You seem to misunderstand the point of the book. PSL's analysis is that people in the US are so thoroughly propagandized against socialism that they have no idea that the mounting crises facing our class do have solutions, but that those solutions only exist outside of the neoliberal framework that totally dominated all political discourse. It never purports to be a theoretical work on how to achieve revolutionary change, because that is not its goal. Rather, its goal is to convince people that socialism is worth fighting for because it is actually equipped to address their needs. But the PSL's position is that a revolutionary reorganization of society is a necessary precondition to achieve this, and agrees that ML organizing principles are the means to achieve that.

The problem with social democrats is not that they, too, advocate for a society that offers more favorable conditions to the workers. The problem is that they reject the necessity of a worker's state and are content to build welfare off the ill-gotten gains of imperialist extraction. The PSL absolutely rejects this.

No work can address every aspect of every debate. That's a ridiculous standard, and if you attempt to meet it you will fall short every time. It's entirely disingenuous to dismiss PSL as revisionist or socdem based on one piece of literature just because it is not attempting to present a framework for achieving revolution.