Reply #19: It's not desperation that causes revolts, it's anger and, paradoxically, hope

[Oak2004]

Desperate populations don't have the energy to revolt-- too much of their energy is going into survival -- and won't revolt unless they somehow get a spark of hope. Angry populations who believe its possible to make things better do revolt, even if they are anything but desperate.

This isn't "my personal opinion" -- there's been a lot of research on this. Things getting worse in America, by itself, will reduce the chances of revolt. Part of why 2007 America-has-an-unpopular-war looks so different from 1970 America-has-an-unpopular-war is that Americans are so much more near desperation.

Don't watch desperation, except as a countervailing force. Watch anger and hope.

I do not think something like a general strike is possible to execute unless it it called by a national organization with tremendous reach. About the only organization we have that could even plausibly do such a thing is the Democratic Party (yeah, I'm laughing, too). What is far more likely to occur is a spontaneous uprising, but only if anger continues to rise and people still believe democracy is possible.

If what you want is resistance to fascism, what you need to do is fan the flames of anger, and continue to encourage hope and faith in democracy itself. What you do not want to sow is cynicism, and you certainly don't want to do anything to increase desperation. In fact, community activities that decrease desperation (food banks, soup kitchens, affordable housing, support for microbusinesses, community supported agriculture -- anything that provides increased security) is a good thing, both intrinsically and in order to create a climate more favorable to revolt.