By definition, the criticisms of socialism apply to any situation in which all factors of production are owned by a single individual or group of individuals working in concert. Any situation like this can be called socialism regardless of whether this single party is called "the working class", "the people", "the state", "the elite", or "Rick and Morty".
The absence of input prices which would have otherwise arisen from the exchange of those factors of production between people intending to arrange them in mutually exclusive configurations and employ them toward mutually exclusive ends which best relieve the felt uneasiness of the greatest number of people makes it impossible to determine output prices, and by extension, quantity of output relative to the demand of those people. Absent the market exchange of the factors of production, there's no way to accurately express the time preference or demand of any individual in terms of finite supply.
That's why any situation in which all factors of production are controlled by a single individual or concerted group of individuals leads to short term, artificial surpluses as all accumulated capital is rapidly consumed and long term shortages as the supplies of said capital are replenished through production, the efficiency, quality and demand for which, again, depends on the input prices of its constituent factors.
It therefore doesn't matter who is in charge; socialism will always fail. The most efficient way to enable the individuals within the working class to express their preferences, thereby improving their quality of life, is to get out of the way of the entrepreneurs who are trying to supply the demand they create.
No amount of good intentions can nullify the implications of basic logic and praxeology.