Does this quote caprture where we are? Much more to say, but as a start?
It tends, thus, toward what might be called a “third way”, if that phrase were not so saturated with the politics of Anthony Giddens and Tony Blair. Their “third way” is really a soft neoliberalism, closer to a “middle way”, a compromise aligned quite far to one side. Despite occasional attempts on the part of both its detractors and supporters to liken the Blairite “third way” to Keynesianism, Keynes’s and Hegel’s is a third way in different sense, the “third” in a dialectical triad: a simultaneous cancellation and preservation of the two previous moments in a new if not-necessarily-stable unity. In other words, the explicit goal is to expose the supposed antinomy between individual liberty and collective solidarity as merely an historical stage. The point is definitively not to create some “hybrid” or “mixed economy” (Mattick 1969) with a little bit of
individualism and a little bit of collectivism. It is, rather, to propose something novel, to describe a means by which freedom, solidarity and security can be fully realized at once in a rational social order. The point is to overcome the modern condition, “that reality andhuman reason have parted company” (Arendt 1958: 300)—to escape the “confusion” (Hegel 1999: 150), the “colossal muddle” (Keynes 1971, 9:139) to which history has unfortunately led.