I think there's roughly two possibilities:
1.Anarchists who see anarchism as primarily an ethical-political discourse, less interested in determining the course of large scale transformation than in thinking about immediate questions of life, in an immediate way. I'm not dismissing this but it seems clear to me that this tendency is fundamentally critical of the idea of revolution.
2.Anarchists who are interested in some version of large scale social transformation, almost always via some modification of Marxist theory. As you might know, this is what Marxist thought is most essentially about: trying to think plausibly about whether there is a chance of emancipating human beings from capitalism, and it's a really rich intellectual tradition with many different mutually incompatible ways of addressing this question. But in very broad strokes, the argument is that if we think about an "idealized" version of capitalism, how capital according to its own logic ought to develop, we can predict that capitalism must end. Marx thinks this is true because (to paraphrase very brutally) firms are compelled to make technical changes to their production process which minimize the need for human labor, but since all other firms will follow suit, the gain in profits is always temporary. Meaning that even though capitalism is entirely premised upon wage labor it also tends to make wage labor obsolete. The concrete result is that capitalism will be able to produce lots of goods very cheaply but will also produce as a side effect huge numbers of unemployed or tenuously employed people who cannot afford those goods -- leading capital to search for new markets where it can sell the goods, etc. The question that this raises is whether the people who have been made unnecessary by capitalism will see this in time.
To my mind the worthwhile recent thinking about these questions is the kind that asks about what forms social upheaval is likely to take in the next decades/century, and guesses that it will have a lot to do with the possibilities that are visible to people excluded from the wage, and to people forced to migrate by changes in the climate etc. I reckon Joshua Clover's book "Riot. Strike. Riot." is a good book about this, which argues that we've entered a period where riots and not strikes will be the significant form for social movements against capital. Endnotes 2 is very much about these questions. In my opinion much of insurrectional/insurrectionary anarchism, as well as what is called "communization theory," is a response to these questions whether self-consciously or not. I've been meaning to read this collection of writings that Ill Will Editions put out: http://ill-will-editions.tumblr.com/post/183682422114/insurrectional-anarchism-a-reader-2019-print. There was a good collection called "Communization and its Discontents" which I think is worth engaging with. I'd also suggest that the ideas promoted by "Open Marxism" should be of interest to anarchists who want to think about revolution. John Holloway I think of as being its main contemporary thinker -- I recommend his book, "Change the World Without Taking Power."
Obviously there have been other anarchist approaches to this question, which have emphasized other factors like the situation of peasants, the industrial proletariat, etc., usually in some kind of dialogue with Marxism. To me these are historically interesting.