>>510443630It doesn't though. And I've read the book.
What it refutes are economic policies that have been implemented by socialists.
The mistake many make is in thinking that socialism is a set of economic policies. It's not. What socialism is is ownership of the economy by the working classes, fullstop. The problem historically has been that, after gaining control of the economy, the working classes found themselves in uncharted territory and didn't know what to do with it. So they used command economies, which are good for solving some of society's needs (up to a point) until they reach a level of inefficiency, after which they fail miserably.
But again, the point isn't government control over society. It's ideally worker control over the government, which extends that control over the economy. You could have a socialist-controlled market system and it would still be socialism so long as the working classes were, in fact, the ones calling the shots. And socialism is not a complete repudiation of capitalism; it has historically seen itself as a following stage built upon capitalism, not an alternative. In many places, that means that when socialism takes over, capitalist ways of doing things would remain but be regulated in ways so that the wealthy classes don't get to hog the bulk of the benefits for themselves.