Not long term, probably not. Centralized planning is too inefficient in the long term that it will be outcompeted by decentralized economies. The core issue is that is relies on bureaucrats (though I strictly use this term neutrally) to be specialists in various different fields of human endeavor and technology and to juggle competing demands and trade offs.
Voters, seeing their standards of living progressively fall (more on that below) relative to other countries, will express their discontent by voting out the centralized system. This what UK voters did in the accepted answer. Unless, of course, the centralized system could magically deliver at least nearly as good economic efficiency as decentralized systems, but that's unlikely to happen. And, as far as I know, it has never happened in a modern, efficient, economy. Though, it could happen in olden times, as with Colbert, mostly because economies functioned at such a low bar that competent technocrats could improve things. This could also be true at the initial stages of a poor country developing, assuming the central technocrats were competent and not corrupt. But once the country was bootstrapped enough, it would benefit from freer innovation which a centralized system is unlikely to deliver.
The longer version...
What do we use for mechanical computers? Pneumatic gates or electronic ones? Do we take the side of farmers? Or that of fertilizer manufacturers? Do we privilege fossil fuel car companies? Or EV startups? How do you even startup a company? Nokia's phone division, assuming it existed at all, would have never been replaced by Apple/Android in this scheme of things. How does a really bad company go out of business?
The best way to sort that out is to allow different solutions to compete against each other and evolve towards best practices, rather than solving it top down. That may be what we think of as free market capitalism, but it could also be other forms like cooperatives, family-owned businesses, whatever, as long as there are sufficient independent actors trying things out.
There is also more scope for corruption. And, arguably, little incentive for productivity if workers are guaranteed a job for life in a big state-owned company
*. And, really, what people object to from big corporations, power-seeking bosses and backstabbing people, just gets shifted from private companies to the central government.
The other alternative is the Venezuela alternative - keep yourself in power regardless of what voters actually think.
p.s. just because well-regulated free markets are better in many cases doesn't mean they're better in all cases. Education, health care, and a host of other subjects aren't all that suited for a purely market-based approach.
* for Francophones, le 22 a Asnieres is an audio skit on the good ol' times of France PTT telecom monopoly.