i don't see a revolution bringing about an anarchist situation, just to be clear. revolutions are messy, yes, but they are situations where people are actively attempting to make changes, and those people usually end up creating new states, even if that is not what they're trying to do.
but if for "revolution" we substitute *some event* that makes it impossible or extremely difficult for governments to operate, then transitions of various sorts would be possible. two different science fiction novels speak to this post-big-change situation (and in some ways are quite similar). one is starhawk's sacred thing, the other is the much better (but still ultimately disappointing) The City Not Long After, by pat murphy. both books describe localized groups of people who trade with each other, and the ways that different areas have different ways of dealing, and the conflict that happens when the more fascistic people want to take over the more egalitarian groups.
bolo'bolo is another thought exercise that describes a similar social set up.
TLDR: yes, my understanding of a world with room for anarchist groups of people includes people who choose not to live that way, but don't impose (or aren't allowed to impose) their ways on others. and i have no clear vision of how such a world would happen, just lots of evidence about how it probably won't.
