Long after the event, the Russian Revolution of 1917 remains poorly understood. The dominant view, enunciated by politicians and textbooks alike, holds that a small clique of activists somehow smuggled themselves into power in the Russian capital without the consent or assistance of the benighted masses. By sleight of hand and outside financing a cadre of loyalists managed to take over an empire and frustrate the desires of millions.

While agreeably tidy and remarkably clear, the dominant view of the Revolution conflicts with what we know to be the complex operation of human society. The revolutionary cadre that Lenin headed was certainly very motivated, but it seems doubtful that any group, however dedicated, could effect so sweeping a victory without at least the passive support of some elements of society. Present-day politics provides numerous examples of organized oppositions with substantial military and financial backing that are unable, nevertheless, to seize power. How is it that the Bolsheviks, only organized as a party about fifteen years before the Revolution and kept underground for much of that time, could so swiftly and easily snatch power?

In the course of teaching Russian history to undergraduates over the last decade, I found this implausible story more and more difficult to sustain. Not only did its simplicity not ring true, but Russia's own experience in the last years of the empire provided plenty of evidence for an alternative explanation.