See my post from a previous discussion thread
Well no, Lenin wasn't the paranoid mass-murderer Stalin was and I don't think he would have unbalanced the Soviet economy quite so heavily away from consumer goods and towards military industries. But Lenin was much worse for Russia's economy, taken in the round, than Stalin was. War Communism nearly destroyed Russian industry. By 1929 Russia's industrial economy was only back to 1914 levels and there was some industrial growth between 1914-17 mainly in heavy industry. So Lenin left Russia a less economically developed country than he found it. Doesn't matter if the SRs/Provisional Government go more slowly than Stalin did, they don't have a 60% reduction in the size of the industrial economy to contend with and are starting from a higher initial base. They may be climbing the ladder more slowly but they didn't fall off the ladder and have to start again at the bottom.
There would be ongoing political unrest yes if any of those groups come to the top but there wouldn't actually be economic shrinkage as OTL. And all of those groups are military modernisers. No matter how reactionary, they all want to build tanks, armoured cars, machine guns, battleships and submarines and want field radios for their troops. They aren't about to reimpose serfdom. Civil and industrial unrest will die down post war because peace and bread (if not land) will still be delivered. Yes, probably some pogroms and forced emigration but no Great Purges. There was plenty of anti-Semiticism in the OTL USSR and a friend brought up there told me that there were also quite a few incidents that would be characterised as race riots in the West in the Caucaus, Kazakhstan and Siberia - they just weren't reported in the Soviet media. The "Hard White" will be ruthless and hold life cheap but they would I think represent the best of Stalin rather than the worst. They wouldn't be ideologically paranoid, nor would they be as pathologically personally paranoid and would have no political objections to bankers and non-Marxist economists. Or to overseas trade and external investment. And while they might censor the press they are unlikely to waste huge resources on ensuring that scientific journals or a beekeeper's magazine display the right level of ideological purity. National rights wouldn't be great I agree but the main drivers for woman's rights in the twentieth century are still there - the typewriter, the need for skilled machinery operatives and the need for increasingly highly trained nurses.
Again, you are unduly pessimistic about a "Soft White" victory. Yes there would be analogies with Weimar (though Weimar wasn't as unstable as its detractors often claim and would have had a fighting chance of survival with a President other than Hindenburg). But, unlike Weimar, you wouldn't have had somewhere between 45%-50% of the population wanting the monarchy back. Unlike the Hohenzollerns the Romanovs had managed to discredit themselves with at least 70% of the Russian people. Russia had no War Guilt clause and no repariation payments. They might well want Poland, Finland and the Baltics back but no (even arguably) ethnic Russian territories had been lost (unlike Danzig, Saarland, Silesia or the Polish corridor). And whoever gets to rule at the point where the automobile, tractor, sewing machine and radio become widely affordable will pick up a certain amount of popularity. And the lack of an insistence on autarky and consequent foreign trade will bring in imported consumer goods. And no food shortages and a moderately efficient service sector.