This exceedingly long, wordy, and carefully thought out article proposes, imho, what amounts to nonsense. In the author's conclusion, he asserts that competition must be eliminated from marketplaces, because it is incompatible with egalitarian goals. What utter bullshit.

There is a relevant Huffpost article today on Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren comparisons and contrasts that makes some relevant points. I will post the link.
THE REAL DEM DIVIDE: IT’S ABOUT POWER
[huffingtonpost.com]

A particularly apt comment from it is that intellectual leftists struggle to even find common definitions for capitalism and socialism. The label "socialism" is lately finally throwing off its decades-long air of toxic taboo status, but you and I can still agree that we support socialism yet have dramatically different understanding of what we mean.
I believe a goal of societal equality in material wealth is an impossibility. It has never in all of history proven sustainable, even in its most impressive efforts to launch. Some will always find ways to gain advantage over others and use that advantage to even further increase their own wealth and power. Second, if you are going to try to install such a radical, unproven system without first evolving the sentiment of the vast majority of the masses to support it, then you are talking about armed revolution, which leads to horrible mass casualties, bloody dictator power grabs, and even environmental damage.
The only route I can imagine is democratic and evolutionary, not revolutionary. And to date, Scandinavia stands as the best example, promoting material security, a social safety net, respect for individual liberties, and protecting the environment. The thing is, those societies' "socialism" really is modified capitalism. ...and still evolving as they seek to improve the social safety net and to save the environment.

And you know what? That is A-OK. This notion of purely capitalist or purely socialist societies is distorted, delusional, even. Both these "systems" are merely architype ideals; they cannot exist in pure form for long, because both succumb to their own weaknesses. Bottom line is, we NEED healthy social safety nets provided by socialism, and we NEED to have reward for innovation and hard work to succeed, which capitalism affords. If poverty ceases to threaten people's basic well-being because of the safety net, then inequality becomes far less of a problem. If I have basic security and opportunity to still strive to create something more for myself, then I don't need to have everything you may have.

Democratic socialism no like Soviet

They want to try that again?? !! Risk another few hundred million lives?

Socialism was a quite lengthy experiment. Decades of using it didn't iron out the severe problems with the concept, like thepoor quality of product and services and the lack of innovation.