Heinlein's law:
Arguing that a given scifi author's view of future society makes sense will always essentially reduce to arguing that the author's politics are correct.
I don't think that's _really_ what the article's doing, but in any case such arguments are generally about whether the author's view is _internally consistent_, rather than a historical inevitability.
I disagree. I think one can see plausibility in multiple interpretations of the future. The Culture "makes sense" to me in the same way that The Expanse's view of intra-system colonization efforts. I find the capitalist nature of the world in Pandora's Star "makes sense" same as the Culture. To me it's about seeing the possibility of a future built on a recognizable seed of plausibility for "what could be."