Software is trying to virtualize a left-government. But without addressing the underlying problems of ownership in the real world, every virtualization is ultimately a zero-sum game.

Exactly. You can build as equitable a software system as you want. It will still be used, misused and regulated within the context of our existing real-world power structures. Meaningful change to those structures cannot be affected with a technological solution absent a political movement.

What does "democratic control over our economy" mean? Does it mean surrendering control to ostensibly democratic state monopolies that respond with violence to any attempt at competing with them?

I prefer 'consensual' to 'democratic'. Most blockchain-based systems are consensual in that they operate based on rules that enjoy the unanimous consent of everyone they apply to. If I and everyone I want to interact with via a blockchain agrees to change the rules, we can freely do so, but if someone doesn't agree, we either have to stop interacting or come to an agreement.

I strongly believe political fights should be avoided whenever possible because they are (at best) win-lose. Political fights are about who should get to control everyone or what everyone should be forced to do. Technological solutions can sometimes allow everyone to get what they want without imposing their vision and preferences on others.

It means worker-owned and -run companies and actually democratic government to regulate them. You're absolutely right about political fights, and it's clear that centralized authorities (e.g. FB, Google, the US Gov't, others) have won/are winning the political fight against you and me. A technological solution realized under their authority will not be allowed to succeed unless it can be bent to their own purposes. I don't wholly disagree with the goals of crypto/web3, but I fear that pursued alone, i.e. without a political movement to back it, those ideals will be corrupted by our existing power structures.