The October Revolution & The Soviet Union: What went wrong?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

As the title says. I hear all the time that the reason was because Russia was very disconnected from the rest of the world and that it's infrastructure was annihilated, but is this really the only explanation? How did a supposedly fast-growing and vibrant mass worker's movement full of aware and motivated people transform so quickly into an oppressive, bureaucratic, anti-working class and chauvinist nation? Does anyone know some legitimate statistics for when the Soviets began to lose their political power, what the pre-Stalinist USSR planned to do now that Europe's nations had turned themselves into a united wall and who else besides the big bad mo was pushing for these disturbing transformations?

Where did that enormous proletarian body disappear to?

I'd very much like the opinions of some well read comrades on this one.

[TheEmancipator]

Firstly, there was no "enormous proletarian body", Russia was a kind of feudal state with very little emphasis on the working proletariat and heavily reliant on the peasantry. I think this had something to do with things going wrong, and Lenin recognised that they had missed a step in comparison to Europe.

Linked to this, the big problem was Russia itself. If you look at successful implementations of communism, it is done on far smaller scale than the beast that is Russia (Paris Commune, Catalonia). This coupled with Lenin's vanguard was always going to be a major issue, as the centralised state could not possibly monitor and manage all its holdings and they appointed corrupt warlords as "party members" on the ground who were never going to take Lenin seriously.

Then we have historical circumstances which were out of the Soviets' control. The Civil War for me was pointless and after that the intimidation of the Western powers and the rise of Nazi Germany meant they had to prioritise protecting the nation more than anything else.

Lastly, Stalin. I know there are a few Stalinists on here but the fact remains he was simply a power hungry tyrant. Lenin saw this, Trotsky saw this, and Stalin's successors saw this. It became a one-man state. The Party itself was just his tool.

[TiberiusGracchus]

In The State and Revolution Lenin hammers nails the thesis that the bourgeoisie state must be "smashed to atoms". And so was done. But on the proletarian uprising in october/november the european revolution did not follow. The world revolution proved not to be an event, but an historical epoch. After the russian revolution (it was a revolution, if not on the country side so at least in the industrial cities) followed years of foreign intervention, civil war and protracted defensive war. In this malestream the thin lines of proletarians drowned and passed away. The new society lost what was supposed to be it's ruling class.

Sure, there were still some revolutionary proletarians left and there were still a few old bolsheviks, Lenins theoretically educated and european schooled avantgarde. But they were not enough to block the authoritarian development.

A new "soviet" state had been founded. But who bore it up? Stalin discovered that. On an inspection at the Volga-region soon after the civil war he found that the new state organs on regional and local level to 90% were manned by old tsarist officers, the same ol' chinoviks. The state had been smashed into atoms; but the atoms had reunited themselves and formed a new.

Some would have been terrified by this discovery. Stalin realised that he could use it. It became the foundation of his politics. It was under his rule that this basicly pre-revolutionary state got, and in fact created, it's ruling class. And since the dominating mode of production was state capitalism this class became a state-bourgeoisie; but since the rural areas lived under what closest can be described as state feudalism (a.k.a. "the asiatic mode of production") this class, the "nomenklatura" gained clear feudal traits of personal boss rule ("chefstvo"). The high-handedness of this state made the development exceptionally linear and clear. The only disturbing element was Stalin himself, who neatly saw to erasing all branches of the new plant that could have become an obstacle for his personal exercise of power.



There is no such thing as "totalitarian states". There's no good or bad states. No states has any necessary limits to it's own power. I am a marxist and I do believe in the (sad) necessity of a revolutionary proletarian transitional state. But we must watch over it and keep it under control. We must have a plan for it's successive desolvation.

[RedSun]

A new "soviet" state had been founded. But who bore it up? Stalin discovered that. On an inspection at the Volga-region soon after the civil war he found that the new state organs on regional and local level to 90% were manned by old tsarist officers, the same ol' chinoviks. The state had been smashed into atoms; but the atoms had reunited themselves and formed a new.

Some would have been terrified by this discovery. Stalin realised that he could use it. It became the foundation of his politics. It was under his rule that this basicly pre-revolutionary state got, and in fact created, it's ruling class. And since the dominating mode of production was state capitalism this class became a state-bourgeoisie; but since the rural areas lived under what closest can be described as state feudalism (a.k.a. "the asiatic mode of production") this class, the "nomenklatura" gained clear feudal traits of personal boss rule ("chefstvo"). The high-handedness of this state made the development exceptionally linear and clear. The only disturbing element was Stalin himself, who neatly saw to erasing all branches of the new plant that could have become an obstacle for his personal exercise of power.

Lastly, Stalin. I know there are a few Stalinists on here but the fact remains he was simply a power hungry tyrant. Lenin saw this, Trotsky saw this, and Stalin's successors saw this. It became a one-man state. The Party itself was just his tool.

What bothers "stalinists" is not the critic that he was "a power hungry tyrant" but this attempt of re-writting history to dissociate Lenin from Stalin. Let's see:

Who repressed the soviets, instituted the secret police, the firsts forced labor camps, the ban of parties except the Bolshevik and factions within the Bolshevik party? Try to guess the author of this quote:

"all members of the Russian Communist Party who are in the slightest degree suspicious or unreliable ... should be got rid of"

I'll give you some help, it was not Stalin. Even Lenin was the first to launch a purge within the party. The 90% of ex-tsar officers were already in the state apparatus with Lenin. He even admitted the soviet state to be the tsarist bureaucratic machine slightly anointed with soviet oil.

Moreover, Lenin was also the first to launch his armies to recover the territory lost after the fall of the Russian Empire.

The truth is that the civil war is a very piss pooring justification and even considering it, the war ended in 1922 and none of those measures was reverted. As far as the ban on factions goes there is no evidence in the text that the measure was meant to be only temporary. The secret police was reorganized way after the civil war ended.

Trotsky while he had political responsibilities in Russia never contested those measures, supported it and even proposed even more authoritarian measures (militarization of labor). He only became concerned about the party internal democracy when he realized Stalin's threat.

When people say that Stalin betrayed the revolution and Lenin's ideas they are intentionally ignoring this part of history. The truth is that it was Lenin who first betrayed the revolution. Stalin simply took it to the extreme.

That is no problem in calling Stalin a power hungry tyrant but at least be coherent in your analysis specially on Lenin's and Trotsky's role.

[Blake's Baby]

OK; back to basics.

A proletarian revolution happens in a country with a couple of million workers and some of the most advanced capitalist enterprises in the world, in the world's 5th biggest economy - which was however in a country of tens of millions of peasants.

But it is impossible for an isolated revolutionary state to build 'socialism'. Socialist society will be created after capitalism, and capitalism is obviously still with us. It is a world system and needs to be defeated as a world system. It wasn't.

So, what could be created in Russia? Not socialism. Only another form of capitalism. There is no other option, I don't think.

It's a bit egotistical maybe to quote one's own posts but a couple of days ago I posted this explanation of the situation in the early 20th century, regarding Russia and the prospects of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which relate to the question being asked here:


"In the Critique, Marx says “Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat”.

So, for Marx, the DotP is a 'political transition period' which corresponds to a transition in the economy.

But as socialism in one country is not possible, the DotP can only be a period of political transition corresponding to an economic transition if the world revolution succeeds. If there is no possibility of the transition to socialism - because of 9mm's 'unfavourable material conditions' (ie the defeat of the world revolution) - then what becomes of the DotP? It's a political form that doesn't correspond to any kind of material reality, a 'political transition period' that doesn't correspond with an economic transition period. All that the dictatorship can do, isolated in one revolutionary territory, is seek to organise capitalism (not transform it) in order to defend any 'gains' of the revolution, though of course, as we have seen in the 20th century, it is at the same time dying on its feet as it is deprived of any material basis other than the continued existence of capitalism. A revolutionary political form cannot survive in a non-revolutionary period, because the basis of the revolutionary political form is the suppression of capitalism; and by the early 1920s the revolution was in retreat and the capitalist powers once more on the attack. The 'unfavourable material conditions' did not allow the revolution to extend and thus what came out of the defeat of the revolution was a - I hesitate to use the word - 'deformed' version of the DotP, which had not begun the transition to socialist society because it had been prevented from doing so. "

[Red Enemy]

As the title says. I hear all the time that the reason was because Russia was very disconnected from the rest of the world and that it's infrastructure was annihilated, but is this really the only explanation? How did a supposedly fast-growing and vibrant mass worker's movement full of aware and motivated people transform so quickly into an oppressive, bureaucratic, anti-working class and chauvinist nation? Does anyone know some legitimate statistics for when the Soviets began to lose their political power, what the pre-Stalinist USSR planned to do now that Europe's nations had turned themselves into a united wall and who else besides the big bad mo was pushing for these disturbing transformations?

Where did that enormous proletarian body disappear to?

I'd very much like the opinions of some well read comrades on this one.

As was said, there wasn't an enormous proletarian body to begin with. There was a majority of them as revolutionary, but the proletariat were not the majority. The civil war saw the proletariat population decimated.

We turn to the context of the situation again. Lenin and the Bolsheviks saw a coming German, and thus world, revolution to save them from the underdeveloped nature of Russian capital and everything else.

[l'Enfermé]

We don't even have to go as far in time as the defeat of the world revolution in, say, 1923, to see when things really started to go wrong. During the October Revolution, a Dictatorship of the Proletariat was established. It was based on a very theoretically advanced and militant working class(probably the most theoretically advanced working class in the world, after the German, actually, it's not a coincidence that German Marxist literature was translated more into Russian than any other language). Then during the course of the Civil War and the Imperialist Intervention, industry collapsed, most of the advanced sections of the proletariat were butchered at the fronts, the cities were depopulated, and so on. The Russian proletariat pretty much ceased to exist as a class. International capital and its lackeys killed it. Under such conditions, it's ridiculous to speak of a dictatorship of the proletariat. You need a proletariat for that. The party tried to substitute itself for the class but under the existing unfavourable conditions that was impossible, and perhaps it would have been impossible under much more favourable conditions.

As for the Soviets, did they ever lose political power? I don't think so. Because I don't think they ever had any. Political power was in the hands of the RCP(b), exactly where it should have been. The Bolsheviks used the Soviets just as a tool to legitimatize their power. Soviets were just councils, whoever had the majority in them had the power, and the Bolsheviks never lost their majority, except for in some of the provincial Soviets where Menshevik and SR scumbags temporarily gained majorities in 1918(at the second Congress of the Soviets, 390 of the 649 delegates were Bolsheviks, at the third Congress(Jan 1918), 860 out of 1648 delegates were Bolsheviks, at the 4th(March), 795 out of 1204, at the 5th(July), around 750 out of 1164, at the 6th in Nov 1918, 963 out of 1296, at the 8th in December 1920, 2284 out of 2537, and so on), but never in the centers of political power like Petrograd and Moscow.

The Soviets were always impotent on their own, they were relevant only because of the parties that were represented in them(Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and SRs, mostly, delegates not belong to those 3 parties were were almost non-existent). They weren't even inherently revolutionary on their own until the Bolsheviks won a majority and turned them into their organs. See, for the example, the Soviets where the Menshevik-SR won majorities, after October, on a platform that proposed abolishing "Soviet power" and handing over pretty much all political power to the bourgeois parliament that was to be reconvened. Or the councils of the German Revolution.

[Let's Get Free]

I'd say that the single biggest factor was in capturing power in advance of majority of workers becoming socialists, which can only mean one thing - you are stuck with capitalism. Whether you like it or not you are obliged to administer capitalism since there is no way you can yet introduce socialism. This was the problem the Bolsheviks faced. In administering capitalism they were compelled by the very nature of the system itself to promote the interests of capital against those of wage labor, and ruthlessly suppress the proletariat.

[commieathighnoon]

We don't even have to go as far in time as the defeat of the world revolution in, say, 1923, to see when things really started to go wrong. During the October Revolution, a Dictatorship of the Proletariat was established. It was based on a very theoretically advanced and militant working class(probably the most theoretically advanced working class in the world, after the German, actually, it's not a coincidence that German Marxist literature was translated more into Russian than any other language). Then during the course of the Civil War and the Imperialist Intervention, industry collapsed, most of the advanced sections of the proletariat were butchered at the fronts, the cities were depopulated, and so on. The Russian proletariat pretty much ceased to exist as a class. International capital and its lackeys killed it. Under such conditions, it's ridiculous to speak of a dictatorship of the proletariat. You need a proletariat for that. The party tried to substitute itself for the class but under the existing unfavourable conditions that was impossible, and perhaps it would have been impossible under much more favourable conditions.

As for the Soviets, did they ever lose political power? I don't think so. Because I don't think they ever had any. Political power was in the hands of the RCP(b), exactly where it should have been. The Bolsheviks used the Soviets just as a tool to legitimatize their power. Soviets were just councils, whoever had the majority in them had the power, and the Bolsheviks never lost their majority, except for in some of the provincial Soviets where Menshevik and SR scumbags temporarily gained majorities in 1918(at the second Congress of the Soviets, 390 of the 649 delegates were Bolsheviks, at the third Congress(Jan 1918), 860 out of 1648 delegates were Bolsheviks, at the 4th(March), 795 out of 1204, at the 5th(July), around 750 out of 1164, at the 6th in Nov 1918, 963 out of 1296, at the 8th in December 1920, 2284 out of 2537, and so on), but never in the centers of political power like Petrograd and Moscow.

The Soviets were always impotent on their own, they were relevant only because of the parties that were represented in them(Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and SRs, mostly, delegates not belong to those 3 parties were were almost non-existent). They weren't even inherently revolutionary on their own until the Bolsheviks won a majority and turned them into their organs. See, for the example, the Soviets where the Menshevik-SR won majorities, after October, on a platform that proposed abolishing "Soviet power" and handing over pretty much all political power to the bourgeois parliament that was to be reconvened. Or the councils of the German Revolution.

No serious scholars dispute that the RCP(b) would have lost the majority to the July 1918 Congress to the Left SRs if they had not jerrymandered the apportionment of seats/stacked the chamber for their benefit.

The working-class was severely deformed and weakened by the war, but it is simply idiocy to suggest it "ceased to exist"--the someone after all organized the strike waves in Petrograd and Moscow in 1921 (loyally timed and organized not until after Wrangel was expelled from the Crimea and thus the consolidation of soviet power not seriously in doubt) and worked the munitions factories for starvation rations, after all. Simon Pirani in The Russian Revolution in Retreat: The Soviet workers and the rise of the new communist elite 1920-4 demonstrates there was the political desire and consciousness across the working class masses, and the desire even to form new and independent from compromised parties, organization. The capacity for coalition between Communist and "non-party" (though surely they would've eventually organized as some party or fraction if permitted) workers in the structure of the soviets existed, and could have been turned to. A substitutionist dictatorship was consolidated as an alternative.

[Le Socialiste]

It doesn't cover everything you're asking, but I'd refer you to this post I made over a week ago. It covers the sharp decline of Russia's urban population over the course of the civil war, and how these demographic shifts partially contributed to the transformation of the Bolshevik party:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...1&postcount=73

If you don't feel like reading through the entire post, here's that specific part in full:

Some statistics: in 1918 alone, Petrograd lost approximately 850,000 people; a handful of cities (including Pskov and Nizhny-Novgorod) last half or more of their populations between 1917-20; Moscow's declined by 40%. The atomization of the working-class undermined the basis of Soviet power, and by extension that of the Bolshevik party.

The fact of the matter is, you need to take all these aspects into account and assess how each factored into and impacted the other. The Russian economy was devastated over the course of WWI; collapses in international and domestic trade during the period between 1914-1916 were exacerbated by inflation, and by 1918-20 Russia's industrial output amounted to less than 20% of prewar levels. The Treaty of Brest-Litvosk deprived the country of essential agricultural and industrial land(s), which Lenin and others believed would be ameliorated by revolution in Germany. Within mere months of the October revolution civil war broke out, with the Whites aided and abetted by the Allied powers. Britain, Japan, and the U.S. (among several others) intervened in the conflict, providing military support and material aid for the counterrevolution.

Of course, in the wake of all this the international - and domestic - scene was changed considerably: Germany was in the throes of revolutionary upheaval (though by 1922-23 this had moderately receded), and the radical wave of revolt that had swept across Europe after the events of 1917 had by and large given way to a gradual, but shaky, recovery. The revolution in Russia was isolated politically and economically. Nearly a full decade of devastating wars and upheavals had left the economy in tatters, its working-class atomized and reabsorbed into the peasantry (or killed at the front). The Bolsheviks were confronted with the reality of ruling in the name of a class and revolution that were on its last legs. The party fell victim to substitutionist tendencies that effectively minimized the importance of class struggle and the hegemony of the proletariat.

In the midst of all this was the development and entrenchment of state capitalist relations amongst all layers of socioeconomic and political life. While not wholly similar to a bourgeois class, the core function of the bureaucracy bore some striking resemblances, including the aim of capital accumulation, commodity production, the extraction of surplus-value from the proletariat and its realization as profits of the state - which in turn went towards the furtherance of other productive means. Amidst these conditions the social and political transformation of the Bolshevik's role as a party gave way to a deeply conservative, and ultimately reactionary tendency. One can point to Stalin as the culmination of these processes (indeed, he headed the party during this formative period), which subsequently resulted in the curbing - if not outright dismantlement - of those gains made during and after the events of 1917.

[Art Vandelay]

I'd say that the single biggest factor was in capturing power in advance of majority of workers becoming socialists, which can only mean one thing - you are stuck with capitalism. Whether you like it or not you are obliged to administer capitalism since there is no way you can yet introduce socialism. This was the problem the Bolsheviks faced. In administering capitalism they were compelled by the very nature of the system itself to promote the interests of capital against those of wage labor, and ruthlessly suppress the proletariat.

This runs on the assumption that the Russian Revolution's goal was to create socialism in one country. They were internationalists and had the world revolution as their only goal. The point isn't whether or not the conditions were viable in Russia, but were they viable on a global scale. After all Lenin himself stated that he would sacrifice October for a revolution in Germany. Also can you point me to a source that you've used to formulate the opinion that the majority of the Russian proletariat were not socialists? I've seen you make this claim a few times now and wonder where you're getting your information.

[Narodnik]

What went wrong? Lenin and Trotsky established party power, and made the single-party state the new master of the working people.

About the concrete situation, read Berkman's "The Bolshevik myth" and Goldman's "My disillusionment in Russia".

[Tim Cornelis]

Insisting that the Russian revolution degenerated in the way that it did solely due to its isolation and backward material conditions is false, in my view. Arguably, we can identify the above as the cause of the degeneration, but not the direction and shape this degeneration developed into. To say that state-capitalism in the manner in which it manifested itself in Russia and the Soviet Union was the inevitable outcome of the material conditions implies that the material conditions dictate everything and human action is futile (which would also mean that we should seize class struggle and just await it to spontaneously burst) as it is reduced to those conditions. I contend that the material conditions shape our choices, direct our society, but that human action can influence the shape, however constrained by said material conditons, of society nonetheless. In other words, objective conditions shape, broadly, our society, and subjective conditions that stem from the objective influence its details.

The question we need to ask is not why did the Russian revolution degenerate (which was due to its isolation and its backward material conditions), but why did it degenerate the way it did? In other words, why did it degenerate into state-capitalism and not self-managed capitalism, or private capitalism for that matter.

If we look at the Zapatistas in Chiapas Mexico we see that they face similar conditions the Russian revolution faced, only in a miniature variant. It is an underdeveloped, poor area dominated by peasants, that waged a revolution for socialism. Yet it became isolated and under siege. Both degenerated, but in entirely different directions. The Russian revolution degenerated into state-capitalism controlled by a bureaucracy from above, the Zapatista-controlled areas degenerated into self-managed capitalism based on democratic communes and self-managed peasant cooperatives. This, I think, indicates that the Russian revolution, if under alternate leadership, could have degenerated into self-managed capitalism based on cooperatives and workers' councils.

It was thus the deployment of erroneous means to deal with the unfavourable conditions in which the Russian revolution occurred that lead to this monstrosity called the Soviet Union that masqueraded as socialism. The centralisation and top-down implementation of various policies including Taylorism, strict worker discipline, and produce confiscation were not inevitable. Had instead the Bolsheviks not disintegrated bottom-up soviet democratic control, the Russian revolution would still be capitalistic, but at least self-managed that could have increased the sympathy for socialism (rather than decrease it) and served as the basis for a future regional and global socialist revolution (whereas under state-capitalism a new revolution altogether would be necessitated).

[Narodnik]

the Zapatista-controlled areas degenerated into self-managed capitalism

I don't know if you realize that self-managed capitalism is a contradiction in terms, if there is self-management, there is no capitalism. AFAIK, Zapatista communities are horizontal, therefore, no one can have subordinated people to take the products of their labor (suplus value), thus- there can be no capitalism there.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't know if you realize that self-managed capitalism is a contradiction in terms, if there is self-management, there is no capitalism. AFAIK, Zapatista communities are horizontal, therefore, no one can have subordinated people to take the products of their labor (suplus value), thus- there can be no capitalism there.

No, it most certainly is not a contradiction in terms since capitalism is not based only on legal expression of ownership (private individuals) and the issue of control and workplace relations. Your viewpoint implies that capitalism can be abolished in one enterprise alone (nevermind the one country thesis), which is ridiculous.

[Narodnik]

Your viewpoint implies that capitalism can be abolished in one enterprise alone (nevermind the one country thesis), which is ridiculous.

I don't see how. It just means that capitalism is abolished in that enterprise, but is practiced outside of it. If some enterprises use slave-labour, but some have stopped using it, that's not rediculous, that's slavery being abolished in that enterprises, but it is practiced in others. Same with coutries.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't see how. It just means that capitalism is abolished in that enterprise, but is practiced outside of it. If some enterprises use slave-labour, but some have stopped using it, that's not rediculous, that's slavery being abolished in that enterprises, but it is practiced in others. Same with coutries.

You do not change the fact that this enterprise is forced to engage in competition, which necessarily implies the following: (exchange) value production, exploitation, and profit. In this case, it is not important how profit is divided among workers (who would presumably hold shares) and what relations of control and management are developed. Stilly you have the basic economic unit of capitalism - the isolated enterprise - engaging in capitalist production and competition.

You don't see how since your understanding of capital is flawed.

[Narodnik]

You do not change the fact that this enterprise is forced to engage in competition, which necessarily implies the following: (exchange) value production, exploitation, and profit.

Exploitation means someone taking a part of someone's product of labor and doesn't have anything to do with competition or exchange. An enterprise can barter or sell it's products and be non-capitalistic - if there is no exploitation in it.

Stilly you have the basic economic unit of capitalism - the isolated enterprise - engaging in capitalist production and competition.

Being that there is no exploitation, that enterprise cannot be capitalistic.

You don't see how since your understanding of capital is flawed.

[Art Vandelay]

You don't see how since your understanding of capital is flawed.

Its quite clear that you don't have much of an understanding about economics, the claims you are making here are ridiculous. I'd suggest doing some reading on the matter before going around talking authoritatively about something you clearly don't understand. Its only going to make you look foolish. By your logic Tito's Yugoslavia was socialist.

[l'Enfermé]

No serious scholars dispute that the RCP(b) would have lost the majority to the July 1918 Congress to the Left SRs if they had not jerrymandered the apportionment of seats/stacked the chamber for their benefit.

Not in the worker's soviets, but in the peasants' Soviets, probably. But you say that like you're reproaching the Bolsheviks. Why? The Bolsheviks should have allowed for the Soviets to be diluted by allowing an inherently anti-socialist, propertied class, the peasantry, to be as well-represented as the workers in the Congresses?

The working-class was severely deformed and weakened by the war, but it is simply idiocy to suggest it "ceased to exist"--the someone after all organized the strike waves in Petrograd and Moscow in 1921 (loyally timed and organized not until after Wrangel was expelled from the Crimea and thus the consolidation of soviet power not seriously in doubt) and worked the munitions factories for starvation rations, after all. Simon Pirani in The Russian Revolution in Retreat: The Soviet workers and the rise of the new communist elite 1920-4 demonstrates there was the political desire and consciousness across the working class masses, and the desire even to form new and independent from compromised parties, organization. The capacity for coalition between Communist and "non-party" (though surely they would've eventually organized as some party or fraction if permitted) workers in the structure of the soviets existed, and could have been turned to. A substitutionist dictatorship was consolidated as an alternative.

I have read Pirani's book and a few of his articles online. It's inaccurate and politically biased. Not a fan of his Putin book either.

Had instead the Bolsheviks not disintegrated bottom-up soviet democratic control, the Russian revolution would still be capitalistic, but at least self-managed that could have increased the sympathy for socialism (rather than decrease it) and served as the basis for a future regional and global socialist revolution (whereas under state-capitalism a new revolution altogether would be necessitated).

In order for the Bolsheviks to disintegrate "bottom-up soviet democratic control", it would have had to have existed in the first place, which it didn't. As far as the Soviets go, at first they were powerless opposition organs, then an appendage of the SR-Menshevik Provisional Government, then they were crushed after the July Days, and then you had the Bolshevik dictatorship.