Why is North Korea the only Stalinist-run country with a dynasty?

[Let's Get Free]

Capitalist, feudalist, and royalist regimes often have dynasties. Hell, even the "democratic" U.S. has the Bushes and Kennedys.

But countries run by Stalinists don't do the "family succession" thing. Stalin himself made a point of not giving his children special privileges, even refusing to negotiate with the Nazis when his own son was taken as a POW in WW2.

Raul Castro actually has factional leadership of a section of the Cuban Communist Party, and came to power through that, rather than just being Fidel's brother. In Romania, Ceausescu's wife was leader of her own political party, which was an important part of her husband's ruling coalition -- his party NEEDED her party to keep power.

But in North Korea, there can be no arguments -- it's strictly a family thing. So why is North Korea the only exception? How did this ONE Stalinist-run nation end up with a family dictatorship?

[Prometeo liberado]

Maybe you have answered your own question.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Because they're stupid.

[Blake's Baby]

Raul Castro's position as leader of a party 'section' has nothing to do with being Fidel's brother? Ilena Ceausescu's position as leader of a coalition party had nothing to do with being Nicolai's wife?

Their positions were surely entirely due to their family connections. The ruling classes in North Korea, Cuba and Romania are just as susceptible to croneyism and nepotism as any other ruling class anywhere else. Maybe more so, as there's less opportunity for a change in 'team' as there is in bourgeois democracies.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Well, Raul Castro actually had a role in the Cuban Revolution, which obviously is not the case with the Kims.
I think the situation between the two countries is not comparable really.

[hetz]

> North Korea
> Stalinist

[Blake's Baby]

Yes.

Even though it's removed references to 'socialism' in its constitution it's a Stalinist country.

Are you a Stalinist that believes Stalinism doesn't exist, or a stalinist that believes it does? If it's the former then there's no way you can comment on whether or not we define it as Stalinist. If it's the latter, care to explain what you think it's lacking to be Stalinist?