Maybe centrally planned economies could be made to work?
Maybe currency and investment could be directly controlled?
What fraction of the population would be allowed to starve and die?
My take is that central planning's problem wasn't one of where the planning took place, it was one of data quality (freshness, accuracy), inadequate data, and problems in the agenda for using it. Integrated macro- and micro-planning will still suffer from the central-agenda issue, depending on the motivations and means of the planners. But coordination up and down, for purposes that are not exclusively for the generation of cash, seems worth exploring.
Discussion today in one paper about prescribed burns in Yosemite held up due to air quality laws, but no mention of jailing Mother Nature for the air quality violations of a major forest fire. I suspect the long-term sustainable carrying capacity of the Earth for humans is rather less than the number outstanding today, but starve and die seems worse than options we could engineer if we wanted to. Fight in battles and die will be a lot of them too if things swung the wrong way.
We need economies that allow nations to distrust each other, and in the USA at least allow every individual to distrust every other. Socialism seems to work best for those who buy into a social contract and the USA is losing those people left and right, egged on from within and its adversaries.
But social market economies do work right now.
That's the only version of "communism" I can see as a steelman.
Communism as a centrally planned economy can not work until central planning system will be as smart and knowledgeable about peoples needs as the people themselves.