That is sometimes the argument yes. You’ve just hit on one of the major divisions between the revisionist and totalitarian schools of thought on the history of the USSR.

The totalitarian school dates back to the Cold War and suggests that the USSR from the mid 1920s to Stalins death was a top down totalitarian nation, similar to nazi Germany in that the state controlled everything and brutally suppressed those who failed to follow Stalin and by extension the party line. One historian who takes this approach is Pipes in his various books.

However more recent revisionist scholars like Fitzpatrick and Figes with the ability to read various parts of the Soviet archives after the fall of the USSR tend to have a different approach. Fitzpatrick in particular argues that many of the Bolsheviks actions were reactive and a response to what occurred at a local level, emphasising the way that the people of the USSR influenced how the state functioned. According to Fitzpatrick the totalitarian school does over emphasise the importance of Stalin, suggesting that much what happened in the USSR under Stalin was not due to Stalin scheming on how to gain greater power but due to genuine fear and reaction to developments on the ground.

The issue was also contested in the USSR with Kruschev and Brezhnev taking different stances on Stalins influence and effect on the USSR. Kruschev’s answer was firmly yes Stalin has a huge impact and that basically all of the things he did were negative. Brezhnev had the approach that Stalin had a decent amount of influence in his time and was for the most part good to the USSR. However when Stalin failed to follow the will of the party he suggests, bad things happened.

So basically yes and it’s a point of debate to this day.