After re-reading that piece about India that I wrote a full five years ago as a sophomore in college, I've been thinking more about revolution. Specifically, revolution and how it might be possible in the United States; or rather, how it's not possible, and not necessary. 

Chuck Klosterman wrote a piece with a similar thesis for Esquire magazine in 2006, which was then republished in his book 'IV.' His conclusion was that no matter what the circumstances, the average American is incapable of revolting, and even if he were, he wouldn't know who to revolt against - the government, the population and our social structures are simply too huge and too complicated for any kind of revolution to even begin.

I disagree with this sentiment, and believe that given the correct circumstances, Americans could, and would revolt successfully. However, some people tend to think that revolution is impossible because it hasn't happened despite the continuing downward slide of our country since 9/11. The general feeling of Klosterman's essay was that if id hasn't happened by now, it won't happen.

But revolutions don't occur in modernized, democratic countries, where even though the social, economic and political climate may be in relative turmoil, people are still generally comfortable in their daily lives. A society must be truly fucked up before anyone will think about revolution, and the majority of its people must be suffering on a daily basis beyond just paying exorbitant fuel prices (which by the way are still insanely cheap compared to Europe - a gallon of gas is upwards of $8.00 in Sweden). 

When a society is ripe for revolution, this is truly the only thing important to it's people. Take Gandhi's India for example.

Comment