Certainly all of these are factors.
The biggest and most catastrophic mistake, directly hastening the degeneration of the revolution, was the suppression of democracy- in the party- in the factories, the banning of any parties except those actively engaged in armed struggle for the restoration of capitalism.
There were of course powerful material constraints- an isolated economically devastated country devastated by war then almost immediately launched into civil war- the difficulties of working class rule and emancipation in this situation should of course not be underestimated. But neither are they in any sense excuses for policies which directly contributed to the revolution’s defeat. However, to a large extent Lenin I think did underestimate the difficulties comparing running an economy to running a post office if I remember correctly and thus underestimated the absolute necessity of workers’ democracy, factory and neighbourhood committees in negotiating the tending to infinity complexity of any reasonable sized economy. Centralised plans can only work when they are oiled by devolved democratic decision making right down to the level of soviets (workers’ councils) and factory, office or other workplace democratic forum.
The failure of the international revolution led to an increasing and ultimately counter-productive over-insistence on discipline to protect the revolution. Discipline was indeed needed but should have been imposed collectively by democratic diktat not by the party substituting itself for the class.
Similarly, in a situation of civil war resolute discipline is needed with resolute democracy- discipline imposed by councils of soldiers with election and recall of officers (all basic non-contentious socialist principles)
Of course extreme economic hardship, famine and crisis, make all these aspects of workers’ democracy very hard to implement but actually make them all the more essential as without them there is a very real risk that the revolution will be lost either to bourgeois or bureaucratic counter-revolution.
The lessons of October are that workers’ democracy is not an optional bolt-on extra or a luxury that can be postponed till the good times come but absolutely essential.
So far I’d suspect we’d agree.
However, where I think you mk12 put forward a simplistic analysis that could actually be in danger of not learning the lessons is by maintaining that Lenin and Trotsky were somehow evil manipulators from the start intent on stealing the revolution.
If life were so simple we could easily avoid that fate. Is it not at least possible and actually may be far more plausible that many genuine revolutionists who believed in the revolution- who sincerely believed in the ability and desirability of the working class to manage society nevertheless fell for the temptation to take short cuts, what seemed to them deeply regrettable and very necessary shortcuts to defend the revolution. Unless you acknowledge this then when the temptation comes to take those short cuts we won’t be ready to point out why those short cuts are in fact death by a thousand cuts to the very viability of the revolution itself.
I think the evidence is that in the wake of the February revolution there was an explosion of workers’ democracy of democratic forums, to precisely take forward the struggle for working class self-emancipation in every part and aspect of society. The Bolsheviks had their critics and indeed at times they may be underestimated the necessity of working class management and certainly much of Russian and much Marxist discourse has been scarred by overbearing arrogance, rudeness, and at times even manipulation.
But I think on balance that the Russian revolutions of February and October were overwhelmingly democratic. It led to a marvellous and in many ways inspiring mobilisation and explosion of working class creativity, of workers changing things from below. This self-activity of the workers is the essence of revolution that should be defended and extended.
If we recognise that the Bolsheviks won leadership in and through this democracy – then we are truly recognising the true scale of the problem
Because even this can degenerate into something the very opposite of socialism and liberation.
If instead we see it as a story of simple villains and heroes we risk simplifying the complexity of history and possible futures as lived by real flesh and blood people making decisions in almost unimaginably difficult circumstances. Then we can say- even when you are very genuine- don’t for a moment be tempted to compromise on the bottom line of the revolution- the democracy and self-activity of the masses.
If this is what being a socialist means then I plead guilty!
. It is worth studying because there were really profund changes which overthrew capitalism, insitigated a new socialist society if only very briefly and there's a lot to learn.
to return to the OP , IF we siad that we agreed that facilitation and humanistic education methods were the best COULD we say that ANY left parties follow this practise? 
