I agree in all points.

Socialism or capitalism are just names that seek to confuse you but that really represent the same thing.

And I want to add:

To explain it with Mumford, I would say that the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" are certainly misleading and still do not sufficiently indicate that for millennia we have preserved a superstitious sense: the worship of gods first and later in the form of the worship of kings, which then expressed itself in such civilising establishments as parliaments and "democracies". This belief in the omnipotence of the powerful is so strong, so accepted by the masses, that it is difficult for an individual not to see himself buried under it.

According to Mumford, the bureaucrats have a destructive power because, unlike the god-kings, they are not endowed with the corresponding grace as the latter. To receive mercy before justice cannot be presumed by anyone who works as an agent of justice, and so it is the bureaucrats who are stricter than those who instructed them to be so strict and then do not care what happens. Many a zealous bureaucrat has then just been betrayed by his masters when he was all too servile with his punishment and came under the wheels himself - for example, when the people grumbled all too loudly and questioned the rulers.

Since no one dares to tell the truth to a powerful person, he is either flattered or shunned, the rulers can continue to indulge in their fantasies and fantasise a world that does not exist in reality. They lose all sense of the real, of the living and basically live in constant fear of their powerful enemies, be they other rulers or imagined terrorists or even viruses. A powerful person is the slave of his fear fantasies and he fears nothing so much as the loss of his identity, which is all he has.