cucumovirus

I thought most RNA virus had a system where they first make DNA copies of them to then make mRNAs to make their proteins

No, only retroviruses (like HIV, for example) do this which is why they have a reverse transcriptase enzyme that makes a DNA copy of their RNA genome. All other RNA viruses have an RNA-dependent RNA-polymerase (RdRp) which directly makes complementary RNAs from a single stranded RNA template. At some point in this process, a double stranded RNA intermediate is formed which is the specific form recognized by the RNAi machinery.

sometimes several different ones that work as pseudo “chromosomes”? and ¿sometimes a different DNA copy to make RNA genome copies?

You might be thinking, again, of retroviruses which integrate their genome, once in DNA form, into the genome of the host cell (e.g. HIV), or pararetroviruses who's genome, in DNA form, stays in the nucleus of the host cell, but not integrated into the genome (e.g. Hepatitis B virus). This is sometimes called a "minichromosome". From all of these, mRNA is made to translate into proteins, and new RNA genome copies are created which leave the cell as parts of the newly created viruses (or which are first copied back to DNA in the case of pararetroviruses).

The main thing I remember about virology is that is a clusterfuck of different systems.

It does integrate a lot of branches of biology and requires quite a bit of interdisciplinarity, and you have to deal with the host, virus and the environment at the same time - which is partly why I like it so much.

if RNAi is now a blanket term for all or several of those, or it’s a specific one.

RNAi is the name for the specific mechanism, it can perform multiple functions - like immunity and regulation, but there are of course other immune and regulatory mechanisms. Regulatory RNAi controls gene expression by recognizing hairpins and other double stranded structures in mRNA, to create the short targeting RNAs to either methylate the DNA genome (mostly just in plants), methylate histones, degrade mRNA or block translation on ribosomes - all of which lower the expression of the targeted gene.

Of course, there's a lot more complexity here, but I hope I'm explaining it at least somewhat decently.

Plant virus have strong promoters.

Yes, we do.

I think sometimes there aint no DNA cuz it can be an RNA virus which produces RNA copies from RNA as template but it’s a very tiny percent of cases OK?

The vast majority of plant viruses are RNA viruses, so it's pretty common when dealing with infections. But even then, some stretches of viral RNA can be similar to plant genome DNA sequences so the plant shuts down its own genes while trying to silence the virus. This can sometimes get out of hand and contribute to the symptoms of infection on a plant (most of which are already caused by plant immune responses). RNAi also plays a role in plant immunity against fungi and other plant parasites.

I would also add that RNAi also has non-immune system functions during normal plant development where it regulates gene expression, and RNAi is also found in many other organisms, in fact, in most eukaryotes, although it's most widely studied in plants.

Yes, to reach people we need to be where the people are, and nowadays a lot of people are online. Of course, this shouldn't and can't replace real life organizing, but it should supplement it.

From Roderic Day's 'The Virtual Factory':

this doesn’t mean that the amount of time we spend online should be treated as something shameful, silly, or superficial. It absolutely deserves to be handled with greater seriousness and discipline.

(...)

There is no way to retreat into a pre-internet era. Instead of self-flagellating and guilt-tripping, pretending we can escape our wired future by unplugging, we need to take our participation in the medium seriously and in a way that integrates well with our offline organization.

Actually, the authors of this are professors from that university, lmao.

They were even given some grants and awards.

Arxiv and similar services are mostly used in actual academic circles to publish pre-prints or just to get articles out there while they're still being reviewed by actual journals, so it's possible that this will be published in a journal at some point.

Thank you for the kind words, comrade!

Maybe a combination of something like the importance placed on forms while neglecting substance, and something like this:

The problem here, in short, is elitism. Unchecked, presumed to have been neutralized in some way by the adoption of a counter-cultural ethos, it festers. The way to solve it, however, is not to shy away from studying or exposing bourgeois propaganda, but to delve even deeper and radicalize our understanding of it.

I think an important distinction to make here is that between the directly oppressed who might just in the earlier stages of class consciousness and class struggle sort of replicate the form through which they are oppressed, and those who are part of the privileged groups but claim to support anti-colonialism, anti-imperialism, etc.

I would also say that due to their often more privileged position, these types, due to their remaining idealism tend to think they have all the answers, and that they know better than others. A sort of western chauvinism which takes its own answers to be the absolutely correct everywhere else. Just because they proclaim, or maybe even truly believe in these causes, they cannot look past their own chauvinism and continue to absolutize their point of view.

Losurdo describes chauvinism, in regards to nationalism and internationalism, but I think his formulation can be extrapolated onto other forms of chauvinism as well:

The repression of national particularities in the name of an abstract ‘internationalism’ facilitates things for a nation intent presenting itself as the embodiment of the universal; and this is precisely what chauvinism—in fact, the most fanatical chauvinism—consists in.

Losurdo also ventures into an analysis of similar phenomena to what you describe and characterizes them as populism which stems from a reductive reading of the theory of class struggle (among other things) which limits it to just oppressed vs oppressor, and tends to lead to putting the oppressed identity on a pedestal without much analysis. He deals with it in chapter 13 of Class Struggle if you want to read it all, which I definitely recommend.

This is a further expression of populism: moral excellence lies with the oppressed who rebel and those who offer help to the oppressed and rebels. But once they have won power, the latter cease to be oppressed and rebels and forfeit their moral excellence. And the one who, by virtue of aiding them, basks in their moral excellence also finds himself in serious difficulties. This is a dialectic already analysed by Hegel in connection with the Christian commandment to aid the poor, which manifestly assumes the permanence of poverty.

If I were to hazard a guess, that would be one of the reasons why the Settler States of Amerika managed to both pass and maintain so many explicitly racist laws

Yes, it's a factor for sure. Another is the fact that the US was from the start designed to be a racial state, and with the genocide of the natives and the stealing of the land, the enslavement of black people, and a constant influx of white settlers from Europe who were allowed to participate in the "white democracy" at least partially, the racial lines were firmly established and persisted even long after the military defeat of the Southern states in the civil war. Similar racial states were also South Africa and Rhodesia, for example, which also managed to keep their racial regimes longer than most other former colonial states.

This article also provides an eye-opening view into the various financial practices used by western capitalists to exploit entire countries.

There were some forms of slaves getting their freedom individually though

Certainly, but I don't think these played nearly as much of a role as class struggle and legal abolishment of slavery, even if the condition of recently freed slaves was on average hardly better than while they were slaves. In the US especially, they were still barred from owning property and were more or less forced into indentured servitude or similar relationships.

I admit, I don't have much knowledge on specific circumstances of slaves in colonies other than the US. The US did have lots of white indentures servants, but they were still treated better than black slaves or even free black people. Even with their contradictory talk of liberty while holding slaves, the laws the US enacted in fear of slave uprisings sometimes ended up limiting what the slave owners themselves could do with their slaves. Not only were free black people prevented from organizing in all ways - even talking on the street among free black people was dangerous at times, education of black people, slave or free, was forbidden because it was seen as dangerous - even when slave owners wanted to educate their slaves, they couldn't. Other laws also affected slave owners limiting what they could do with their slaves and enforcing certain things as mandatory, especially when it came to harsh punishments. Laws forbidding race mixing also prevented slave owners from recognizing any children they had with slaves which they might've wanted to recognize and limits were placed on individual slave owners from freeing their slaves. In their panic and fear of slave uprisings, the "liberty loving" slave owners created a society where even their own freedoms were limited.

I don't think your analysis of the slave-proletariat comparison is quite what is meant by Engels here. Individual slaves that managed to escape did not have a good time, and in most cases did not make it very far. In the US, there were laws in place that mandated all free citizens to aid in the capture and return of escaped slaves and even if someone wanted to be an innocent bystander, they could be charged as helping the slaves escape. Slave relation were very much class relations - take a look at the Santo Domingo/Haiti revolution for example.

I made a comment on the cross-posted version of this post which includes some discussion of the slave-proletarian comparison which you can check out: https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/925271

I think your argument here speaks to and can be connected with a broader phenomenon that we can recognize even before capitalist relations became dominant. The relationship of religion as the opium of the masses that masks and justifies certain exploitative relations in society while at the same time providing benefit to the oppressed as spiritual respite and allowing them to feel good in spite of their material conditions.

Of course, the problem persists and is even worsened in capitalism along with massive alienation. Today in the West, the place of religion was largely taken by consumerism of various kinds and I think that your analysis of the stim industry fits into that nicely. As you also say, we shouldn't attack people engaging in this type of consumerism nor should we focus on individual decisions, but should understand the material conditions that create the need and seek to build a better society where such practices cease to be necessary.

This is just chauvinistic, liberal nonsense. Incoherent screaming about Russia interfering with the supposed "democratic processes" in the West. I'll just quote one of your finishing statements about a country run by capitalists which still has a hereditary monarchy to highlight the absurdity of your entire article.

The battle to preserve the integrity of British politics and protect the nation's democratic soul is ongoing, and it requires the unwavering resolve of its citizens and leaders alike.