This is a simple misread of Chomsky's statement. Chomsky rejects both capitalist enterprise and absolutist states because they _prevent_ workers' control of industry. Even passing familiarity with Chomsky's writing would be enough to convince someone of this. It is also a curious misreading of the given passage, given the context. Besides, they later quote further passages from Chomsky, from the same source, which suggests that this "mistake" is in fact a cynical and deliberate misinterpretation used to set up a straw man to be knocked down. . . .
I dig Chomsky and agree w/most of the rest of what you say, but as soon as we're in the bag of decentralization, or "workers control" on a sub-national basis, we're talking about markets and non-public ownership of capital. I don't dispute this is probably inevitable, but it should be recognized for what it is. If workers own their own enterprises, the only way they would have to deal with other enterprises and with consumers is with market arrangements. This does not preclude welfare-state institutions to promote equality, among other purposes, but at bottom with no plan there must be a market. If a plan is concocted either by the center or democratically a la Hahnel, there is no real control by workers. If there is control, there can be no plan.
I think there's a lot to be said for this model, though it would require some kind of state and democratic institutions to weigh against the predictable, self-interested behavior of enterprises.
mbs