At the very least an update is probably in order. To really over-simplify (somewhat unfairly), my read of the "socialist alternative's" theorizing is that it's gone in waves roughly like this: 1) extensive analysis of 19th-century economic systems, especially factory production (Marx et al) and agriculture (Kropotkin, the kibbutz movement, etc.); followed by a period of 2) focus on culture/ideology/hegemony as the place the "real battle" is fought (Gramsci, neo-Gramscians, post-structuralist Marxism); but not really followed by 3) extensive analysis of 21st-century economic and technological systems.
I think even for people who disagree with them, it'd be healthier for there to be a Left that paid close, scientific/analytical attention to present-day material conditions, rather than focusing mainly on culture/ideology like the neo-Gramscians, or tying themselves too strongly to 19th-century analyses of 19th-century conditions. Or, for that matter, just taking an amorphous "against the greedy bankers" line like the populist left does, which is probably good politics, but not a deep analysis.
I think even for people who disagree with them, it'd be healthier for there to be a Left that paid close, scientific/analytical attention to present-day material conditions, rather than focusing mainly on culture/ideology like the neo-Gramscians, or tying themselves too strongly to 19th-century analyses of 19th-century conditions. Or, for that matter, just taking an amorphous "against the greedy bankers" line like the populist left does, which is probably good politics, but not a deep analysis.