This Canadian reseacher associated with the Centre for Research on Globalization in Quebec provides one of the most comprehensive analyzes of Empire strategies to manage and contain opposition that I have seen. There is so much material in this and related articles that provides one with the conceptual tools to understand contemporary political events. Hence, if one doesn't already have these conceptual tools, it is imperative that you study the article closely.
Having stated the above, I have two problems with this presentation. First, and most importantly, he never mentions capitalism or capitalists in the article. This is a glaring omission. He constantly refers to elites, but fails to mention the system that this segment of the population uses to obtain their wealth and power, and to oppress others. Perhaps this is to avoid directly threatening elite power and having to deal with their attacks.
Second, this paragraph introduces some confusion into his analysis:
Historically, revolutions are never the product of a one-sided development. That is, revolutions predominantly do not come about through the actions of one segment of society, often polarized as either an elite-driven or people-driven revolution, but rather they come about through a complex interaction and balancing of various social groups. The context and conditions for a revolution often do not emerge without the awareness of the upper classes, therefore, the upper social strata always or often seek to mitigate, control, repress, influence or co-opt and control the process of revolution. In this context, we cannot dismiss revolutions simply as a top-down or bottom-up process, but rather a mitigation and interaction between the two approaches.There is not such thing as an "elite-driven revolution". By definition, elites are in power--how can they revolt against themselves? And likewise, it is confusing to refer to a "top-down" revolutionary process. The latter is called counter-revolution.