User Profile

This is a nice, detailed walk-through of the history of solidarity as a term/concept and as a practice. It argues that we need to revive that practice and that a number of structures and forces are in the way of that.

It has a bunch of examples, and it's written by an organizer of the debt collective and a person who's working hard to rethink how to transform the way wealthy people think about charity.

It's great as both a guide and a meditation on solidarity

“Appeals to benevolence, altruism, deference, or allyship are widespread, and invite us to be empathetic and kind; but they all place the onus on individual action rather than larger collective engagement, and on harnessing pity or guild, rather than a sense of shared responsibility or shared fate.” (xx)

“Building transformative solidarity involves acknowledging and overcoming imposed categories that pit us against one another and forging new bonds” (39) Polarization is a “necessary component of building transformative solidarity...[it is “preferable, and more strategic, for [borders] to be porous, allowing members to come in and out” (46)

“The erosion of solidarity has been incorporated into the social structures we inhabit, like those metal spikes designed to deter people without reliable shelter from resting comfortably under a bridge or on a low wall. We are nudged toward resentment and rivalry, fear and defensiveness; selfishness is incentivized and institutionalized; individual solutions are encouraged over collective action. Incredible ingenuity has been directed toward constraining our cooperative and solidaristic impulses, in ways that are sometimes subtle - and sometimes violent and shockingly overt.” (96-97)

“Transformative solidarity, we argue, doesn’t require the creation of new religious or political dogma, but it does require a baseline of reverence for the fragile ecosystems and communities on which we depend. Solidarity asks each of us to attend to those around us” (276)

I don't recommend this book. I read it for research purposes because it's written by Frank McCourt, a billionaire investing in a decentralized protocol called "Project Liberty." The book is invested in giving people "ownership" of their own data through decentralized structures and blockchain technology. The argument is built on the idea that a new internet should be built with the same ethos as the "American Project." It cites Paine's Common Sense throughout, and it has no real self-reflexive moments about what the "American Project" required (land theft and slavery). Their vision is an internet of individual rights in which you control your data and you have ownership of your data. The audience is likely libertarians who are ready for technosolutionism.

It's worth reading only if you want to see how billionaires want to fix the problem of a broken internet, even when those billionaires (and you have to give them a bit of credit for this at least) aren't necessarily trying to make more billions with that new internet (though, one should be skeptical).

This is a quick read and an interesting argument. Uber arrived in D.C. to some initial resistance, but that resistance quickly dissipated. The authors argue that the company was successfully able to shift the "common sense" of D.C. That shift was both in the sense of "plain wisdom" and everyday habits (taking an Uber and not a taxi or a train became the sensible, practical thing to do) and in the sense of a significant shift in the political terrain - Uber was able to shape what people expected from cities and government. Or, better, it was able to radical reduce those expectations, to convince everyone (politicians, citizens, everyone) that cities are bad at providing basic services and we should just "let Uber do it."

One interesting idea that emerges from the authors' analysis is that Uber succeeds in reducing complicated problems to a simple solution that doesn't actually address the problem, ostensibly solving that more minor/misleading problem, and then considering it all done and dusted. It's not surprising if you follow Silicon Valley discourse. Reduce a problem to one that a computer can solve (even if that computable solution doesn't actually solve the problem), write software, profit.

A solid analysis of the gig economy that goes beyond "mere" critique and gets at some of the bigger complexities. The strong parts of the book are where they interview drivers and find out about how drivers try to resist Uber or game the system. There's also really good stuff about how Uber's model prevents labor organizing by preventing spaces of gathering (spaces for workers to commiserate, organize, plan). A section on the D.C. Airport is especially interesting.