I agree that maintaining the system would be a bit of a balancing act, but this seems pessimistic. Why would sufficiently provided for groups be motivated to develop "collective consciousness" in such a way as to challenge the stability of the state? Ultimately the few functions that the state is accomplishing in this scenario should make them better off.
Any economy, no matter how strong, will eventually have periods of down-turns/depressions. Can you really put your faith in constant economic growth, as the sole basis of a state? Is a detached secular state which promises, probably unrealistically so, to provide prosperity to all, truly going to be enough to serve as a unifying factor for all the people involved? What if some people are simply making the wrong choices and cannot succeed under this system (especially the people who come in with no education, or from entrenched cultures that are counter-productive to functioning in a capitalist society), creating an under-class of permanent "losers"? Do you think these people are simply going to reflect upon themselves and their mistakes in shame, instead of feeling bitter and blaming the system (which they have no sentimental attachment towards) as rigged?
I'm just not too convinced that this sort of a model is going to survive any "what if?" scenarios. Imagine a prolonged case of coronavirus, which completely tanks all the state's promises of growth, and sends a lot of people to the bottom of the economic hierarchy. How can the neo-liberal state prevent a populist backlash demanding a change to the system, unless it has literally built a common, yes,
national identity around the values of neo-liberalism?
Only under such a scenario may the people be willing to have
faith in the system, even irrational faith, despite a failure to temporarily provide what it has promised. Even if they belong to the under-class. Humans struggle to see the "long-term" objectives when the main motivator behind their actions is hedonism, comfort, prosperity, acquisition of wealth, and are prone to constantly looking for short-term solutions in order to guarantee continued prosperity. But when humans are motivated by ideology, social bonds, communality, faith, they are willing to make even great sacrifices in order to maintain the system's existence, because they see it as an extension of themselves and their identity.
The modern secular, "neo-liberal" state often misunderstands the human condition and only seeks to provide economic prosperity to people. And that is why the secular state, which provides no common bond, is always at risk of being over-thrown by models that clearly are inferior when it comes to providing economic prosperity, yet they are much more capable at providing answers to the questions that people ask, that are not related to the pursuit of the "capital". Which greatly encourage people to invest in these systems emotionally, and become its staunch defenders, driven by dogma rather than truth, no matter how incapable the system may be at generating any sort of prosperity (just look at socialism and communism basically since its inception).
Neo-liberalism without a strong national, or supra-national identity if you wish, revolving around its principles, is a concept that's dead in the water, in my eyes. Americans did it the way it's supposed to be done, instilling into people a sense of ultra-patriotism which encouraged a "pull yourself by the bootstraps" mentality, even among people who were incapable of doing so. The image of the self-made, independent American man, became like the image of Jesus or Muhammad to religious followers, an example to emulate after.
