As someone already said, the book was written by a socialist; but more specifically, it was a socialist who fought alongside communist anarchists (read non-soviet "communists").

The main antagonist's name is also Napoleon, which I don't think was chosen at random. I think the point is that a revolution which uses violence and terror, will only result in a newly oppressed society; like in the 1979 French Revolution, which was followed by the Reign of Terror, and then by a republic which was quickly usurped by Napoleon who became Emperor. The same Napoleon who supported the revolution and was pro republic.

As Emma Goldman said:

To-day is the parent of to-morrow. The present casts its shadow far into the future. That is the law of life, individual and social. Revolution that divests itself of ethical values thereby lays the foundation of injustice, deceit, and oppression for the future society. The means used to prepare the future become its cornerstone. Witness the tragic condition of Russia.

EDIT: In the middle of all this, I forgot to make my main point:

Communist/socialism revolutions having turned into dictatorships in the past says no more about communism/socialism, than past republican revolutions creating empires will tell us about republics. The issues lie somewhere else.