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)
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)