[Michaeluj]

Okay, there's the State, and it controls the means of production, ie resources and industry. Would the workers be able to pull their resources together to purchase goods when they're in short supply? Would a socialist state even allow it?

In explanation, I give this example:

Lots of customers are buying clocks, more than are available. The clock industry raises its prices(Or does it, under socialism?) and thus it has profits to buy extra supplies from the state-owned hoards waiting to be transferred to the needed production lines. Who gets those profits under socialism: the workers or the voted/state representative leader of the enterprise? Either way, there has to be capital in sums large enough to balance the trade-off between exchange value(money) and the materials used to make clocks, for today's economies often work in large sizes...unless...the costs of buying goods en masse are cheapened...are goods purchased from the state cheapened? In fact, would it be practical in the sense of both practicality-period-and the ideals of state socialism?

Anyway, even if the state has a monopoly over resources and the manipulation of resources, can exchanges be made by the individual firms to the state in order to procure resources without the needs of messy paperework? Would they even need to do the buying? Would there be some other methods of calculation?

And even if each individual firm has its own source of buying power and they're just using whatever profits and percentages "of wages gladly given by the workers to help concentrate capital" to buy from the state and other firms, that would be capitalism in which there is no owner but the non-profit seeking state distributing the money to all the workers.

Basically, can workers procure their own resources in the presence of the state?
How can they be expected to do so anyway when they can just keep the immeadiete profits for themselves when doing otherwise would have profits be spent on buying more work which will likly be used and force either a less gratifying amount of extra work on an easy-to-use machine(For example, instead of the clock manufacturor having a 10% raise in profits, he has a 5 % increase in sitting at a seat, pulling levers and making sure that the gizmos don't overheat or something) or on those spare wages being used to buy another worker to help?
Am I mistaking the Ideal Socialist economy?

Sorry about this rammbling: my brain is fried and tired, and I'm stressed out and have very little time to think over this. Please try to decipher this, or at least answer some of the more understandable trails of questions I asked.

[Kiroff]

and thus it has profits to buy extra supplies from the state-owned hoards waiting to be transferred to the needed production lines. Who gets those profits under socialism: the workers or the voted/state representative leader of the enterprise?

I think you just answered your own question. Whatever "state-owned hoards" are.

Anyway, even if the state has a monopoly over resources and the manipulation of resources, can exchanges be made by the individual firms to the state in order to procure resources without the needs of messy paperework? Would they even need to do the buying? Would there be some other methods of calculation?

I assume you don't know much about business transactions. Having worked in a receiving and distribution warehouse(we got products from companies, put them on our shelves, and shipped them out to our branches), I can tell you that paperwork is a pain in the ass that doesn't go away if you are in the business of moving things from one place to another. Ever. Even if you go paperless.

And even if each individual firm has its own source of buying power and they're just using whatever profits and percentages "of wages gladly given by the workers to help concentrate capital" to buy from the state and other firms, that would be capitalism in which there is no owner but the non-profit seeking state distributing the money to all the workers

What?

Basically, can workers procure their own resources in the presence of the state?

Yes.

How can they be expected to do so anyway when they can just keep the immeadiete profits for themselves when doing otherwise would have profits be spent on buying more work which will likly be used and force either a less gratifying amount of extra work on an easy-to-use machine(For example, instead of the clock manufacturor having a 10% raise in profits, he has a 5 % increase in sitting at a seat, pulling levers and making sure that the gizmos don't overheat or something) or on those spare wages being used to buy another worker to help?

It's ultimately their choice as to what to do in a situation of self-initiative. Also by profit I assume you mean the value produced that does not go to wages, reinvestment, resources, plant and equipment because it was unforseen. Otherwise, profit is an alien concept to socialism as it presumes a single benefactor.

[smallpox]

The major difference between state ran economics and free market economics is the price system.
How the free market deals with demands surpassing supplies is by raising the price. The price raises and so less people demand the good and therefore demand = supply again.
The planned system controls prices. This means that when demand > supply, the prices don't change to reduce the demand. So people line up in queues and pay for the increase of price by waiting in line instead of paying more - as seen in the Soviet Union in the 1980's.
This has a double negative effect because workers waiting in line are not producing - thus supply falls even more, thus lines become even longer.
The state decided to inject more money into firms to up production. But the thing is, is that firms were not selling goods for money, they were selling them to meet unrealistic quotas - that means they would compete like insane for labourers. Wages and benefits be damned. So the injection of money by the state meant that the factories would simply give them out in wages. This increased the worker's money supply and therefore their caprices to buy even more - even even longer lines.
So the money went to the workers, but the workers didn't have much to do with these wages. They let their banks account grow which their consumption was the same.