In what ways can the "Russian Revolution" of October 1917 be justifiably called a "revolution"?

The October Revolution was the second revolution in Russia
within a year. It was truly a revolutionary change both from the first (March 1917)
revolution and the former Czarist government.

The
government of Nicholas II had collapsed in March, 1917 primarily because of Nicholas'
abysmal leadership, the bizarre interference of Grigori Rasputin, and the suffering of
the Russian people caused by World War I. The new government, under Alexander Kerensky,
promised equality before the law, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and assembly,
and freedom for workers to strike.

Kerensky's promised
reforms did not go far enough to satisfy the radicals. They wanted the confiscation of
all large landed estates and the land redistributed to the peasants. Also, Kerensky
believed government efforts should be concentrated on winning the war; domestic reforms
could be made later. This was a sad mistake.

Kerensky's
famous Order Number one allowed committees of enlisted men to make military decisions
rather than officers. The end result was that many soldiers deserted the ranks and went
home to engage in a "land grab." The liberty envisioned in the March revolution soon
became anarchy.

This situation played into the hands of
Vladimir Lenin; who believed that change could only come about by violent revolution. He
once stated that without terrorism, there could be no revolution. He also believed that
human leadership, not historical development was necessary to bring about revolution. He
saw himself as that leader.

The German High Command, seeing
an opportunity, smuggled Lenin into St. Petersburg on a sealed train. Lenin rejected the
idea of cooperation with Kerensky's government, and which he considered "bourgeois." By
October, Bolshevik membership had increased from 50,000 to over 240,000. In November,
they seized government buildings and declared themselves as the new government. This was
truly revolutionary.