doesn't need to be radical or violent at all. a collapse to a simpler state, with less bureaucracy and more sustainable spending would be enough, and it wouldn't even look that much different.

What is your point exactly? Yes, radical change tends to bring chaos in the short term. Radical change in the form of domestic revolution also often only happens when the status quo is so bad that the chaos of a revolution is seen as an acceptable alternative.

Power rarely voluntarily relinquishes power.

> I can't think of an instance where it worked well.

Worked pretty well for most of the ex Warsaw pact.

> The French Revolution, and the Communist revolutions were all disasters.

What came prior was also a disaster, except it was a disaster for regular people and the unelected Monarchs didn't feel the pain.

What exactly were people supposed to do? Wait patiently for their autocratic rulers to stop acting like autocrats?

> The slave revolt in Haiti has produced long-term poor results compared to the Dominican Republic.

This shows a complete ignorance of historical fact. French Haiti was 90% enslaved, Spanish Santo Domingo was majority free people. It simply isn't a comparable situation.

Again, what were Haitians supposed to do? Sit around being beaten, raped, and worked to death hoping that the slaveowners eventually see the error of their ways?