Human Nature

[Ivan Denisovich]

It was correct because he read the moment I would say. However I wouldn't say that people were empowering him - it was simply that masses weren't giving a shit and thus provisional government fell. There is this lovely tidbit in Victor Sebestyen Russian Revolution:

[V. Sebestyen, Russian Revolution,p.98-99]

So apathy amongst the populace is in his view a big factor as well in the revolution's success? Not to discount the Kerensky government's being out of touch, but that was a lesser factor? That seems to imply that a shitshow goes to shit not only from malign leadership, but also from the refusal of the people to actually do something.

Yes. But to make it more understandable don't think of it as revolution. Bolsheviks were simply a junta that took over not vanguard of masses which is how they liked to portray themselves. At this point Kerensky gov was in shambles but it could be saved if people would give a shit. Again bolshevik forces were relatively small they simply didn't met much resistance because of Kerensky incompetence, war, hunger... Also yes things went to shit because of those two factors (among others) but shitty leadership precedes and causes apathy. In the beginning Kerensky had support and he squandered it; his decision to remain at war for which Russia was simply unprepared was big part of it.

Politicians create shitty conditions and then they're surprised that populace is not willing to bail them. That's the moral here from my pov at least. Of course people aren't entirely blameless but expecting that Russians living under tyranny from times immemorial will fight to safeguard gov that sent their fathers and sons to slaughter against force which promised peace would be naive. Even if bolsheviks promises sounded too good to be true.