Well, there's also fractures and differences of opinion within the elites themselves. I mean, serfdom wasn't abolished by a broad social movement. It was abolished by Tsar Alexander after a long struggle between pro- and antiserfdom factions within the Imperial elite.
--- On Mon, 3/23/09, Wojtek Sokolowski <swsokolowski at yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Wojtek Sokolowski <swsokolowski at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] US 2009 = USSR 1990
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Monday, March 23, 2009, 3:15 PM
>
> [WS:] I am not dismissing the importance of
> grassroots movements, in the 1960s as well as in
> general. All I am saying that such movements are
> insufficient to overcome elite hegemony. That hegemony
> must be first seriously undermined before grassroots
> movements have a chance. My reading of historic
> evidence from feudalism to modernity seems to support that
> (cf. Robert Brenner's work on the role agrarian class
> structure and elite hegemony on the development of
> capitalism, or Barrington Moore's work on the same subject,
> or Chalmers Johnson's work on Chinese revolution.)
>
> As far as the 1960s are concerned, let me remind you of on
> fundamental fact that is not a factor anymore - the
> USSR. As the Sputnik wen up and Soviet
> supported national liberation movements across the globe
> started making headways - the US capitalist elite started
> making concessions - spending on education went up, southern
> racists were brought under the federal control, and great
> society programs were established. When the USSR
> disintegrated in 1990s, the US elites felt secure again, and
> all the 1960s concessions were being taken back one after
> another. If it were not for the current depression,
> Social Security would be on in its way to privatization as
> well.
>
> In sum, social movements are important but their success
> ultimately depends on whether the elite is seriously wounded
> or credibly threatened to be seriously wounded.
>
> Wojtek
>
>