Max Castle

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1017/S1464793101005656 … https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/10/05/199083.full.pdf … http://home.uchicago.edu/~jpadgett/papers/published/robust.pdf … stay butthurt

So....what is the connection between oncogenesis and bio-leninism?

look at you, asking for clarification like a total pleb -instead of reading through all the 3 papers on vastly divergent topics, which, provided you bring the necessary scientific literacy to the table, surely can only yield the utter vindication of the nrx blog term bioleninism

for the sake of debate: what's wrong exactly with the concept?

It's an overly simplistic model of the relationship between genetics and society. It collapses the micro into the macro via a 1:1 relation.

but I hardly think the bioleninism model (in the original post) deals much with genetics or its relation to society. it's mostly about a variant of a political strategy.

imo the political strategy laid out in the post - the rerouting of cultural Marxist conspiracy theories through Gramsci - is an extremely suspect analysis, and misses the actual nature of the transformation in the post-Fordist era..

It's not a capture of governance by leftist apparatchik - it's the shifting modes of production itself, understood as an apparatus of capture that hijacks so-called dissident pathways and recodes them as governing protocols and commodities.

Something like D&G's axiomatic model of capitalism, where it can add and subtract elements in relation to the libidinal economy, it probably more accurate that anything resembling a Leninist maneuver (memeplexed or otherwise).

yeah, I think it's definitely not paying attention to a lot of stuff happening around it that made it possible. but the central scheme (commitment derived from lack of status) seems neat, at least from the POV of party politics.

What is gained by moving the idea from power to status (other than a psychologizing that clouds the issue)?