I remember attending a few Socialist Alliance meetings at a moderately expensive American liberal arts college in 1968. The attendees were well-educated middle / upper middle class men (I don't remember any women) who got into bitter arguments over Maoism vs. Leninism, one side (I think the Maoists) calling the other side elitists. This sounds like the revolution of affluence that the Tillinac book discusses.

But this pseudo cause did not characterize the Vietnam war protests that soon followed. You could argue that the largely white, middle class students were protesting out of self-interest (student deaths at Kent State precipitated a number of protests, while previous Black student deaths at a Jackson State protest didn't), but that's only part of the story. People I knew were outraged at reports of torture, genocide, the bombing of Cambodia, Nixon's "secret plan to win the war," and other atrocities that had nothing to do with white self interest or parenting problems. The various moratoriums, strikes against attending college classes, March on Washington, and other efforts may have hastened the U.S. withdrawal from this unjust war (the cynics among us thought they had no impact, but I disagree). The war protests may not have been seen as a revolution, but they were far more revolutionary than the Socialist Alliance meetings that led nowhere and did nothing.