You may be reading into my use of the word revolution a bit. I strongly recommend watching the documentary before making an assessment of what was happening.

During the strike there were large grassroots democratic assemblies (similar to the ones during Occupy Wallstreet) that discussed and debated what the path forward should be. There was a somewhat coherent shared vision of what the outcome should be, and demands that needed to be met. Some of it was funneled into the failed constitution.

There was no 'burn everything down' mentality, it was instead a simple rejection of the exploitation that had effected so many lives there, and of the violence used against them by the state for peacefully striking. There were many Anarchists in the movement attempting to steer it more towards a Spanish Catalonia situation, but ultimately the assemblies decided to trust the government's word that they would listen and change, as it would give an easy end to the struggle instead of the more difficult path of keeping the strike going until the government simply caved due to them being economically at the mercy of the strikers.

The issue was an unfortunate lack of prefiguration within Chile. In Spain in the 1930's, Anarchists carefully created extremely strong unions, and more importantly, educated the populace en masse over the course of 80 years for them to all be on the same page collectively to reject government promises, and instead enact what they had learned on how to peacefully transition to an Anarchist society, which from all accounts and evidence we have, worked extremely well before the fascists and stalinists destroyed them.

The people of Chile, on the other hand, were still in the mindset that the government could be a benevolent force if just the right people were in charge. Hopefully they learn from that experience for the next time.