![](/static/61a827a1/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
Talk about hidden figures…
Talk about hidden figures…
I suspect that funding worker organizing would yield greater results
contracts involving federal law enforcement would be exempted
So Biden’s contracts are still legitimate if saying otherwise would upset the thug class
Sympathy strikes are illegal in the US. Not saying wildcat strikes wouldn’t be justified, but there is a deliberate policy to undermine this type of broader solidarity.
Credible strike threat gets the goods
Viva Colombia
This!
The sick-quitter effect rears its head yet again…
Link to the original print for those who might be interested
This sounds like the plot of Cory Doctorow’s story “Radicalized”
Because indebted students run the Democratic Party, gotcha
This only sounds reasonable until you think about it for 2 seconds. Do you really want the Senate and Congress to have to learn about and try to legislate the details of chemistry, medicine, finance, engineering, etc, rather than delegating figuring out the details of tasks like “make the food safe” or “make the water clean” to scientists and other experts at agencies?
deleted by creator
This is an empirical question that people are baselessly speculating about from the armchair, when we’ve know the answer for years. Even the neoliberals over at The Economist think it’s a good idea.
Remember Friday is Buy Nothing Day!
That’s mistaking a structural problem for a personal one. Zeynep Tufekci has a great argument about why that wouldn’t work:
It’s reasonable, for example, for a corporation to ponder who would be the best CEO or COO, but it’s not reasonable for us to expect that we could take any one of those actors and replace them with another person and get dramatically different results without changing the structures, incentives and forces that shape how they and their companies act in this world.
That Wikipedia was unreliable