Nixon also asked the CIA to "make the economy scream". It's really unfortunate that most experiment in central planning were also complicated by the world's super power at the time trying to ensure that the experiment failed. Not to mention that their key export (copper) price crashed during those years.

Not to say that there wouldn't have been bad economic outcomes here otherwise, but it's clear that they were going up against the CIA.

Sabotage is probably the correct term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intervention_in_...

It was used to successfully navigate strikes, and the general idea was more decentralized than typical system these days.

Spoiler alert - most corporations are centrally planned.

In fact, the system design behind Cybersyn is closer to decentralized systems like Toyota Production System rather than centralized approaches exemplified in typical American corporations.

The whole point of cybersyn was that control loops were supposed t be established at multiple levels from bottom up, with higher levels interacting only when required for example to handle cooperation between multiple entities.

It's not unreasonable to hypothesize that a certain level of technology could make one work.

Cybersyn being strangled in the crib by the CIA isn't really good evidence in either direction.

Can you expand on that, or give references/examples?

Capitalism never stops working.

The problem Amazon is solving also involves a lot of data, that is true.

But it has lots and lots of price information to go on, both prices people are willing to pay for various goods at various times & places, and prices at which suppliers stop selling. That's what command economies didn't have, and it's why they didn't work. That was the criticism.