That is the first account of "postcapitalist" that I have read that has made sense to me. There can be no doubt that the system we have must change.

I do think it is a misconception to think of capitalism as an economic system. It is really only mass production (for sales in geographically extended markets). As Karl Marx pointed out, it is necessary for everyone to have enough.

At the same time, I completely agree that the combination of capitalism and the economic system in which it is embedded have brought us to the brink of, as it was put in this article, a "planetary climate Armageddon:" as things stand, output must be maximized in order to maximize employment, total income, and the collection of taxes (at whatever rates exist). Such an approach is plainly unsustainable.

An economic system is an inevitable part of any society. Every economic system that has ever existed has made use of money.

[Though it is doubtful any organized society ever relied solely on barter for exchange, even where barter occurs people are in a very real sense creating ad hoc 'media of exchange'. If and when barter was a significant part of people's lives we can be sure people tended to create a surplus of some particular good or to specialize some particular service that they could use for exchange.]

The point is that money always has been and always will be a part of human existence. The approach to money is largely definitive of an economic system.

As Marx also pointed out, historically the distribution income has resulted from the distribution of property. The distribution of property can, however, follow from the distribution of income.

That is the change we need to make.

There is a way to change our approach to supplying ourselves with money. We can combine money and income into one thing: we can make people's incomes the supply of money. We can do that without changing anything else in the existing economic system.

We can make that income an amount that would provide everyone with enough (and bit more) at current prices. In that way, instead of maximizing output in order to maximize total income as we do today, total income would govern total output. That would create a "steady-state" economy, based on population. Over time, the distribution of wealth would eventually conform to that distribution of income. [It could still be possible for people to make more than that amount of money, but not by employing other people and paying them less than their time and efforts were worth.]

if curious: "To Preserve What We Have, What We Have Must Be Enough" (here in Medium, but not behind the paywall)