Our current economic system is remarkably similar to the centrally planned economy the socialist dreamed of creating. Most productive enterprises have no controlling owners - the ownership of most public companies is highly dispersed and much of it in the hands of pension funds, etc. About the only difference between a socialist “paradise" and what we have now is that the indirect ownership of the means of production is not evenly distributed within society.
I don't think your argument works. If I drink a swimming pool full of water, I will die. Does that mean I should drink no water at all?
Any degree of central planning is harmful to us because: 1) it always represents an opportunity cost compared to people making choices themselves, and 2) the choices made by central planners are not made to benefit the masses (because otherwise they'd just let people make the choices themselves)
What would be the point of being in a position to make decisions for other people, if you were just going to do your best to benefit others, instead of yourself?
In conclusion, central planning ultimately just completely fucks up any economy. Check out Venezuela for a recent example.
So if 100% central planning results in a total catastrophe, then there should be no central planning at all, because any extent of central planning is harmful compared to less (or ultimately none at all).