I understand the party is in charge and those positions will change but in most socialist states there seems to be a permanent head ala Lenin, Stalin, Castro, the Kim’s etc.
Is this what Marx meant by dictatorship of the proletariat? Is it possible to have democratic communism? I’m new to all this but I’m finding it all really interesting. Sorry if this is a common question.
They aren’t “permanent” leaders. For instance, Stalin, Castro, and the Kims all retained power because they continued to be democratically elected into their positions. Notoriously Stalin asked to leave his position multiple times, and was turned down.
The need for long terms without term limits can be explained by it being very hard to get anything done when you can easily be replaced by disagreeing factions. Building Socialism requires long projects that generally have high costs, such as industrialization, refitting of industries, rebuilding wartorn portions of the country, etc. Projects like these can take 10+ years, and then require more time afterwards to ensure that the project was a success. Stalin’s industrialization of the USSR wouldn’t have been possible if the anti-leninist factions acquired power before they were finished, for example.
Having one leader stay in power over a long period also helps to keep capitalist bandits from leading a colour revolution in your country. For instance, if Russia had term limits - thus meaning Putin couldn’t’ve stayed in power for 20 years - the country likely would’ve become a Western colony. The same is true of a Socialist example, like Cuba. It’s hard to depose a leader who’s beloved by their people. Even harder when it’s the only leader those people have ever known.
That does make a lot of sense. Thanks!
Don’t know how much you know about American history, but think of how different the culture would be if Abraham Lincoln or Ulysses S. Grant were able to actually complete southern reconstruction and reunification efforts.