Peter I could not attempt Industrialization since that had yet to exist.
Peter was forcing development of the mining industry, metallurgy and general manufacturing. While this was not formally "industrialization" (how could he get ahead of the West!) it was an attempt to move in that direction. The problem was it failed in its purpose: Russia remained supplier of the natural resources.
The reforms of Peter I were made to do away with the Feudal System and enter the Absolutist State which was undoubtedly a step forward.
You are clearly confused on the subject. The "feudal system" was dead before Peter's reign and creation of the absolutist state in Russia started at the time of Ivan III and was completed before Peter was born.
The extension of serfdom actually helped Russia and allowed to export food and minerals since labor was fixed, true they were basically slaves but with their own institutions and traditional rights, like petitioning the Tsar, which Catherine did away with.
This extension killed any opportunity of industrialization for the next century and a half and as far as the "traditional rights" are involved within context of Peter's reign, there was a death penalty by hanging for the group petitions.
There are prerequisites for Industrialization namely land, labor, capital and entrepreneurship ask Adam Smith. The nobility had a lot of land, labor, capital just no entrepreneurship because there was no consistency in creation and application of laws, too much risk too little reward.
Knowledge of Adam Smith is not a substitution for ignorance in the Russian history. Nobility had land but did not have a capital. And as far as entrepreneurship was involved, except for the very few people on the very top, Russian nobility physically could not became entrepreneurs because until the reign of Peter III all males had to serve in the army or civic administration until they were permitted to retire due to an advanced age or because they became handicapped. Not to mention that in a "normal" society industrialization is supposedly associated with the capitalist class, not the nobility.
The merchant class in Russia had problems with becoming capitalists because the labor was in a short supply due to the Peter's "reform" of a serfdom and quite consistent policies of the following rulers all the way to AII.
A consolidated and formalized tax code or Finance Ministry could have alleviated fears of arbitrary collection and implementation of taxes.
The problem was not an absence of the formalized taxes but inability to collect taxes defined by the existing code.
The establishment of a State Bank again, this can alleviate capital problems and kick-start a financial industry.
The 1st state bank in Russia was created in 1768.
The class problem did not really exist since there was already a skilled urban middle class just the problem with the ad-hoc nature of Russian government.
Sorry, that "urban middle class" was skilled in what exactly if there were not industrial enterprises in the cities?
You have a well-developed imagination. The "coups" (and I'll be generous in definition) of the XVIII century:
1. Catherine I brought to power
2. Reign of Peter II - Menshikov removed from power; hardly a "coup" but let it be
3. Reign of Ivan VI - Biron removed from power;
4. Elizabeth took power
5. Catherine II took power
6. Paul I assassinated, Alexander I took power
It worth noticing that most of these coups changed noting in the terms of a broader administration and none of them changed fundamentals of the Russian empire so the state was quite stable.
That is administrative stability, the ability of an administration to remain consistent after crises, such as inheritance, civil war or unrest, mainly saying previous ruler implements such and such, new ruler removes such and such and implements such and such contrary to previous ruler. That does not make investor, inventors, bankers, people in general feel secure in taking risks.
Most of this is absolutely irrelevant to the subject including absence of the civil war in Russia between ToT and 1918. An implication that between XVIII and XIX century in Europe the next ruler was always following policy of a previous one does not stand up to any criticism. As far as Russia of the XVIII - mid-XIX was involved, there was very little in the terms of bankers and investors not because of the non-existent instability and unwillingness to take a risk but because the existing system by its
stability was making creation of the truly capitalist enterprises quite difficult and serf-based economy was basically preventing creation of the modern industries with the shareholders, investors, etc.: a noble serf owner was creating an enterprise on
his land with
his serfs as a labor force. If person was not a noble, he could not own the serfs and personally free labor was in a short supply.
Catherine did make discussions for tax and laws but they ended with little to show for. The hair, beard etc.
Actually, the hair tax did not exist and beard tax existed in Peter's time. As for the rest, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Russia had a well developed taxation system well before Peter who, rather typically, managed to screw things up by his "innovations" like individual tax, but by the time of Catherine his experiments had been rolled back. To be fair, one of his money-extracting schemes did work: usage of the "eagled" paper for the official purposes.
The canal and waterways project started early 1800 but when did it finish?
Yawn. You really don't know what you are talking about: the first waterway projects had been started during the reign of Peter I (Ladoga Canal - 1719 - 30) and work on the waterways systems continued during most of the XVIII. Construction of Mariinskaya System started in 1799 and it was opened in 1810.
Any progress is progress degree is arbitrary, and if you can give examples of Russian leader who successfully lead Russia into progress without Hard Handed rule give me and example. I can give Peter I, Alexander III, Stalin, Putin. (The Stalin part is sad but somewhat truthful)
Peter I - reforms failed. Russia remained supplier of the natural products, no industrialization. Long-term effect: expansion of a serfdom made industrialization impossible for the next century and a half. Cost of reforms and war between 20 and 25% of the population.
Alexander III - did not
force anything but industrialization started in a high rate due to the skillful attraction of the foreign capital and stimulating domestic developments. How exactly he (or rather Witte) qualifies as a "Hard Hand" I have no idea.
Stalin - did push industrialization through with the huge losses of a human life. Within less than 40 years Soviet economy created by him started crumbling due to the counterproductive model and by the late 1980s totally fall apart: unnatural methods do not produce the lasting results.
Putin is a strange example because, while being authoritarian, he does not have power compared to what Peter I or Stalin had and Russian 'progress' is rather narrow because it is too heavily relying on gas and oil exports.