For many of the past ten or so years, in two different houses, there has been tacked to a common space wall an odd little puzzle taken from the pages an anarchist publication. It is a word finder game arranged in a pyramid shape. Every single letter and every single word repeat, up, down, and diagonally ALWAYS MORE POLICE STATISM. The player is instructed to find as many iterations of the phrase as they can, but in the end they are reminded that in this game, everyone's a loser.
Your question calls this pessimistic little puzzle to mind. It's a perfectly cruel catchall. What to expect from the election if ____ wins? More police statism. What if _____ wins, he's going to do _____? More police statism. What to expect from prison abolition? Always more police statism. What if we defund the police? More police statism. Remember when everyone was talking just about coronavirus? Many anarchists were expecting the virus to be new justification for always more police statism. Now? There's a process underway for classifying "Antifa" as a "terrorist organization," for their supposed role in the riots, and this is not to mention the tremendous proliferation of less overt forms of always more police statism. So the pithy answer to your question is, well: see how many ways you can find to spell it out.
But this leaves, of course, the other side of the coin. I believe it's not contradictory to expect both more police statism and que viva la anarquía. For that I have a different anecdote. At an anarchist conference, a speaker presented some historical analysis of rioting and violence, all aimed at the conclusion that these kinds of activities give major force to social reform movements. To put it bluntly, the moral-handwringing in the media is a distraction and those in power are quick to give concessions when they are fearful. (Pro-militancy arguments to this effect have always puzzled me when coming from anarchists and pro-revolutionaries. Are we meant to conclude that rioting and militant action are good because they lead to concessions? What happened to total social transformation, not reformation? When I asked as much, the presenter's response was that winning concessions teaches class power that builds toward revolution. Well, can't argue with that I guess???) So HUGE FUCKING QUESTIONS aside, there was something he said in passing that I found really interesting. When he was summarizing the different views on rioting -- pacifist and militant -- he mentioned that there was a third pseudo-position, namely the people who see the value of riots as completely immanent to the experience itself. He ever-so-quickly dismissed this as a kind of spiritualism and moved on. I would like to stop here with this immanence, this pseudo-position that is so easy to wave away in favor of more pragmatic concerns. You acknowledged it in your question: "a break in the normal and consequent transformations they lead in the individual." In this sense, the question of what to expect fades into the background. We can expect a powerful transformation, but it is so hard to put words to what that transformation might be, even if we seem to remember having experienced one ourselves. I believe it's a kind of initiation, in the ancient (i.e. still present) sense -- a transformative passage into a belonging.
Every few years it seems, perhaps competing for some award for the height of unintentional irony, some "riot folk" musician or another publishes a statement against riots (always with the caveat that they were at some riot or other, that they have nothing against riots per se, just certain kinds of riots, yadda yadda). One of the most common words to find in these dismissals is ritual -- as in mere ritual. (Playing folk songs about peace love and anarchy is what exactly?) I say yes, this is one of the anarchist rituals, among others. Whether mere or not -- that is another question.