Both your points make a lot of sense.
The author does address your first, when he says:
"It’s hard to imagine many of these solutions moving forward at the national level in the current political environment, but there are opportunities to incubate them in states and localities and lay the groundwork for a future political realignment.’
As for your second point - just call it socialism - maybe ?
There needs always to be a driver of things, at the societal level and especially at the individual level.
A battery is ‘dead’ unless there is a difference between the poles.
A ‘flat’ society will not work well for the same reason.
Right now money is the measure, of pretty much everything, everywhere. That’s a mistake, and the proposed measures to even things out are understandable.
But we need to find another driver of life - a reason to be, and to do - that is not centered on money.
Is an Apache tribe of old a socialist entity ?
Is it ‘flat’ ?
I think the answer is No in both cases.
Power at the top - extreme hierarchy - I detest it - it sickens me - it is moral injury to the max.
But flat - if that is what socialism is - is just another version of the same thing.
We are social individuals, and both the social and the individual parts are equally important.
I am glad to see a Thomas Piketty graph in the article - I am slowly working my way through “Capitalism in the Twenty-First Century”, and finding it a truly magnificent undertaking, even if it is a slow read.
But my main point is that more than economics is required in this discussion.