You know, I have been working on debunking the pseudoscience in economics – whether under the pretenses of socialist, social democratic, classical liberal, or libertarian dogmas for a couple of decades now. And I have a very hard time grasping how anyone can be literate enough in the subject to ask such a question, and still suggest that socialism is possible ever under any conditions whatsoever.
I know why people intuit that such a thing is possible (it isn’t), at least it isn’t for more than a few decades, any more than uninsured (unregulated) markets are possible (they aren’t).
The better the demographics the higher trust the polity the more effective are markets (rule of law) and the worse the demographics, the lower trust the polity, the more effective is command and control (rule by discretion).
Socialist economies do not innovate because of incentives. In socialist economies people can enact change through access to command (rule by command), and they cannot innovate privately without fear of capture(theft) of the proceeds of their RISK. So, (and this is true through all of history) people maximize their effort in obtaining rents (parasitism).
It’s better to think of Marx, Freud, Boaz, Frankfurt School, and Postmodern schools as a kind of pseudoscientific fiction that competes with science fiction and fantasy and the novel to inspire us such that we learn about ourselves by what we wish could be but cannot be.
https://www.quora.com/In-theory-how-do-innovative-new-companies-get-created-in-a-textbook-socialist-economy