Domestic repression of socialists had nothing to do with the Bolshevik Revolution, and everything to do with the Socialist Party of America's strident opposition to imperialist wars (most anciliary socialist groups as well).
The Red Scare was purely about native radicalism, which was only slightly influenced by Bolshevism in this period. The majority of the cadres of the Socialist Party were already in aligned to a revolutionary position before the Bolsheviks took power. In essence, they were already Bolsheviks before Bolshevism became known internationally.
This was also a battle that they could not win. Whatever support they had won for opposing an unpopular war was progressively beaten out of them by state repression that extended to the early 20s. The SPA itself splintered, as the party leadership expelled the majority of the membership for being too radical (another aside; the membership and electorate of the SPA had been out of step with the leadership since 1912, with the majority being of a much more radical, revolutionary bent like Debs, while the office holders from the Midwest cities controlled much of the party's national infrastructure).
Essentially nothing changes through the 1920s. It is highly likely there'd be a left-right factional split even without the Bolshevik Revolution. There'd still be the First Red Scare. The difference is that the mass left of the party, if it could hold together, wouldn't be marching based on the orders of the Soviet government, and might be freed from the constant mistakes that were forced on them, espescially by the 30s. In the Depression, they re-emerge as significant force on the left. And at that point, it's anyone's guess, because the New Deal isn't pre-ordained by Providence. Without activist left-leaning federal policy, the far-left will be the big long-term winner in the Depression. But they probably won't take power until after recovery if they even can.