Khrushchev?
No. It would have been the same thing.
What sort of Imperialist propaganda bullshit is this?
Monarchy and hereditary succession are not the same thing.
Retarded take. The reality is that in the absence of bourgeois elections, hereditary succession is one of the few methods of preventing a power struggle when the issue of succession rears. It's not that they are better, but that there is less chance of a power struggle which can lead to collapse.
Castro doesn't count I guess, they were both in the Granma.
While technically true, for head of state to be a hereditary position implies that each successor is "inheriting" the state from their predecessor, implying the state is their family's property, to be conferred to one another by means of inheritance, implying monarchy.
They aren't. They are obviously related, but there is such a thing as an elective monarchy
You know, Granma? Shitty boat that carried the revolutionaries (including the Castro brothers) to Cuba where they started the revolution. It almost sank because of so many people on it. That's why Cuba's big national newspaper is called Granma. Leadership going from one Castro to another would be an example of nepotism if it were just somebody related by blood without any involvement in the revolution, but that doesn't apply here.
No, it's a violation of litteraly the whole point of socialist societies.
Wow if only there was some method of socialist democracy that we could use to provide a mandate for power…
Oh wait, this entire thread is retarded and implies a dictatorial, oligarchic state structure where the workers wouldn’t be the ultimate holders of political power, in other words it’s not socialism. There is no socialism without democracy, and if you think otherwise you deserve the wall.
Granma also means grandma in the English language.
maintained sovereignty in the face of increasingly threatening talk from the US
TALKING SHIT IS ACTUALLY EXISTING SOCIALISM
socialism is a process, brainlet
One with apparently huge epistemological gaps, according to you - the essentialist. fuck off, bud
So there's no hereditary succession but there's hereditary succession? Makes you think
Not necessarily. If the hereditary head of state is mostly a symbolic position, with actual political power held by local councils and workplace democracies, can you really call it oligarchical?
Why would local councils and workplace democracies even accept a SYMBOLIC position for anyone you retard? All symbolic positions come with benefits, just look at the Queen with her """symbolic""" position across a bunch of commonwealth states who by virtue of her position has dozens of estates and homes and tax benefits and other trivialities funded by the working class. Are you going to argue that Kim Jong Un is actually fat because he's living on the same rationing system as his country?
If you squint hard enough North Korea doesn’t look like a monarchy
If this idea was true then every position should be hereditary. Who cares about meritocracy, let's just bring feudalism back.
It's interesting, people ITT seem fixated on the idea that democracy mean means changing the head of state. Looking at the recent US elections of both Obama and Trump, the figurehead who won the popularity contest seems to have utterly ignored the populace. Given that, it seems to me that democracy is more about allowing the proles to determine the outcome of events than pick the face making those choices for them.
Throughout history people have worshipped individuals as infallible gods with divine seed in their holy ballsacks either for religious purposes or as an outlet for the need for religion.
These societies are inevitability stagnant and any pursuit of socialist democracy, no matter how well meaning, will fail because of inflexible adherence to dogma.
What are the mechanisms used by the WPK that force, or secures the claim of the Kim family into hereditary leadership, and what do their position entail?