I think it would be needlessly reductive and provocative to say it was "only" capitalist, but yes, basically, though I would describe it differently during different periods. The existence of capitalism is not itself the reference point I would use to determine the progress of a revolution, but the active prioritization of instituting proletarian political power (not representatives of the proletariat, or bureaucrats that start their career as workers, but people elected directly from soviets/workers councils, who will return to work in those places after they are recalled) over the social form inherited by the revolution.
I think 1917 to around ~1930 or so it could be accurately described as a dictatorship of the proletariat. There was a revolutionary party and armed force the successes and failures of which were largely determined by attempts to balance the political authority of the proletariat and peasants with the survival of the proletariat and peasants in the face of counterrevolution and civil war. In this stage the government had no illusions about having somehow become a socialist society simply because socialists seized the tsarist state machinery. The trials of the civil war led to restrictions on proletarian political power, the necessities of which should be analyzed and reconsidered but are not necessary to argue over ad infinitum as a lot of people like to do. Decisions were made by the bolsheviks to preserve and utilize many tsarist state mechanisms and to check the power of the communes themselves so that the dictatorship of the proletariat might survive and allow for proletarian rule that might allow for the restructuring of society such that wage-labor and commodity production were abolished. That did not happen. Attributing it moralistically to a betrayal by the bolsheviks is useless, the revolution was extremely vulnerable and hard decisions with unforeseen consequences needed to be made, though I do think as far as speculation and reconsideration can be helpful there is something to be said about the exclusion and the persecution of the Worker's Opposition as being a major role in the weakening of an already fragile DotP. The demands and positions of the Worker's Opposition would have introduced instability during a time of extremely high stakes, but in a revolutionary period of extremely high stakes one of the dangers as urgent as avoiding violent destruction seems consistently to be the undermining of proletarian & peasant political power under the illusion that it can be reinstituted later by decree of a party that is revolutionary but not composed of the revolutionary subject. Consolidation is necessary for survival but survival of the existing governing apparatus does not mean survival of the revolution.
In one of Lenin's last writings, he suggested expanding the responsibility and powers of the Worker's and Peasant's Inspectorate enormously so that they would be merged with the Central Control Commission and attend politburo meetings alongside the Central Committee and be informed and have say in decisions, as well as the expansion of the Politburo by 50-150 members drawn from the working class(https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/congress.htm),
and a more explicit dilineation of what Central Committee meetings would consist of and what members' mutual responsibilities would be. He expressed his fears that failing to overhaul the existing system would lead to the preservation of tsarist state mechanisms and the danger that the Central Committee needed to be restructured so as to "... not allow anybody's authority without exception, neither that of the General Secretary [Stalin] nor of any other member of the Central Committee, to prevent them from putting questions, verifying documents, and, in general, from keeping themselves fully informed of all things and from exercising the strictest control over the proper conduct of affairs."
This last point is especially relevant, as Lenin's "Last Testament" which criticized Trotsky, called for Stalin's recall, and general clarification of the administrative bodies roles and functions so as to eliminate excess bureaucracy and caution against splits. Authorship of his testament is disputed based on the claim that Lenin was too ill at this time to dictate it to his wife or his writer, but even if he was not the author the most reasonable theory is that if it was not written by Lenin it was written by his wife who was herself deeply familiar with the people and functions of the Central Committee.
Because of how significant the assessment and critique of this text was, it was only read to each Central Committee member individually and note-taking was banned. Circulation of the text was banned and considered a counter-revolutionary crime all through the Stalin period.
None of this is intended to rehash old useless bickering that claims if only Lenin had survived the revolution would have survived, or that Stalin was personally responsible for killing the revolution, both being absurd and reductive claims making an enormous amount of history contingent on the inclinations and words of a few men. But because Lenin's words command authority, it is helpful to cite him to demonstrate that far from being some kind of revisionism or ultraism, these were concerns held by the bolsheviks themselves, not to mention the proletariat and peasants who had to live and die with the consequences of so many compromises made in their name.
Message too long. Click
to view full text.