We believed that as things had gone well for us for years, that things would continue going that way.
More like right wing politicians dismantled the systems that worked well and now they won't anymore.
Well, this is reductionist garbage. The title is a lie since this is cherry picking a single, albeit the largest, of too many nazi concentration camp. The range of time, two months vs over five years should also hint at the inaptitude of the comparison.
There are lots of better ways to say that Israel's government are fascist scum who kill children for sport. For anyone with a little knowledge of the sheer scope of nazi effort to exterminate jews, communists and others, this makes the opposite point of what you think it does.
To me at least she is known for Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. I am not very knowledgeable about her work and do not agree fully on all I know, but she has some interesting analyses.
You don't suck them. You just stick them between your teeth and lip for a few minutes to let the nicotine into the bloodstream.
Sure, but I vote for the party and people that aligns itself with my interests, so indirectly I do. I have also thought about attending some local meetings to talk with those representing me about some issues.
I recognise that you may not feel represented well within your system. That does not imply a failure of representation as a system of government, but could speak to the implementation of yours.
My understanding was that idealism has to take into consideration the material conditions. That does not mean idealism, if properly adapted, cannot affect material conditions in turn.
Representation is not anti-democratic
You are of course right, which is what irks me. It is just that the idea is wrong doubly so. First it assumes we need to continue the current economic paradigm. Further, even following this assumption, trickle up economics would actually have a positive impact on the economy as is.
Follow the pirate code and share the spoils, i.e. be seeding.
Perhaps, but then why care about it at all? I hate people thinking that the bourgeoisie hoarding money is somehow going to result in surplus production to the benefit of all. The matter of fact is that it is detrimental to "the economy" for them to keep the proles so poor that they cannot even buy the goods and services they are producing.
It is almost as if everyone's successes or failures are formed in and dependent on the framework of the world around them.
That is part of the process. Under fund the public services and let private companies replace the easily replaceable (read commercially viable parts) and then point at the public ones and say:
This is at least the playbook they have followed in my country to ruin postal and railroad services, and they are in the process of ruining healthcare as well. To give concrete examples the public postal service needs to be able to deliver mail and packages anywhere in the country while the private ones can target the population centers only. Similarly privatized health care clinics can offer doctors of particular specializations higher pay and less work so that the public hospitals have shortage of such specialized doctors and need to "buy" treatments from the private wards for extortionate sums. The latter example is again used to say that the private are more efficient since it can make a surplus budget, ignoring the whole dynamic in play and that they are actually less efficient and abusing the public system for profit.