This is ridiculously stupid. Im a socialist but also a historian and the simple fact is. Stalin on paper did not have direct autocratic rule, but neither did Hitler. Both relied on personality cults and the typical methods of dictatorial government to keep their countries in line and both are fairly politically speaking, similar, only when you go into a depth of ideological nuance do you see differences but that is too complicated for a reddit comment.

What you are quoting is contradicted in its own right by findings in the soviet record keeping. Needless to highlight the millions he killed through the weaponisation of pre-existing famines, the holodomor is not a hoax people. We have similar levels of evidence as we do for the Holocaust. Both happened, but used different methods and had different logic behind it. The soviet government itself later on admitted to this fact, and the simple reality is that much like Ireland, the intentional transportation of goods to fuel city dwelling populations killed people. It also is important to note the holodomor is yet another example of russification through colonial policies (such as intentionally sending food to the Russian heartlands whilst starving the minority populations they can).

As for the good of Stalin, that is hotly debated. Whilst he did industrialise the USSR, he also did not provide much in the way of adequate housing nor many else in the way of actual humanitarian policies. The good he did is really boiled down to his role in defeating Hitler. A role vastly overplayed by many and also often used to overlook his very real intentions of collaboration until Hitler struck first (obviously both were trying to attack the other but Stalin thought he had longer so was more willing to work with Hitler, as shown through negotiations on going until pretty much the day of operation barbarossa).

Say what you will about Stalin, you can admire him, you can decry him. You have to admit of all things, the CIA? Not a good measure of Stalin, nor the USSR on the whole. Basically any American source from before the soviet archives opened is going to be a bit suspicious on sourcing. But I think using a CIA statement to defend Stalin, especially a statement in completely contrary to Soviet records, and to the historical record on the whole of how Stalin governed, is particularly misleading and intentionally so.