The latter all but guarantees an autocratic takeover if the revolutionaries don’t already have a new government ready to go. Which is not something I’ve ever seen even touched in when people talk revolution.

The expectation that revolutionaries aiming for a future without hierarchy, states, or class should have a plan for exactly those ready to go is how you actually get the autocratic takeover - because you’re maintaining the existing systems of power for the sake of taking comfort in the familiar (or worse - as a deliberate ploy by those presenting themselves as “in charge” to grab power).

The whole point of a revolution, from an an-com point of view anyway, is to start building something new from the bottom up, horizontally, abolishing hierarchy and power structures, not just replace the existing ones with our own.

The fact that people can’t even begin to imagine a different way of living, even though our existence under kings and masters has only been a blink in human existence and civilisation, just goes to show how well the indoctrination works, but better is possible once you start unlearning constructs you’ve come to accept as facts.

the anarchist faq

The two main avenues are slow change through existing means and violent revolution. The latter all but guarantees an autocratic takeover if the revolutionaries don’t already have a new government ready to go. Which is not something I’ve ever seen even touched in when people talk revolution.

Applied in practice it means that the period of the actual revolution, the so-called transitory stage, must be the introduction, the prelude to the new social conditions. (…)

To-day is the parent of to-morrow. The present casts its shadow far into the future. That is the law of life, individual and social. Revolution that divests itself of ethical values thereby lays the foundation of injustice, deceit, and oppression for the future society. The means used to prepare the future become its cornerstone. Witness the tragic condition of Russia. (…)

It cannot be sufficiently emphasized that revolution is in vain unless inspired by its ultimate ideal. Revolutionary methods must be in tune with revolutionary aims. The means used to further the revolution must harmonize with its purposes. In short, the ethical values which the revolution is to establish in the new society must be initiated with the revolutionary activities of the so-called transitional period. The latter can serve as a real and dependable bridge to the better life only if built of the same material as the life to be achieved. Revolution is the mirror of the coming day; it is the child that is to be the Man of To-morrow.

• Emma Goldman, Afterword of My Disillusionment in Russia

dictatorial hell scape like ussr or China

Life and Terror in Stalin’s Russia is a great book that goes into this, a lot of the terror during that period was not Stalin personally going around and shooting every peasant who had more than 5 rubles to his name (during the rare moments he wasn’t personally eating everyone’s grain). Rather it was the people using the new system to settle old scores or for personal advancement.

The book doesn’t cover the period between 1917 and 1923, or the Hundred Flowers Campaign in China, but you can see similar sentiment in transcripts and letters when Lenin, Mao, et al look at how many people had gotten into the party entirely for the purpose of abusing their positions for personal gain.

At a very general level, we can infer any socialist country is more democratic after the revolution based on the fact that the government pursues the interests of the people more than it did before the revolution.

In Cuba for instance, their last constitutional referendum had a 90% approval rating. Do you think that happened by chance, or that you are simply unaware of/trained not to recognize how the people determine the actions of the state?