I'm going to assume that you are an American, and if you aren't then please correct me. I'm an American myself and in a lot of schools here people are taught that the people of the Soviet Union didn't like it, and that they were all just dying to leave the Communist world. This wasn't the case. Some people hated it and wanted to leave or revolt, sure, but they were not representative of everyone living in the Soviet Union.

A lot of Soviet citizens believed in the ideals of the Soviet Union. Stuff like equality, the good of the community, and freedom of the individual from exploitation. They did not necessarily like the way it was being carried out by Soviet leadership. Through socialist realist propaganda and literature, the government was trying to convince the people that the socialist Utopia had been achieved, but obviously not everyone believed that. So as time went on and especially in the Brezhnev era long after Stalin's death, people felt like the Soviet leadership had given up on the socialist dream. They wanted to replace the aging leadership and address the problems of the Soviet Union rather than pretend that it was already perfect. This isn't so much about the question, but just for context.

But that doesn't entirely answer the question of why the Soviet people didn't revolt in 1953. It really boils down to the extremely strong patriotism of the USSR in that period, and who ended up being Stalin's successor.

Let's begin with the patriotism. 1953 was only 8 years after the end of WWII, and that war completely reframed the Soviet pysche. Every aspect of life was directly affected by the war, and particularly by the existential dread that it caused. The war was not just for land, not just for the existence of the Soviet Union or communism, but for the lives of every single Soviet citizen. The Great Patriotic War, as I believe they still call it today in Russia, had just been won, and their existence had just been saved, so to revolt in 1953 would be to completely disregard the 20 million lives, countless villages, homes, and farms lost during the war. It would make all of that seem futile, as though it had all been for naught. That war was the ultimate battle for Marxist ideology, which as we know, many Soviets did support. A revolt would throw it all away.

The successor of Stalin was also a big factor in satisfying the Soviet people. Krushchev was, in comparison to Stalin, much more level headed. He tried easing tensions with the west (which didn't always work), and really seemed to be more in tune with the people than Stalin had ever been. He was no Gorbachev, in that he was still pretty controlling, but he was certainly a much looser change of pace. This relative relaxation gave those who might be closer to revolt a bit of peace of mind.

Tl;Dr -- people didn't revolt in 1953 because they still believed in the Soviet Union's ideals and thought it better to affect change nonviolently from within. To throw away everything that so many Soviets had suffered and died for during WWII would be a massive betrayal of the Soviet people, so it was better to improve upon the Soviet Union rather than revolt, destroy it, and build something new. Stalin's successor, Krushchev, ran a relatively relaxed administration when compared to the Stalinist period, which eased tensions within the Soviet Union and reassured people.

Source: Peter Kenez, A History of the Soviet Union from the Beginning to its Legacy, 2016.