if the october revolution was a coup, why is it commonly referred to as a revolution? what about the role of the petrograd soviet? was it under complete control of the bolsheviks? my understand is that it was made up of the city's workers and soldiers, would this not be a large enough population to constitute a revolution? or is it because the coup largely took place in petrograd and so most of the population (who were peasants) weren't involved?

To revert to OP's question, the reason that proletarian revolutions didn't happen in "wealthy, industrialised and urban states" is that basically from the moment of the Communist Manifesto's publication, the working classes in those countries embarked on a steadily, if unevenly, upward trajectory in terms of living standards and access to political power.

How does this mesh with the fact that there were various failed uprisings/revolutions in germany post ww1? the german revolution of 1919, failed minor uprisings in the years after like the hamburg uprising, biennio rosso in italy, which seems to have involved significant actions from workers (not just communist parties). smaller short lived conflicts in other parts of europe like the hungarian SR

I ask because the impression i get from your statement is that your overlooking these events, which seem noteworthy at least in showing that the sort of worker unrest seen in russia wasn't unique to it.

cultural Marxists like Herbert Marcuse

in an answer by /u/commiespaceinvader here asserts that "cultural marxism" is a conspiracy that inaccurately portrays the ideas of Marcuse and his colleagues, and that it involves " anti-Semitic dog whistles". do you disagree with this notion?

Eduard Bernstein

I haven't read him myself, but i've heard that he was criticized by his contemporaries (i think lenin and luxembourg). have you read their responses to him? if so what are your thoughts?