@Radical_EgoCom
In some other threads you mention logic and proof. We can state, by definition, that anarchism implies no state, and therefore overthrowing one government and installing another is not anarchy.

When we discuss history we have left the realms of deduction and induction. That's fine, but let's not pretend rigor.

So far, we have no evidence of overthrow resulting in anarchy. That doesn't make it impossible, but history suggests overthrow results in a new state and a new elite.

@Radical_EgoCom When I say dissolve, I mean states fail and are replaced. Capitalist states may result from successive dissolutions, but this is not a constant any more than kings succeeding kings was a constant.

The fundamental difficulty with this survey: anarchy is not communism. In practice, communism replaces one ruling party with another. Anarchism proposes no ruling party.