That's not a real thing. Genocide is a tool of the fascist right, and only the fascist right.
Centrism isn't a party. It can't "switch sides". It's an ideology. An ideology which exists exclusively in relationship to the context from which it's born. The ideology of centrism, by definition, exists in the same place in all contexts. And the political reality of what the left and right do in any given context, contesting or maintaining the status quo, means that the centrist is always, defintionally, just conservative lite. We conserve some stuff but not others. They keep this ideological cancer even when the right wants to literally genocide. The OP is a joke, but it's based in the historical reality of centrist politicians and their voting base under liberal democracy. I urge you to read a book, ideally something outside of the American education business.
Read some books, I beg you. Look at the position of every centrist party in every country in history before, leading up to and during every single war. They vote almost in lock step with the right, and often use the spectre of the "extreme left" to justify siding with fascists. Please, just do a little reading about Weimar Germany, pre-fascist Italy, imperial japan etc.
I'm not sure there's much to take advantage of. It's mostly rich dicks paying to avoid lines which aren't even that bad. There is not a "truly no choice" context in Calgary, since care is given based on need. Sure, go to the ER with a cut hand and you'll wait 24 hours, but a community clinic will be able to have you in within an hour most of the time. I remember as a teen I was very sick and was waiting at the ER of the children's and when my condition got worse, they immediately started taking care of me. It's a myth that anybody is any danger as a result of waiting for care.
What a nightmare. Double dipping, but I do actually kinda not feel that bad for anyone who falls for this, except for how it hurts the rest of the system.
Perhaps it's worth pointing out that progressive liberalism and worker cooperatives are not as aligned as you might believe, but that's probably too off topic. Worth doing some reading about though.
Co ops can have traditional chains of command, the only defining characteristic of a co op is ownership. There's no reason why a leadership hierarchy and leader ownership must go hand in hand.
A well-functioning co op can take in any worker irrespective of work ethic and provide them with the structure and support to develop into a valuable team member. The problem is that co ops, like anything aren't guaranteed to function well.
So no, a co op does not require all workers within in be fundamentally minded towards the business. A co op simply means that the ownership of the company and the labour force are one in the same. There are plenty of co op workers all over the world who just show up and do their job, they just also have a voice and must be considered differently as a result.
Trains. It's always trains.
Fun fact: the Boston T was inspired by an architectural firm visiting Sweden in the 60s and borrowing their T logo for the Tunnelbana (subway in Swedish). It's a great logo, apparently is used in a few places inspired by mid 1900s Swedish design.
I think this is a rather disingenuous read of the situation. The drama of the situation should not overshadow the gravity of the difference between the number of human beings in question, it's disturbing that anyone would find this even remotely acceptable because it's more dramatic. And that's not to mention the discrepancy in response and spending on each issue. It's a true indictment of our societies.