I don’t think “do decapitation strikes work” was ever the right angle to approach it. The conditions in Venezuela took time to work to the point where a decap worked. That process happened slowly, the decap happened suddenly. A materialist approach would be to analyze how venezuela got to this point, where a country like Iran was so much more resilient.
In other words, decapitation strikes work. We cannot dismiss them as a useless gesture. Because you can set them up, and they can accomplish the goals you wish.
the mode is the default. decapitation strikes have worked once and not worked about 50 times so while they can work, they don’t usually work and if something doesn’t usually work we often simplify that to it doesn’t work.
Did you think what I was saying was “Decapitation strikes are always a valid option and should become the immediate standard tactic in all situations”?
Did you think my response was meant to litigate this question to begin with? Because it was meant to examine the conditions that lead to an effective decap so that we could form a better understanding rather than to focus on pat solutions like “they work” and "they don’t work ⸻ terminating thoughts that give us zero insight.
So what you’re saying here is that we are both saying that decapitation strikes are a thing that works, the argument you wished was simply one of when they work.
Well I would point out that other people saw our discussion and took from it that “It does not work” was a valid conclusion from it, so the onus is not entirely on me.
But yeah, sure, it is worth bearing in mind that decapitation strikes are much more likely to work when you have some sort of succession with legitimacy that is amenable to your goals. It is unlikely to do you much good if #2 hates you as much as #1 and wishes to follow the same plan.
I believe that to be an incorrect framing. The issue is not the strength of the state. Decapitation strikes have most famously failed against relatively weakly organised states. ISIS was not a very well organised system with robust infrastructure, biweekly assassination of their leadership did not change much in that regard. If not having a strong state was what mattered, then ISIS would have collapsed as soon as Baghdadi died, and all the various successor organisations would likewise have collapsed rather than now running Syria.
What matters is the incentive structures and the motivations of potential successors.
Removing Lincoln (Even if his assassination could not really be called a decapitation strike, he is nevertheless instructive) changed the trajectory of reconstruction and therefore American history, it did so not because the US was a particularly weak state, but because of who was put in charge and who was removed.
Venezuela has flaws, but it has a strong socialist tradition and believers in the Bolivaran revolution in various positions of local government. It has systems that were deliberately set up to act independently of a potential reactionary government. The idea that Venezuela is uniquely unable to withstand the US is just not a premise I accept. The leadership is choosing to go along with an American agenda. It may either be doing so because leaders of the government don’t really believe in the socialist project, it may be doing so out of fear of more kidnappings or other American reprisals. I can’t read thoughts.
Edit: Changed the wording to make it clear that you I don’t think you are incorrect on a factual basis, I just disagree.
It’s the same issue as we’ve seen in the past no? The revolutionaries at the time of the revolution are hardcore and would literally die for the cause but the following waves post-revolution are not fully committed on that level. When they’re faced with a situation where their life is at stake they capitulate.
Iran hasn’t crumbled to this because the religion has created subsequent generations of leadership that are still just as fully committed and willing to die for it.
Socialist states are failing to properly pass on that commitment. They failed in the soviet union, they failed in several african projects, they’ve failed in venezuela. They almost failed in China too, if it had been anyone other than Xi in charge we could have seen less drive for anti-corruption and a liberalisation of the country. Fortunately Xi is a true believer.
Venezuelan socialists will have to find those who have that true belief and decide whether they can be pushed through the existing system or whether they need to do something drastic.
If socialism fails unless our leadership forever consist of true believers, then I fear for our future.
But yes, we have a problem with passing on a revolutionary fervor. I would think the hope is that we can build incentive structures that result in everyone having motivation to continue building socialism. But on that I have no answers.
And as harsh as I am being on Rodriguez, I do not believe we can confidently say that Venezuelan socialism is yet a totally failed project (And if what you meant is that Venezuela has only failed in passing on the revolutionary fervor, I would say that there does seem to be some people committed to the cause, it just doesn’t seem to me to be their head of state). I can only say that removing Maduro has greatly been to the US’ benefit.
That was lesson that (some) people took from stalin tbf, that purges don’t work by themselves, you have to rapidly divest power to the workers (not voters, workers, after you cleaned the bourgeoisie) (which in venezuela case would have been not having state deal with oil revenue, but rather people, but they didn’t even clean bourgeoisie so whatever, socdemery)
I don’t think “do decapitation strikes work” was ever the right angle to approach it. The conditions in Venezuela took time to work to the point where a decap worked. That process happened slowly, the decap happened suddenly. A materialist approach would be to analyze how venezuela got to this point, where a country like Iran was so much more resilient.
In other words, decapitation strikes work. We cannot dismiss them as a useless gesture. Because you can set them up, and they can accomplish the goals you wish.
Decapitation strikes can work.
A distinction that doesn’t matter. All tools that work have conditions under which they work and under which they do not.
Guns can work, provided they are loaded, the safety is off, and the gun is functional. In other words, guns work.
the mode is the default. decapitation strikes have worked once and not worked about 50 times so while they can work, they don’t usually work and if something doesn’t usually work we often simplify that to it doesn’t work.
A semantic distinction that implies something completely different.
Did you think what I was saying was “Decapitation strikes are always a valid option and should become the immediate standard tactic in all situations”?
Did you think my response was meant to litigate this question to begin with? Because it was meant to examine the conditions that lead to an effective decap so that we could form a better understanding rather than to focus on pat solutions like “they work” and "they don’t work ⸻ terminating thoughts that give us zero insight.
So what you’re saying here is that we are both saying that decapitation strikes are a thing that works, the argument you wished was simply one of when they work.
Well I would point out that other people saw our discussion and took from it that “It does not work” was a valid conclusion from it, so the onus is not entirely on me. But yeah, sure, it is worth bearing in mind that decapitation strikes are much more likely to work when you have some sort of succession with legitimacy that is amenable to your goals. It is unlikely to do you much good if #2 hates you as much as #1 and wishes to follow the same plan.
Disengage
They work on weak states with fundamental flaws, yes.
They clearly do not work on strong states.
I believe that to be an incorrect framing. The issue is not the strength of the state. Decapitation strikes have most famously failed against relatively weakly organised states. ISIS was not a very well organised system with robust infrastructure, biweekly assassination of their leadership did not change much in that regard. If not having a strong state was what mattered, then ISIS would have collapsed as soon as Baghdadi died, and all the various successor organisations would likewise have collapsed rather than now running Syria.
What matters is the incentive structures and the motivations of potential successors.
Removing Lincoln (Even if his assassination could not really be called a decapitation strike, he is nevertheless instructive) changed the trajectory of reconstruction and therefore American history, it did so not because the US was a particularly weak state, but because of who was put in charge and who was removed.
Venezuela has flaws, but it has a strong socialist tradition and believers in the Bolivaran revolution in various positions of local government. It has systems that were deliberately set up to act independently of a potential reactionary government. The idea that Venezuela is uniquely unable to withstand the US is just not a premise I accept. The leadership is choosing to go along with an American agenda. It may either be doing so because leaders of the government don’t really believe in the socialist project, it may be doing so out of fear of more kidnappings or other American reprisals. I can’t read thoughts.
Edit: Changed the wording to make it clear that you I don’t think you are incorrect on a factual basis, I just disagree.
It’s the same issue as we’ve seen in the past no? The revolutionaries at the time of the revolution are hardcore and would literally die for the cause but the following waves post-revolution are not fully committed on that level. When they’re faced with a situation where their life is at stake they capitulate.
Iran hasn’t crumbled to this because the religion has created subsequent generations of leadership that are still just as fully committed and willing to die for it.
Socialist states are failing to properly pass on that commitment. They failed in the soviet union, they failed in several african projects, they’ve failed in venezuela. They almost failed in China too, if it had been anyone other than Xi in charge we could have seen less drive for anti-corruption and a liberalisation of the country. Fortunately Xi is a true believer.
Venezuelan socialists will have to find those who have that true belief and decide whether they can be pushed through the existing system or whether they need to do something drastic.
If socialism fails unless our leadership forever consist of true believers, then I fear for our future. But yes, we have a problem with passing on a revolutionary fervor. I would think the hope is that we can build incentive structures that result in everyone having motivation to continue building socialism. But on that I have no answers.
And as harsh as I am being on Rodriguez, I do not believe we can confidently say that Venezuelan socialism is yet a totally failed project (And if what you meant is that Venezuela has only failed in passing on the revolutionary fervor, I would say that there does seem to be some people committed to the cause, it just doesn’t seem to me to be their head of state). I can only say that removing Maduro has greatly been to the US’ benefit.
That was lesson that (some) people took from stalin tbf, that purges don’t work by themselves, you have to rapidly divest power to the workers (not voters, workers, after you cleaned the bourgeoisie) (which in venezuela case would have been not having state deal with oil revenue, but rather people, but they didn’t even clean bourgeoisie so whatever, socdemery)