it's late, I've got stuff to do tomorrow before I leave, so I can't respond to everything in your post but this:
" . . . Within the context of world capitalism, the masses on the periphery can't aspire to higher living standards, workers' control over production, more free time, cleaner environment, etc. all at the same time. Scarcity and opportunity costs rule, and all reforms have been and will be temporary (until they affect the profit rates). . . . "
This is a perfect recapitulation of neo-classical doctrine: there is no alternative to neo-liberalism. You would add, 'except for socialism,' but if socialism is off the table, you default to neo-liberalism, just like Barkley and Rakesh default to free trade as the best of all possible worlds, from the standpoint of the Third World, aside from socialism.
To the contrary, there is a substantial literature on alternatives. People on this list have contributed to it. I have to admit you are more familiar with my field than I with yours, but if you delved further on my side of the fence, it might turn you around.
Growth with equity is conceivable. In some ways equity can be argued to augment growth. Production with limited environmental costs is possible. There is evidence that workers control improves efficiency, rather than the contrary. Etc. etc. I can supply references for each of these premises, as I am sure others can.
Beware of warnings about capitalist influence from literal capitalists. Enemies of trade unionism are *the* enemy. Period, end of story, q.e.d.
cheers, max