While I have not read your first part this one, while containing useful descriptions of the history revolutionary change, seems to be too historical. I'm trying not to be rude by saying that it seems a review of the 20th century totalitarian cycle of conflicts.
While the process of revolutionary political change became endless in authoritarianism from early in the 20th century, that failed because it only produced more authoritarianism on all sides of the conflict. In the end it was not revolutionary change as I think you may be saying.
My area of interest for the last forty years or so is paradigmatic change at the human perception and cultural level. This tends, I think, to underlay the last four hundred years of religious, scientific, linguistic, and political change.
The result of all these layers of increasingly fundamental change is creating new definitions of revolution that are, themselves, revolutionary. At the same time we seem to be recognizing that reactionary opportunism is still extant will fill a power vacuum whenever possible.
This is recognizable by the characteristics of fascism best stated as greed and denunciation of knowledge and ethics as barriers to personal rights to plunder. It is that system of opportunism that is nihilistic and ultimately destructive and self-destructive.
In that sense the BLM movement and the Floyd demonstrations including Autonomous Zones and surprisingly careful attacks on symbols of oppression is a new and ethical from of revolution. But its links to the Enlightenment tradition are thin as these are full cultural revolutions attacking the old, and now, failed, cultural structure.
Are these issues where you are going with the final part?