Which "Russian Revolution?"
The February Revolution or October?
Most everyone has been presuming the latter. For very good reasons of course; the February Revolution was an expression of the utter breakdown of the Tsarist system in the face of German advances. February and the effective end of the Romanov dynasty were pretty much inevitable; Lenin's takeover not so much.
Of course at least a few here have been moving the POD earlier, supposing that Stolypin might have singlehandedly reformed or overruled A)Tsar Nicholas's own stupidity B) that of the entrenched Russian ruling elites that Bloody Nicholas pretty well represented C) the radical leanings of both the populace and the intelligentsia. (OTL virtually every intellectual in Russia was some kind of Marxist or other on the eve of WWI; the fighting was over which faction would prevail!)
Well, I am not so sure anyone should believe in Super-Stolpyn. It's all very well to have some reforms here and there, but every reform alienates vested interests and OTL that inevitable reaction did prevail; how could it not? Meanwhile it also stirs up both discontent and hope among the masses--hence the prevalence of not only Marxism but a bunch of other more or less leftist, populist sentiments--the Social Revolutionaries's agrarian populism for instance. Dutiful students of Austrian/Marginalist Ec 101 and its libertarian gospel might suppose that a peaceful middle-class Russia was in the cards somehow if the leadership were only clever and far-sighted enough; surely that was the conventional wisdom among the self-named "respectable classes" in Western Europe and America. But was it ever really possible? I for one doubt it very much.
Russia is on the periphery of capitalist Europe. Since big, highly developed capitalist nations had already formed at its core and were well along in the process of dividing up the whole world into fiefdoms of capitalism in general and specific national spheres of interest in particular, Russia was too late to follow their path. Russia could either fall into a designated role in such a colonial system, as market and above all source of resources for one or more central capitalist power. Or perhaps strike out and seek development on different terms, but doing so would surely bring them into conflict with established capitalist powers. Failure to develop under one rubric or another is not an option--if Russia cannot develop sufficient technical industry to arm her populace sufficiently well, some European power would surely invade. Germany is the obvious first candidate.
Now, had Germany won rather than lost WWI, the Germans would have other options. Still, if Russia sits there stagnant and undeveloped, such a Germany would be tempted anyway, and no one could stop them. Whereas if Germany loses WWI, their weakness which might limit them is offset by their lack of other opportunities--Drang nach Osten is again the watchword, unless the Russian regime is so strong that this is clearly no option.
I think there were good reasons Stolypin got only so far and was not succeeded by other reformists of similar mind. Had this sort of benign market paternalism worked somehow, presumably WWI itself might be butterflied away and the whole 20th century a history of progress, with puppies and ponies for all.
Meanwhile most here have been assuming Russia goes straight into WWI and gets mangled by the Germans just as OTL, and February presumably happens inevitably as the Tsar's machinery comes unglued, and focusing not so much on a situation that pre-empts Lenin as one where he tries but fails.
Again, consider Russia's situation, now made worse by defeat in WWI and subsequent Civil War, and remove the particular strand of Marxism focused on industrial development that did prevail OTL. If some other more or lest leftist, more or less populist (at least in theory) bunch of reformers prevail instead, you have Leninism under another name, probably less successful and no less bloody. Also bereft of their class basis, pretty much. Suppose the Social Revolutionaries emerge as the plausible alternative? They were the party of the peasantry on the land. Presumably if they can somehow secure order, they won't worry so much about industrializing and focus more on what benefits the farmer immediately, to heck with the cities--most of the urban masses being people who only recently left the countryside anyway, presumably many of them come home again. Now what? In the best case, Russia accepts the role assigned to it in the capitalist world-system, becoming a source of resources and a minor market (minor because despite its population, the peasants though perhaps better off than under Stalin are hardly going to be rich either; at best they get along fairly well, but can't buy a whole lot). Thus it is little threat--and a potential prize for any upstart in the first world that decides to revise the prevailing pecking order. Again Germany comes to mind...
And this too is a roses, rainbows, and unicorns scenario compared to the ugly realities on the ground in 1917. The SRs may have had potential numbers if they could deliver the goods for the people they presumed to represent, but they did not have organized force. The Civil War was between Bolsheviks and mostly a hard core of monarchist authoritarians, who may or may not have been politic enough to keep some ragtag populists or progressivists on the side, backed mainly by foreign interventionists--first German, then Entente.
Supposing for a moment that one of these factions could have crushed the Bolsheviks and then either broken their rivals or incorporated them into a general system. The spectrum of choices they would then face would be pretty much the same as those the Bolsheviks did. Choose good relations with the Western powers and that is choosing backwardness, semi-colonial status, and vulnerability. Choose industrialization and that would go against the grain of the established Western nations as well as stir up unrest among the people--and so with conflict with the West pretty much guaranteed and domestic discontent as well, either such a venture would be abortive or it would double-down to ruthlessly achieve sufficient development to strengthen whatever regime against enemies both foreign and domestic. Fail by falling between these stools, and Russia gets Balkanized and meanwhile the Bolsheviks or someone much like them are still waiting in the wings for another try.
By far the most appealing alternative to a more or less successful Leninist revolution I have seen is LordInsane's Central East timeline, in which a shorter Great War with Germany victorious is followed by a shorter, swifter Civil War in Russia (after an earlier first revolution) that leaves a reddish regime in a much truncated Russian rump state, lacking huge swathes of land the Bolsheviks OTL managed to hang onto eventually. But, I gather, with far fewer casualties incurred so that the territory they do hold is much less devastated and the cadres of revolutionaries far less diminished. Meanwhile the Leninists, though present and influential, don't ever take complete control and the whole spectrum of Russian progressivism share a grudging balance of power in Moscow. The upshot is, more balanced and cautious economic development but from a less depressed base; a political balance of power giving the shelter of something closer to rule of law protecting political "outs" and leading to greater civility.
I just don't see Russia doing better on the whole under leadership that excludes the radical leftists completely than it did OTL. Frankly, if the non-Marxists were so smart and the Bolshies so very evil and worthless, why was Russia in the mess it was in in 1917 when the Bolsheviks took power?