This (extremely off-putting) answer reveals a key thing that's beautiful about markets:

They let people express the strength of their preferences without needing to always justify their values in front of a committee.

https://twitter.com/DylanMAllman/status/1776649146675712146

Wolff’s answer makes no sense. If one cooperative, let’s call it Sony, made electronics like tvs and game consoles, and one cooperative produced food, or parts for trains, or anything else. The person who works for the train parts cooperative would just trade a certain amount of labour vouchers for a PlayStation

exploring the intersections of technology, decentralization, and leftism • links: thumbsup.me • support: sub.thumbsup.me

…distributed freely by hobbyists and artisans who, having everything they need already, can build the games they love in their free time or as part of a cooperative of video game artisans. 

Probably, everything would just run on open source OSes. Probably we’d have an open database of all games free to play.

We don’t live in the early 20th century anymore. Any version of socialism is going to include electronics. Truthfully, in a society with less business hierarchy there probably won’t be PlayStation and Nintendo because these are shitty companies. But there will still be video games. Probably most will be…

Because Wolff never claims that there is only one design for socialism, he specifically presents one toy design (full democratic purchasing governance in this case?) and debates against that framework ("under your system..."). He does this in every interview I've listened to, this clip lacks context?