@RexHiberiae the idea that autocracy is somehow inherent to the Russian character is frankly insulting and relies on the sort of stereotypes usually deployed against Chinese people, it has little basis in reality. Furthermore, you do not seem to be aware of the fact that famines can and do happen under non Marxist-Leninist regimes, and that there already was a famine brewing OTL even before 1917 due to the refusal of peasants to market food given the collapse of the consumer goods sector. You also seem to not comprehend just how unstable the Tsarist autocracy was in the early 20th century, even if it doesn't engage in the civil war its economy is cracking under the wave of industrial action by angry workers, the peasants are increasingly upset about agricultural reform, and worst of all, the Tsar himself is a complete incompetent, a weak and ineffectual leader nonetheless determined to preserve total autocracy as much as possible.
This is kind of important, because it's never as simple as just saying "well protectionism worked for other countries". It matters substantially what sort of protectionism is being implemented, and to protect which sectors, and the Tsarist regime was mostly doing it all wrong.Actually the tarrifs gave negative protection for Russian industries. They mainly protected the resource extraction sector (i.e capital inputs). Frequently the raw materials would be protected more than the finished product. This was a great weakness for industry not its strength. The tsar preffered protecting resource extraction for political reasons (favouring the aristocrats vs the capitalists).
Indeed, many industries received no protection whatsoever, while raw material costs increasingly ate up their capital.