Just about everyone calling for revolution is using it as a fantasy. Wanting to believe that there's a relatively quick and easy way for things to be the way they want.

But there isn't.

If we want change of any sort we need to do the work to get there, and it won't happen overnight.

"Revolution" as a means for any kind of positive change in any modern western society is pure fantasy by and for those who haven't applied sufficient critical thinking to the idea. The questions you posed illustrate this perfectly, as they're unanswerable in any realistic revolutionary scenario.

Revolutions are not won by a bunch of common people waving a few pitchforks around and then going back to their daily lives. Toppling a government requires force and some kind of organized military action. That means to be effective you need command structures and centralization of authority. The new authorities that are thus installed are going to be in it entirely for personal gain and acquisition of more power. They will always be either so greedy and selfish that no amount of power and influence acquired through more peaceful processes will ever seem enough, or so radical and extreme that they cannot work with any existing structures to affect any change over the longer term.

About the only exception to this would be if an administration held onto more power/authority than they had been granted and there was military action to remove them and restore the status quo, but that's more of a benevolent coup than a revolution.

Political action will always be more effective at change than revolution as long as a shred of democratic structure exists. And if you can't enact sufficient political action to affect change, you have no chance at a successful revolution.