I don't think like that. I'm just saying that if a revolution is executed by bad people, they will just move the power to another tyrant. Revolts and revolutions have their place, but that does not mean that they always work. Look at Communist China or Russia. Look at the Arab Spring. Look at Libya, Gadafi was a really bad guy, a rapist even. But what happened after people revolted? Just more corruption, crime and foreign powers taking advantage of the situation.

This is why when people with a certain political leaning in the West say that they want to eat the rich, without having any further plan or clue what that would entail, look like dangerous retards. Excuse my French. Most people are pissed that they are litarelly being robbed every day by their governments, some have even been attacked physically or imprisoned unjustly. These are all legitimate grievences I do not inted to downplay at all. However, when people destroy order, leave everyone vulnerable to internal and external threats, will that make the situation better or worse? Are you willing to take that risk? What is the probability that your country will survive and prosper after such an event? Think hard about that!

If most people suck, and they would do the same as the elites had they been in power, then focusing on the current elites makes no sense. Because the current elites will just be replaced with people like them.

Lastly, in general, people will automatically rearrange themselves into power structures, even after a theoretical reset. That's human nature. Of course there are degrees to this, but power structures will be there nontheless. You and many others don't seem to have a clue if a revolution will lead to less totalitarianism, or more totalitarianism, you just assume that it would lead to a better state. Sorry to say, that's a bit naive.