yes but even a "modest growth" of 5% was very significant jump particularly considering russia's crippled state post-WWI.
they didn't just appear to industralise, they actually did industrialise and rapidly. the problem was that the soviet economy grew too rapidly and then when it was met with new demands during the cold war it could not keep up. furthermore, because of stalin's rigid structure and centrally planning it was not well placed to switch to a new form of investment in the 1960s/70s
Actually, a 5% growth rate in a post-war period is pretty pitiful. Look at Japan after World War II. It went from a ruin to the second-largest economy in the space of two and a half decades. In the late 50's it had a growth rate of 10% per year.
After waging total war, everyone's growth rates are huge. It's called recovery. It happens no matter which ideology your government holds.
The problem wasn't that it grew too quickly. The problem was that it stagnated in some areas while exploding in others.
Steel production rose to previosuly unknown heights, such that just before the Great Patriotic War they were the worlds second largest producer. But their manufacturing industry didn't use all of it. Manufacturing requires more capital investment than heavy industry and the maufacturing was only aimed at further expanding the primary industry, which exacerbated the problem, or was military in nature, of which there is only so much that the government can afford. There were no automobile or consumer manufacturing industries.
So whilst people starved and wallowed in pitiful conditions, the steel producers continued to make more of their produce, only for it to go into storage.