Why socialism could not work even with virtuous men.

[The One and Only...]

If you actually look up your information, you'll find that they critized the theory, not just the SU. Especially left-anarchism.

Have you ever read some of the criticisms of Marx's labour theory of value? Have you ever thought about its implications? Let me take an example:

It takes me 4 hours to kill a deer. It takes another 4 hours to kill two deer.

Under Marx's theory, I should be able to trade in my one deer for his two.

Can you see the flawed logic yet?

The determining factors of the value of goods is the interaction between supply and demand; no more, no less. If all demand for a good went to zero, than its value would be zero as well, regardless of how long it took to make it.

The only thing the amount of labour required to make a good might be used to explain, as far as prices, is how it can affect the supply. If a good is easier to make, its supply might increase, making it cheaper. That does not mean that the amount of labor directly determines prices.

Of course Adam Smith supported the idea, for he is the one to develop the theory. I quote:

"IN that early and rude state of society which precedes both
the accumulation of stock and the appropriation of land, the
proportion between the quantities of labour necessary for
acquiring different objects seems to be the only circumstance
which can afford any rule for exchanging them for one another. If
among a nation of hunters, for example, it usually costs twice
the labour to kill a beaver which it does to kill a deer, one
beaver should naturally exchange for or be worth two deer. It is
natural that what is usually the produce of two days' or two
hours' labour, should be worth double of what is usually the
produce of one day's or one hour's labour."

On the other hand, the fact that virtually no modern economist uses the theory to explain anything should tip you off.

A critique of democratic decision making has been made before. First and foremost, the basis of all voting within a such a firm would be stock shares. Most workers would sell off most of their stock so that their portfolio would be diverse. Ultimately, only a small group of stockholders would hold any real leverage in decision making, and these would essentially be the new capitalists.

In a socialist context without stock, we lose all efficiency because bad decision-making does not lead to any losses for the firm.

Even if we took the first system and simply enforced all votes to be made on a one-per-person basis rather than that of stock, the only acheivements would be a less efficient firm. Why less efficient? The most obvious reason is that the majority of workers are not businessmen; they do not understand economics or what sort of actions need to be taken. Futhermore, democratic decision making takes time - time that could be better served by working. Finally, all basis of profit would be based on stock, rather than value to the firm (and in a socialist economy, all work is considered equal, which furthers inefficiency as well).