Large scale social unrest is just what the communists fear the most. To me, that's not worrisome - it's hopeful. Just opining, and I understand that the collateral costs would be worrisome for everyone in the short term.
Just scroll through this list : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic...
4 out of the 10 most deadliest human conflicts in human history happened in China. I have a suspicion that the Chinese leadership is acutely aware of this, and their world-view has been moulded by this (favouring stability over everything else including justice, freedom or human rights). When things go wrong there, they tend to go wrong in a big way.
edit: To get some idea of the scale, The An Lushan Rebellion that occurred in the 7th century wiped out 15% of the world population at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Lushan_Rebellion#Death_toll
E.g. taiping rebellion (>10 million), Dungan revolt, Du Wenxiu, etc...
The most recent large one only killed like 8 million people though, so we've got that going for us I guess.
Read "human lives".
I understand and share your sentiment regarding the fact that a chance towards a (seemingly) more liberal form of government is good. But I'd be hesitant to call the costs of unrest at such a scale merely worrisome. The only thing I hope for is that change will come slowly, if it comes at all.
That's worse than a bloody revolution. If change comes so slowly that you don't get to experience it in your lifetime you might as well have died anyways.
Which is why I speculate revolutions might become rare, as progress has improved everyone's lot, even the lowest classes. Few people live in a wood-fired dirt-floor log cabin or wash their clothes in a tub by the river these days.