Actually, the Russian peasantry had little love for tradition, monarchy, and religion post-WW1.
Now, if you're referring to the 19th century, then yes, the peasants were resistant to even anarchist/narodnik agitation due to those reasons. But, World War 1, fought by the peasants, disillusioned them from the monarchy , which caused them to be some of the MOST revolutionary elements of February and October. The sailors of Kronstadt were peasants, often from a Ukrainian background. The greatest accomplishment of the Russian Revolution, besides the brief period of Soviet rule and worker's self-management, was the mass redistribution of land from the aristocrats to the mass of peasants. In fact, you can almost say that Russia's vast expanse of land naturally created a sort of Jeffersonian spirit amongst the peasantry.
And, this leads to the main issue between the Marxists and the peasants. Marxism literally denies or writes off the Jeffersonian society of yeoman farmers, which would be the revolutionary society in agrarian countries. It HAS to be feudalism - capitalism - socialism. The Bolsheviks merely wanted direct control of the capitalist process, whilst the Menshvieks would "let history run its course". Hell, this even applies to pre-capitalist artisan economies. Marxists frequently say "primitive capitalist" or whatever other malarkey to describe something that shares little in common with the wage labor and mass proletariatization that capitalism entails.
In fact, the whole idea of history running in stages on a linear path is sort of farcical. Slavery, feudalism, and Jeffersonianism can all exist at the same time/advance. (It has. See the American West/Switzerland contrasted with the American South/Brazil and both with France/Italy.) There are merely agrarian societies and urban industrial societies. (Primitive artisan societies sort of are an in-between, either having a palace economy or a guild economy.) This is not even counting the Oriental model of societies, where the bureaucracy/central government reins.
Anyways, the idea of small peasants owning their property was considered "backwards" by the Marxists, who wanted to crash-industrialize society to create the "conditions for democracy/socialism". Ironically enough, democracy was considered fit most for societies with equitable distributions of property, which fit the description for agrarian yeoman societies than with industrial capitalist societies. Of course, what Bolsheviks of the early 20th century considered to be "democracy" is the American/British model of "representatives". Parliament still existed, though now a "Congress of Soviets". (Though, the early Soviets were close to being direct democracies.) There were still ministers, now Commissars, and bureaucratic agencies. Marxism, ironically enough, takes a lot from liberal Whig Theories of History. Additionally, the peasants were quite nationalist, but the same can be said for the urban working class, or even more so.
Do note that Ukrainian nationalism has A LOT to do with these peasant movements against the Bolshveiks, and the main source for that was the intellectual Ukrainian "Renaissance" of the 19th century, which often was infused with the Narodnik ideology through the Zaporozhian Host. In fact, the Zaporozhian host was the inspiration of a lot of the peasant agitation in the Ukraine. The Ukrainian peasants saw themselves as descendants/heirs of the Cossacks, stripped of their freedom by the Tsar. Hence, local, often elected atamans leading small Green armies, Ukrainian republicans, and Black Army units, and the whole land seizure. (The Zaporozhain host was a democratic army based on direct democracy with atamans, the commanders, that are frequently elected, around once every 2 years. The Cossacks were a free or non-enserfed/small-holding people who had a pastoral society.) This nostalgia for the Zaporozhian host plays a large role in the rise of Ukrainian nationalism, Narodism, and even the rise of Makhno's Black Army, with the rank-and-file adopting Zaporozhian symbols which the anarchist intellectuals little understood. These intellectuals simply repeat the same anarchist/cosmopolitan/individualist talking points which ironically enough resonated less with the peasants and even workers than Zaporozhian nostalgia.
In fact, the peasantry saw the grain requisitions and collectivization as REVERSALS of the Revolution, not as the Revolution going too far. They even thought of it as the return of Tsarist serfdom.
Basically, peasants were SRs, Mensheviks/Bolshveiks were urban intellectuals, and workers, already poor and disadvantaged, didn't have the raw numbers or strong union organization required to impact politics like they did in the West. Hence, compare the workers' lack of response to losing self-management completely to the peasants' response to grain requisitions.
