So there is a critique of liberal society common to both the new right and the social justice left that goes like this. "Liberalism as we know it is premised on the idea that society is a "level playing field" where different teams can fairly compete. But in reality,

there can be no level playing field. The field is always tilted, and the norms and procedures of liberal society inherently strengthen certain hands and lead towards certain outcomes."

On the social justice left, this is used to explain racial and gender disparities of outcome, as well as the psychic harm inflicted on the disadvantaged by a hostile and hegemonic discourse.

On the right it is used to explain the conservative loss of the culture war and phenomenon associated with it: the rise in single-parent families, the unchurching of America, radical progressive ideology, etc.

In both cases this idea is used to justify authoritarian expedients. When the "system" systematically favors the other side, reform within existing structures is not sufficient, and more total solutions are needed.

This entire line of thought was born of socialism, where this same critique, and same solution, was leveled against the tendency for "free markets" and "creative destruction" to favor some over others, justifying state power to level a field by nature too tilted.

One of the conceits of liberalism is that there is a "market place of ideas" -- if the analogy holds true it was only a matter of time before critiques of the actual marketplace were applied to the "marketplace" of culture, faith, and ideas.

I am going to write a response to this concept ("the playing field is not level; liberalism is not neutral"). But I want to face off against the very best statements on the theme. Who would that be, do you think?

Which articles and essays (from either left or right) argue this idea most forcefully, persuasively, or succinctly?