It does not say “Russia is the greatest country to have ever existed” so your analogy doesn’t work.

The analogy is apt because it’s drawing attention to the inherent disingenuous nature of the post, i.e. making a point of Russia’s rapid growth industrially without taking into account the massive mortality and suffering that went hand in hand with that. They are, at least arguably, of equal moral dubiousness.

It just talks about the economics.

Hmm… and what powered and lived under said economy, I wonder… Surely it couldn’t be the people and the society they compose, which are thereby necessary to mention in this context to remain logically coherent… No, the economy must live in some nonsensical and abstracted theoretical realm, so we can just go with that, certainly.

human rights abuses…literally not relevant to the argument being made.

This is a joke, right? You don’t actually think the society and people an economy is composed of and the suffering they are dealt is “irrelevant” to said economy? I’m sorry, but what the flying fuck kind of logic even is this?

such a weird ‘nobody is right’ stance

Assuming you’re not a campist, I’m sure you can understand the fact that reality (and therefore any opinion also) isn’t so black and white as needing to pick one group or the other without allowing for any nuance.

there’s not a point that has been made by pointing out that Stalinism was bad.

Considering how OP’s post consists of a juxtaposition between Russia’s rapid industrialization and the way they are typically portrayed in the US without any nuance, I think most would agree that it’s important to consider the human cost involved in said industrialization, specifically at the hand, at least in part, of Stalinism. Economies can’t really be discussed historically in an abstract bubble separated from any and all sociological factors, that’s not how it works, like, at all.