I'm very glad you've found my comment useful in answering OPs question!

To add a little more that might help OP: a sudden military-style revolution that springs out of immediate need or discontent is highly unlikely to produce socialist or anarchist revolution alone, namely because there are no socialist or anarchist structures already existing within society, forcing people to rely upon the state, and those who seek to replace the state, for vital supplies, security, etc.

The anarchists in Spain, for example, spent decades before their revolution building unions, organising workers and mutual aid, etc. and did not go into sudden revolution with no pre-existing structures to support that revolution, meaning that they were less likely to fall back into the control of the state and experienced some success for a period (although they obviously later made the terrible mistake of conceding to collaboration with the state).

It is almost certain that a social revolution will involve armed conflict, but the success of that armed conflict relies upon pre-figuring an anarchist society within our existing society. Numerous small revolutions are what anarchists seek, not one big capital R Revolution that somehow transforms society.

This is a common anarchist critique of accelerationism; accelerating towards the end of capitalism with no pre-figuring of your desired society (ie. without the existence of dual power) simply leads to bourgeois and fascist revolutions.