Planned economies do work. Using the USSR as an example, they achieved tremendous economic growth surpassing the vast majority of capitalist economies, all while under intense sanctions and invasion.

The USSR and other socialist economies have been some of the most rapidly developing countries in history.

Lemmy itself is not a product of capitalism, either, FOSS can be used by capitalism but largely sits outside that.

Public ownership was the principle aspect of its economy, and private ownership was mostly relegated to black markets

Public ownership doesn't make a mode of production, it's a falsifier belief (such as of Lassalle) Marx himself had to fight against that he called bourgeois socialism.

The economy did not rely on the circulation of capital, or its continuous transmogrification.

This does make their mode of production not purely capitalistic though I agree, even though the system wasn't capital-free. Still, a lot of the social relations remained, enough for opportunism to still be heavily encouraged by the system especially when it came to the party and bureaucratic management of the capital.

That being said, it was still not socialist economy - a socialist economy comes after productive forces are sufficiently developed and commodity production has been completely abolished. Until then it hasn't changed the mode of production yet from capitalist, with it being mixed at best and it instead is a period of DOTP where productive forces are developed or reorganized, which, don't get me wrong, is a massive step forward and a massive achievement, but one that can be reversed unlike historical transformation of mode of production.

Stalin redefined socialism, which was previously viewed as the abolishment of capitalism into something entirely different and pretty much one of the main major goals into "whatever USSR was at the time", which was quite a disgusting move in terms of opportunism, though may have had good intentions back when it was done. Now, it just serves to confuse people and as an excuse to call capitalism a different name.

Though, this is something we'll NEVER see eye to eye with lmao

Socialist countries have not been oligarchial nor dictatorial. They haven't been utopian wonderlands free from any problems either, but they've been dramatically more democratic for the working class than capitalist countries.

I understand your position very well, it's just wrong and based on critical misunderstandings of socialism in theory and in practice. Simple as that. Collectivized production and distribution works very well when it comes to economic growth and satisfying the needs of more people.

I'm not discounting "human nature," you're attributing it as a problem for socialism when that isn't the case. Again, socialism doesn't care if everyone is perfectly moral and upstanding, that has nothing to do with how we run collectivized production. You should familiarize yourself with what leftists are actually talking about before waxing poetic about how there's some fundamental flaw we haven't properly understood, as though we don't hear the same tired arguments day in and day out.