Wrote this a while back. Just details a bit about the support for the Bolshevik party with different angles. Hope its of use.

Liberal Historians such as Richard Pipes argued that the October Revolution was “a classic coup d’etat", carried out by a well organised minority without the support of the majority. In April 1917, when Lenin returned from Switzerland with German money and his ‘April Thesis’, the Soviet party had little support within Russia and only had 26,000 members. Lenin’s ‘April Thesis’, he argued for that “bread, peace and land” to be provided to all. He sought to gain the support of the Russian people by appealing to the workers, the soldiers and to the peasants. Lenin was therefore able to communicate the masses, which would provide him greater support. For example in Moscow Municipal Elections in 1917 between July and October the Bolshevik party gained an extra 40% of the vote. On the other hand the Bolshevik party only gained 24% support in the Constituent Assembly elections in November 1917. By being able to appeal to the masses he in turn reduced the support for the Provisional Government. Crucial to the success of the Bolshevik party would be that it was highly organized. In 1903 when the Social Democratic Party split, it was Lenin’s aim to make an elite and organised party. In 1917 when Russia turned into moderate chaos, the Bolshevik party were seen as a party to lead as Lenin held undisputed power within the Bolshevik party. With a leader with undisputed power they were far more efficient than other parties and especially the Provisional Government. The Bolshevik Red Guard also played a key role in the strength of the Bolshevik party. Led by Trotsky they were the only disciplined and effective army in Russia after the February 1917 Revolution. This gave them far more power and respect among the people of Russia. This presents a picture that the Bolshevik party and its organisation were sufficient for revolution in October. However Revisionist Historians would argue that the issue is far more complex. Historian Alan Wood argued that “There was clearly much more behind the Bolsheviks’ victory than ideological or organizational superiority over other political forces.” Instead it was that the Bolshevik party had the support of the popular front within Russia and as such their actions in October were in fact not a coup d’etet as Liberal Historians would describe but rather a revolution caused by the popular support of the Soviet party which in the words of Edward Acton “doomed Kerensky and the Provisional Government”.

TL;DR: Liberal Historians would argue that they did not have the popular support Revisionist Historians argue that they had the support of the people

Please keep in mind that the vast majority of the people in Russia had no idea who the Bolsheviks were in 1917.