In a way, this was true for the USSR - the Red Army in WW2 was incredibly well equipped in numbers, which would have been impossible if they had not focused on so hard in steel production.
But in theory, if one could get such a system going, and if it could be implemented in a verifiable way, then there would be no way for the government to justify prioritizing one industry over the other. Indeed, how could you argue that you make a better job than the algorithm? If the government decided to incentivize further productive growth, that should be done via a hyperparameter.
I think the major politicking issue would be getting the politicians to willingly give up their power to this system, which indeed would be a huge problem.
Look at Venezuela. A country that has been dependent on an oil-based extraction economy for decades and subject to brutal imperialism elects a socialist government that nationalizes... just that one industry, and the entirety of Western powers turn against them along with local national business owners, sabotaging their own points of sale as a form of economic warfare, instead selling across the border to support a black market.
As a reminder, despite the socialist label of the party in power, Venezuela has a significantly lower level of nationalization than France. But because France is not a target of both imperial and capital interests, but is instead firmly established as an imperial country itself, we don't see sanctions or (inaccurate) dithering over election integrity.
Venezuela is what you get when you propose to move some of the power and profits away from capital and don't have the footing to withstand their counterattack.