I must confess a considerable gap in my own knowledge of Soviet history in the pre- and post-war years, so I can't really claim that anything Matt says is explicitly wrong, but, he does make a very good point at the beginning that to assign blame or praise uniquely on Stalin alone for the Soviet Union's economic rise and misdeeds is tantamount to religious mysticism and bears the same pitfalls of great man theory. Stalin did not act alone, nor was the USSR run by the whims of one man.

As for Stalin's loser cowardice in the immediate post-war to not better exploit his own state power to act as a better contrast against the influence of Capital - I'd like to read some good sources that cover this as another potential path. Ultimately, I still agree with Matt that debating the merits of Stalin is pointless and exhausting in the present.