What’s probably most important to understand is the context for all of this. The Russian Revolution was hardly an isolated event, it was actually part of a revolutionary ‘wave’ across much of the world (a non-specialist summary can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1917%E2%80%9323). So Russia was hardly unique in attempting to overthrow their leaders, the most notable other country being the industrially advanced Germany who rid themselves of the Kaiser then had between two and eight years of revolutionary upsurge.

So why did these revolutions happen at all? Well, the most obvious factor would be World War I and the stress that it placed on most economies. Food shortages in particular were identified by the Russian populace with their chant “Peace! Land! Bread!” (Daniel H Kaiser, The Workers’ Revolution in Russia: The View from Below, 1987). In many of the countries where these revolutions occurred there was deliberate reference made to the previous revolutionary wave of 1848 in which the feudal governments had been replaced by more modern capitalist democracies (Rex Wade, The Russian Revolution, 2000).

Russia was a little different. It had what has been termed by some historians as “the benefit of being backwards”. Basically, Russia had, overall, one of the most lagging economies in Europe, being based mostly on a desperately poor peasantry whose oppression and conditions were staggering compared to Europe at the time. However, alongside this they also had some of the most advanced machinery and production in the world, Petrograd’s Putilov plant was an enormous productive facility for armaments, one of the most impressive in the world (Richard Stites, The Women’s Liberation Movement in Russia). The stark contrast between feudal political organisation and advanced capitalist production meant that crisis in Russia was fairly sharp. They essentially had their capitalist revolution (which many countries had experienced throughout the late Eighteenth and mid-Nineteenth Centuries when they deposed royal families or integrated them into business enterprises) and socialist revolution (which many countries experienced after World War I) all at once. For this reason, the Russian Revolution is often divided into the February Revolution (which most historians, regardless of political leaning tend to support) and the October Revolution (which divides historians more sharply).

February had broad support within Russia from workers, peasantry and even employers who sought more political power than they were afforded under the rule of the Tsars. Russia’s devastation during World War I, lack of food, oppression of the peasantry and generally poor conditions had been building in Russia for years. Russia fielded an absolutely staggering number of troops in World War I, forcing the peasantry off the farms and into service leading to acute shortages of butter, flour and fuel (A. Tyrkova-Williams, From Liberty to Brest-Litovsk, 1919). Add to this the rather unique collection of political forces, such as the Socialist Revolutionary, Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, and you have a fairly explosive situation. The Tsar was essentially forced to abdicate by the February Revolution at this time and a parliamentary system was established and dubbed 'The Provisional Government'.

However, socialist parties then debated what exactly needed to happen at this point. Some, particularly the Mensheviks, argued for a staged perspective in which Russia should go through a period of modernising capitalism to build a working class. Others, particularly elements of the Bolsheviks, eventually argued for an ongoing, “permanent” revolution, that is, to continue struggling for another massive change and overthrow of the parliamentary system as it existed (in line with the later German revolution). Between February and the October was a period of back and forth turmoil in which various forces in Russia attempted to either drive forward this socialist revolution, or drive the process backwards. For various reasons, a stable parliamentary system was difficult if not possible to maintain, largely due to the existence of Soviets, or worker councils, which posed a direct alternative and threat to parliament (Sandra Bloodworth, How Workers Took Power: the 1917 Russian Revolution). During this turmoil, the Tsar and royal family were a powerful symbol for the counter-revolutionary forces. Even though they no longer possessed political power, revolutionaries saw them as a continuing threat to their goals.

Without getting into a broader political point or arguing over its merit, I'll just quickly say that the "insurrection", or October Revolution, was about abolishing this parliament and giving power to the Soviet councils instead. Workplaces and neighbourhoods essentially elected instantly recallable representatives who made decisions at increasingly more inclusive levels of Soviet up to and including an All-Russia Soviet (Tony Cliff, All Power to the Soviets, 1976).

Are we talking the revolution in 1917?