You're welcome. One optimistic-ish sci-fi book I've re-read several times when I need a lift is "Voyage from Yesteryear" by James P. Hogan from around 1982: https://web.archive.org/web/20120713225646/http://www.jamesp...
"The fun begins when a generation ship housing a population of thousands arrives to "reclaim" the colony on behalf of the repressive, authoritarian regime that emerged following the crisis period. The Mayflower II brings with it all the tried and tested apparatus for bringing a recalcitrant population to heel: authority, with its power structure and symbolism, to impress; commercial institutions with the promise of wealth and possessions, to tempt and ensnare; a religious presence, to awe and instill duty and obedience; and if all else fails, armed military force to compel. But what happens when these methods encounter a population that has never been conditioned to respond? The book has an interesting corollary. Around about the mid eighties, I received a letter notifying me that the story had been serialized in an underground Polish s.f. magazine. They hadn't exactly "stolen" it, the publishers explained, but had credited zlotys to an account in my name there, so if I ever decided to take a holiday in Poland the expenses would be covered (there was no exchange mechanism with Western currencies at that time). Then the story started surfacing in other countries of Eastern Europe, by all accounts to an enthusiastic reception. What they liked there, apparently, was the updated "Ghandiesque" formula on how bring down an oppressive regime when it's got all the guns. And a couple of years later, they were all doing it!"

As your point implies, authority is given by the people. The same point is made in the US Declaration of Independence about "consent of the governed": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed

As is shown (fictionally) in Voyage from Yesteryear, if many people stop obeying like with a general strike (at least until full automation) or just by walking away to new opportunities in a different part of the system, then authority comes under pressure to respond (hopefully positively) or it will eventually will collapse. A similar point is made in the chapter on the "Ghands" in the 1962 sci-fi novel the The Great Explosion" by Eric Frank Russell who live by the adage "Freedom can say "I won't"".

The same has been true throughout human history as explained in Daniel Quinn's "Beyond Civilization: Humanity's Next Great Adventure" where he shows how centralized governance has collapsed many times in human history as whatever problems emerged in it (often from external pressures like droughts or plagues leading to systemic stress) caused most people to just walk away back to the wilderness to live off the land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Civilization

For good or bad, walking away is not much of an option these days given large populations, global surveillance, and also WMDs like nukes and plagues and so on that could be unleashed accidentally or on purpose if power centers collapse.

Collapse of power centers in modern times is also often problematical regarding what comes next -- when most people can't walk away -- is usually the next-best organized group taking over. For example, students in Iran could eventually overthrow the US-installed Sha -- but then better-organized religious hardliners took over in the resulting power vacuum (which is probably not what most Iranian students had in mind for their future). Or, as other examples, the USA could relatively easily overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq or Muammar Gaddafi in Libya -- but the resulting power vacuums have created politician and humanitarian disasters which have been very costly to the USA (especially in Iraq, costing trillions of dollars to US taxpayers -- although as a bunch of defense companies have made billions that may have been part of why it went forward despite many people pointing out what was likely to happen: https://www.wanttoknow.info/warisaracket ).

Related humor: "Monty Python: What have the Romans ever done for us?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djZkTnJnLR0

Of course, power centers also tend to actively disrupt any possible other power centers. See the "Old Guy" Cybertank novels for some graphic sci-fi accounts of that in one.

Or for the real world, see for example Noam Chomsky's "The Threat of a Good Example": http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomOdon_Example.h... "No country is exempt from U.S. intervention, no matter how unimportant. In fact, it's the weakest, poorest countries that often arouse the greatest hysteria. ... As far as American business is concerned, Nicaragua could disappear and nobody would notice. The same is true of El Salvador. But both have been subjected to murderous assaults by the US, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and many billions of dollars. There's a reason for that. The weaker and poorer a country is, the more dangerous it is as an example. If a tiny, poor country like Grenada can succeed in bringing about a better life for its people, some other place that has more resources will ask, "why not us?" "

As you say, people in power have little reason to embrace change -- since their power derives from the status quo. Related on "Orthodoxy" by G. K. Chesteron: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/chesterton/orthodoxy.x.html "We have remarked that one reason offered for being a progressive is that things naturally tend to grow better. But the only real reason for being a progressive is that things naturally tend to grow worse. The corruption in things is not only the best argument for being progressive; it is also the only argument against being conservative. The conservative theory would really be quite sweeping and unanswerable if it were not for this one fact. But all conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change. If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If you particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it again; that is, you must be always having a revolution. Briefly, if you want the old white post you must have a new white post. But this which is true even of inanimate things is in a quite special and terrible sense true of all human things. An almost unnatural vigilance is really required of the citizen because of the horrible rapidity with which human institutions grow old. It is the custom in passing romance and journalism to talk of men suffering under old tyrannies. But, as a fact, men have almost always suffered under new tyrannies; under tyrannies that had been public liberties hardly twenty years before. ..."

Classically, people have "organized" via a certain sort of social process, such as documented in "Politics the Wellstone Way: How to Elect Progressive Candidates and Win on Issues":
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/234876.Politics_the_Well...

One can wonder how effective such classical organizing is anymore given tightly controlled (by money) major broadcast media. And even if that was somehow circumvented, then as with Bernie Sanders (twice), the establishment has other ways of preserving itself like by convincing candidates to drop out of the race.

Then there are other possible ways of disrupting such organizations vulnerable to things like, say, small plane crashes involving key organizers. Wellstone died in a small plane crash, which of course might have just been an accident despite suggestions to the contrary:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/10/well-o29.html
"Wellstone’s death comes almost two years to the day after a similar plane crash killed another Democratic Senate hopeful locked in a tight election contest, Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan, on October 16, 2000. The American media duly noted the “eerie coincidence,” as though it was a statistical oddity, rather than suggesting a pattern. One might say, paraphrasing Oscar Wilde, that to lose one senator is a misfortune, but to lose two senators, the same way, is positively suspicious."

Another idea other than "organizing" that fits with what you wrote on spontaneous mass cooperation is "quorum sensing": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum_sensing "In biology, quorum sensing is the ability to detect and to respond to cell population density by gene regulation. As one example, quorum sensing (QS) enables bacteria to restrict the expression of specific genes to the high cell densities at which the resulting phenotypes will be most beneficial. Many species of bacteria use quorum sensing to coordinate gene expression according to the density of their local population. In a similar fashion, some social insects use quorum sensing to determine where to nest. Also, quorum sensing might be useful for cancer cell communications too. In addition to its function in biological systems, quorum sensing has several useful applications for computing and robotics. In general, quorum sensing can function as a decision-making process in any decentralized system in which the components have: (a) a means of assessing the number of other components they interact with and (b) a standard response once a threshold number of components is detected."

Ultimately, if systems of power refuse to negotiate new terms for support by the governed when circumstances change, either they will be successful at suppressing dissent by whatever means or they won't. But if centers of power are going to fail, the longer they fight change, often the worse the failure, and the less the existing power may have a say in the new order (for good or bad).

Still, in the past, some power centers (typically organized around control of a key resource like water) have lasted for thousands of years (such as the Egyptian Empire) -- so people in power can always hope they will be part of the next Ancient Egypt. As G. William Domhoff writes regarding "four main organizational networks -- ideological, economic, military, and political -- as the building blocks for power structures": https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/theory/four_networks.html
"Before civilizations emerged, there may have been "inverted power structures" in which the rank-and-file could discipline would-be dominators through gossip, scorn, shunning, and if need be, assassination (Boehm, 1999). Only where river flooding allowed the possibility of alluvial agriculture, in conjunction with close proximity to geographical areas that encouraged different but complementary networks, did the "caging" of populations make possible the development of the fixed power structures of domination and exploitation that have characterized all civilizations. The strong egalitarian tendencies that characterized pre-historic social groups were submerged when power seekers could build on a religious, economic, military, or political base to gain control of others."

I've been hopeful for a Universal Basic Income eventually to soften the worst extremes of the USA's current economic system for many people (as part of a healthy mix of subsistence, gift, exchange, and planned activities in society). But given that the obvious solution was not tried on an even temporary basis for the pandemic despite multiple congress people endorsing monthly payments for the duration, it seems like the USA is still not quite there yet -- even if closer than ever, given increased public awareness of the idea. For example Kamala Harris: https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1271151635549556736 "Roughly 44M Americans have filed for unemployment over the past 12 weeks. That’s why @BernieSanders, @EdMarkey & I introduced a bill to give $2,000 monthly payments to people throughout this crisis. Bills didn’t stop just because we’re in the middle of a pandemic."

Rashida Tlaib, AOC, and other Congressional representatives have similar ideas. Instead of those ideas, the USA quickly threw trillions of dollars at wealthy people:
https://prospect.org/coronavirus/unsanitized-bailouts-tradit...

G. William Domhoff has some other interesting thing to on his website, stuff sometimes many years old, like: https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/change/science_why.html
"Based on these findings, it seems likely that everyday people don't opt for social change in good part because they don't see any plausible way to accomplish their goals, and haven't heard any plans from anyone else that make sense to them. But why don't they just say "the hell with it" and head to the barricades? Why aren't they "fed up?" The answer is not in their false consciousness or a mere resigned acquiescence, as many leftists seem to believe, but in a very different set of factors. On the one hand, for all the injustices average Americans experience and perceive, there are many positive aspects to everyday life that make a regular day-to-day existence more attractive than a general strike or a commitment to building a revolutionary party. They have loved ones they like to be with, they have hobbies and sports they enjoy, and they have forms of entertainment they like to watch. In fact, many of them also report in surveys that they enjoy their jobs even though the jobs don't pay enough or have decent benefits. (And as of late 2005, 93% of individuals earning over $50,000 a year describe themselves as "doing well.") They also understand that they have some hard-won democratic rights and freedoms inherited from the past that are much more than people in many other countries have. They don't want to see those positive aspects messed up. On a less positive note, many ordinary white workers have priorities that they put ahead of economic issues. As all voting and field studies show, a large number of average white Americans do many things based on their skin color. They often vote Republican, for example, especially in the South. They protest against affirmative action programs. They live in segregated neighborhoods. White Americans also often vote their religion -- that is, the fundamentalist Protestants and conservative Catholics who vote Republican are members of non-college-educated blue-collar and white-collar families. In terms of their economic situation, and their need for unions, they should be for the Democrats, but many of them aren't. It is these alternative issues, both positive and negative, rooted in their own lives and experiences, not a false consciousness created by the capitalists' ideological hegemony, that explain why most Americans don't rebel -- or even vote their pocketbook -- most of the time. In short, the theorists of consciousness may be serious thinkers, and they work at a level that is very attractive to most leftists, but they are wrong when it comes to understanding why positive social change does not happen. They have misconstrued the problem, which has to do with structures of power and life circumstances and the compelling nature of everyday life, not the chains of consciousness. They have misunderstood everyday people, and in effect blamed them for the failures of the left, even though at the theoretical level it seems like they are blaming the overwhelming powers of the dominant class or power elite. They have made the people the problem instead of considering the possibility that what the left offers does not make any sense to most people."

Outrage and destruction resulting from unhappiness and stress is one thing; coherent collective action to some positive ends is another. Destruction is relatively easy compared to making things better. It's OK to be angry or sad as recent protesters in the USA must be feeling, but as Mr. Fred Rogers sings, "What do you do with the Mad that you feel?" And as Domhoff suggests, that can be a difficult question about how to change things to make them better for more people without making things worse for lots more other people.