https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War
I am no expert in this part of history, and not sure I trust a wiki article these days, but find this time period interesting.
Questions regarding the events of 1917...
(1) If I understand the nature of this  "Russian Constituent Assembly"  (see wiki here), its more or less equivalent to the US congress?
(2) So, more or less, the Bolsheviks walked out and caused the govt to dissolve - then started an armed take-over?

Should have asked me back in the  '70s when I was  read up on the stuff.

Barbara Tuchman's The Proud Tower may give you some insights.

I know the Czar had his secret police that would banish people to Siberia but it was  nothing like what Stalin did.  1905 defeat by the Japanese was a shocker to the Russian nation and people.  I know they had a march with the marchers hold pictures of the Czar.   Guards shot them down anyway.  

When the Czar was overthrown, it was by a non-socialist goverment.   Months later there was a counter-revolution where the communitwits overthrew the Kerensky Provisional Government on the promise of Bread, Land (reform)  and  Peace.

If I understand your two questions correctly, the answer to number 1 is a nope or a yeah depending on how squishy your frame work to make political judgements is.

It's a "yup" because  of bolshevik perceptions in that legislative bodies have bourgeois participants with bourgeois motives, methods and an ideology where as the Bolsheviks, good social democrats that they were, believed in all power to the soviets only. To Recap, democratic bodies such as the US Congress are bourgeoise.
It's a "nope" in the fact that the US Congress was didn't form the Constitutional Convention which just to repeat what we all probably know was the assembly that led to the adoption of the US Constitution. If you recall, the original purpose was to draft articles for the "Articles of Confederation" for the League of States. (I think that's what the US was called before it was the US.)

The second part I keep changing my mind in how to answer it. First, the historical facts are as you stated, but it's not that simple. There was a time when I could tell you the difference between a Russian Socialist Revolutionary and a Russion Revolutionary Socialist! Thankfully, those days are past, and while I did write many a paper on such things, I never used the phrase "bunch of fuckin' retards" although I really wanted to because that's an accurate assessment of the entire time period for the World. (We are replicating the build up to WWI now. It's great fun with probably the same results." To Recap, yeah, let's go with more or less those things actually happened, and the Bolsheviks like a great many others took to the streets and manned the barricades like everybody else. They just had a better PR dept and finally took over. Castro did the same thing in Cuba. I can't think of a battle that guy won, but he had good PR that many believed. Perception is Reality, I guess.

The Russian Revolution isn't one revolution, it's two.  (really ti's 3 if you include 1905).

So, in February (old calendar), The Russian monarchy basically walks away.   It's untenable and it's losing it's grip and while the Tsar may be many things, he's Russian to the core and wants what is best.   So he abdicates and they set up a provisional government with Kerensky at it's head.  But, once unleashed the powers of revolution aren't easily stopped and they continue to roil and the economy is in the shitter.  Also and this is the big one, the war is going REALLY BADLY for the Russians.  and the French and English keep pushing and pushing to keep Russia in the war (because of course it's keeping millions of German troops tied down.  The provisional government being basically the "normal" people  who just want to get back to law and order are convinced that they should keep Russia in the war.   This (IMO and many others) is by far the most critical mistake of the provisional government.   They simply didn't have the will of the people and the economy to support it, esp with everything going to shit.  

Things are in chaos, big cities, small cities, nobody knows what's going on, riots, demonstrations, everyone wanting their cut (sound familiar) and the government is just issuing edicts and pretending like things are going on. (honestly from reading memoirs they believed it was all going to be ok and the things that they were ordering were really happening.  of course they weren't.  the bad news didn't get upstairs).   The bolsheviks are a minor player, one of a 100 such parties in the Duma (think more Israeli Knesset rather than our congress, a 100 parties all wanting different things)

The Germans of course want the Russians out of the war too, so in April they send a sealed train across Germany with Lenin in it to create havoc and chaos and get Russia out of the war. https://www.dw.com/en/how-germany-got-the-russian-revolution-off-the-ground/a-41195312 (kinda backfired, but really it's a good idea).   Lenin arrives and Lenin is one thing above all others.  FUCKING BLOODTHIRSTY.  brutal and uncompromising. he's not playing by the rules, he's creating his own.  (and totally remaking "marxism").  

By July, huge losses are showing up in russia's military, nothing is happening offensively and deserters are growing.  the economy is coming to a halt, because the old rules are broken and nothing has happened.  The provisional government is still dithering and trying to do the right thing "by the rules".    The bolsheviks are still a tiny party, but they are "pure" and they all believe.  

By October (old calendar),  things are falling apart, food is short, the military is a disaster, the economy has spun toa  stop and of course Russians love to argue and the duma is dithering and talking about perfection.   The bolsheviks (probably not a few thousand people total), decide to strike and take a coup.  They take over St Petersberg, get the radio station and man the corners.   The provisional government does......................nothing.   (any of this sound familiar?).   and government's reason to be disappears and now ti's chaos, but the bolsheviks are the strong horse, they have the main things they need and people and other parties (soon to be eliminated) start to follow them.  (also, does this sound familiar?  before this year I never understood this part, I do now).   And St Petersberg (the capital) is under control of the bolsheviks.  They spread out as civil war began.  But really depsite all the bloodshed, what were the "white russians' fighting for?  the Tsar?

BTW, in April 1918 Lenin signs the treaty of Brest-Litosk which officially gets Russia out of WW1 and pretty much saves russia and makes a separate peace.  (also part of the reason Germany is pissed, because at Versailles it all gets removed and Germany doesn't keep it's gains.  This all ties together you'll notice).  Also Lenin has the entire Tsar's family killed in July 1918, there will be no going back.   (evil, not stupid)

By 1922 they pretty much had control of the entire country and began liquidating their "friends and allies" in other socialist organizations.     In 1923 Lenin has a stroke and is incapacitated and by 1924 he's dead and Joseph Stalin, party secretary, a nothing position, takes over.  By the late 20's he has complete control of the country and party apparatus and The Great Terror begins.  

Russian history is fascinating, and TBH you can see the echo's this year.  Anyone really thing that anyone has control of the government???

Recently read, Russia in Flames by Laura Engelstein.  Recommend it, as it gives a good idea of how confused the situation throughout Russia was at the time.  Before the book I had no idea of the amount of foreign troops and advisors in Russia supporting the various factions.  

I recommend the book.

Thanks all.  Yes, this period has many echoes into today's climate, hence part of the renewed interest on my part.

Pardon me for asking, but how sure are the historians that Stalin didn't "arrange" Lenin's "stoke"?

ohh, good question; one that I've pondered as well.

From a "historicity" stand point, was Stalin that clever at this time in his life that he could affect all the Chess pieces on the board i.e. Trotsky, Dzerzhinsky, a big chunk of the Cheka? My feeling is no. Stalin was a thug at heart and not one to be involved in subtleties. (Just look at the assassination of Trotsky in Mexico City in 1940.)

Between Lenin's stroke and his death there was enough time for the thug (Stalin) to kill those he couldn't persuade and to co-op those he could. I don't think Stalin had "friends." He had only productive alliances and then got rid of those when they became unproductive.

I have been pondering on this for some time.

Stalin, Hitler, Mao -- all had different rhetoric, but seemed to have shared the same methods of suppressing opposition:

     (1) blame a group (economic class, ethnic group, etc)
     (2) divide the populous using guilt-by-association  with the blame group
     (3) register the guilty by association,
     (4) start their persecution of the registered

All 3 were bold to aggressively go and do horrible things, when their opposition (or world observers) did not expect even 1/10th of the evilness they had enabled.

All, however, 3 benefit from significant financial and economic disasters that their countries were engulfed with at that time.

Cleary, historically -- the founding fathers recognized the above dispositions. Which is why they were ok with '*any*' rhetoric, but did their best to prevent
the actions. (That is there is 'free speech' , but unchecked reign by federal powers is prohibited).


My current take,  is that trying to finding analogies between now and back late 1920s-to early 1940s, would have to involve some form of amalgamation of the 3 dictators.

We do not have economic or food or health crisis to the proportion that these countries had back then.

So until we can sustain the might of US dollar as reserve currency, and until we can fight off health catastrophes --
We will not have same alignments as it was back in 1930s.

On another hand, if the pyramids that control the reserve currency or public health of the nations -- collapse.
It is not hard to imagine how the 1930s will replay, only with more speed and destructive energy.

---

Going back into the history, something becoming even more clear.

People do not change.

But the effectiveness of their tools and methods improves every generation.

Therefore...

If the tools are  used for bad purposes (and by tools I mean informational as well as physical tools) -- then their application will result in deeper wounds to humanity.
If the tools are used for good purposes -- the healing and fighting off bad things, will be more effective.

---

Broadly, there are 4 categories of people in the society (this is not a political or cultural categorization)

Leaders, Followers, Un-Informed, and Independents.

The stability of the society is based on the size and effectiveness of influence of the Independent thinkers category.

The other 3 groups will always be some sort of oscillation.
Oscillation is really reflection of the significant bias.  These 3 groups are consisting of personalities with significant biases.
And, therefore, they result in lack of  freedom of opportunity, without freedom of opportunities,
there is no meritocracy, without meritocracy there is no fairness, without fairness, there is no stability.
That's why these 3 groups if left unchecked will always produce huge swings (oscillations).

The oscillations will be benign if the independent thinkers are dominating political, economic and military landscapes.
The oscillations will be violent, if otherwise.

The only other method to prevent oscillations is a threat of mutual destruction.  However, this is like sitting on the
gasoline and playing with matches.
Which is why, to me, having the independent thinkers as a dominant force (in Capitalism, this was supposed to be the 'middle class') --
is much more preferable.

---

To figure out what's coming in the future, one would have to assess the economic and population health indicators.

As well as what categories of people dominate the above mentioned landscapes.

--

I do not have answers, clearly.

But the above describes thinking framework I had came with sofar.

I hope we have enough independent thinkers, who can filter out lies and manipulation by applying their critical thinking.
And I hope the structures we have in place to protect public health, and dominant currencies -- will remain.

Let me offer this thought based on the constructed society of George Orwell's "1984."

The Propaganda said they were at War. The alliances and enemies changed every so often in the book, but that was to align what O'Brien said about changing History. Orwell's point is that the History was changed so many times, that it ceased to be History, and no one could rely on the Past, nor the Future, and the Present was pretty iffy.

In effect, the "War" was a manufacture of propaganda. (I'm assuming you're familiar with the story. Apologies if not.) The "War" was a means to justify the sacrifice of the people. Everything was rationed, and there wasn't a lot of anything except for the top of the Party. Again, the "War" justified the people's sacrifice.

So in effect, the "War' was a manufactured crisis.

In the real World, we have a country called Cuba. It's a very poor country. The State practically runs everything, and the people all have ration cards. It's more similar to the society in "1984" than it is dissimilar. There is only one Country in the World that has an embargo against Cuba. That is the United States.

Back in 1970, Fidel Castro announced to the World that Cuba had achieved the last stage of Human Development, as espoused by Marx, in that Cuba was the first Country ever to achieve the state of Communism. (He just said it to piss off the Russians in reality.)

So, with only one Country having an embargo against Cuba (the US of A,) and its only benefactor (the USSR) thoroughly pissed off, plus another shitty sugar cane harvest, Castro told his people they need to sacrifice more because the United States, evil imperialists that we are going to invade....................soon..........sometime in the future.................you won't believe the time line if I  told you..................et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

So, bad governments don't need a real catastrophe to do want they want. They can just say one exists; make it up themselves. How about the "insurrection" on 6JAN21? Look how much bullshit that allowed them to do.