Europe has had several 'mixed' economies that worked rather well until they decided to become more capitalistic.
As a former USSR citizen I can only smile very ironically.
Comment above claimed that only under capitalism can we have nice things, which is a blatant lie. Arguably it's due to central planning and a high degree of enforced conformism that China manages to keep up with mass surveillance and production output.
Personally I'm not particularly fond of the state and very suspicious of the presumed necessity to have one.
As for nice things - it seems to be somewhat poorly defined expression. You could have sex in USSR, or go to a forest to pick some mushrooms, and that were nice things I guess? But situation with consumer products, including food was abysmal compared to even worst examples of capitalist world.
Of course they copied what they could. Like we all do. Information is addictive and wants to be free. But the USSR had a very skewed view of life on the other side of the 'curtain'. It was also not as propped up by colonialist endeavours as the US, and if you'd have pulled that value out of the US economy the USSR might have 'won' the Cold War.
Yeah, there were rather neat suburbs and relatively well stocked shops in the US, but was it worth the genocide in Guatemala? The undermining of democracy in Europe? The return of heroin as a widely available drug of abuse?
Same goes for the UK, was the wealth on those islands worth the long line of southeast asian famines? The terror and exploitation in Kenya?
I'm no friend of soviet or chinese attempts at reaching communism, but the claim that they haven't achieved any nice things because they weren't capitalist is blatantly untrue. From this follows the conclusion that we likely could move on from capitalism and possibly achieve a global society that isn't centered around economic transactions, conflict, exploitation and surveillance. Some would say it's necessary due to the damage to our habitat industrialisation has caused.
However, the Soviet-sphere is well known for their Z80-machines, some of which had a bit of innovation in them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ZX_Spectrum_clones
It surely wasn't equally distributed but the USSR was quite deep into engineering and technology, the 'scientific socialism' thing, so they made their own multimeters and pocket calculators and radio equipment and whatnot.
Compare the average Soviet family to the average US family in the 60s-80s.
The standard of living is not even close.
Also, when did Europeans have a higher quality of life vs US postwar? Socialism creates general malaise and considerably lower growth.
Socialism has been proven to be an academic pipe dream that only somewhat works with small, culturally homogenous, high-trust populations. Scale it up and the inefficiencies/corruption grow exponentially. When resources are allocated inefficiently, everyone suffers.