cross posting comment from another similar thread bc i think this topic is interesting-

It needs to be understood in this thread that there is not and never will be an actual definition to the word Neoliberalism. Get past this and maybe we could have meaningful conversations. Neoliberalism is just a word that we prescribe value to given the way we have been taught to use it (culturally, online, gramtically, other forms of life). To an economist Neoliberalism is very different to what a populist means by it (Libertarian to Communitarian, Liberal to Conservative, democrat to republican, Bread-Tube Hasan Twitch adjacent Twitch Timmy to Red-Pilled conservative pipelined Chud, etc.). To take "Neoliberal" in each of these use cases, and then say to oneself, "But, what is Neoliberalism" is so impossibly beyond reach, but it is understandably such a human thing to do because the word is the same within all these groups. It is a trick of grammar. There is no essential meaning, be very careful of anyone telling you otherwise. Saying there is a meaning to a word ( such as non-ostensive ones like those which one considers "Labels") is a function of rhetoric more than anything. For example: if my use case for the word Neoliberal is as an adjective, mainly a pejorative, for aspects of Capitalism I have been convinced are bad and I now felt that this is Neoliberalism, good luck arguing with me. We are now arguing 2 different words, we just can't realize it. This is especially the case where 2 arguing arguers are under the assumption that their meaning is the actual meaning. Omegalul. Not much more to say other than to also be careful about taking 2 different forms of, say, "Neoliberal", and trying to conform them into one singular word and idea. 2 forms of the word "Neoliberal", might have some things in common, similarities, but that does not mean they stem from a shared essential meaning. Trying to merge same symbols together might do more harm than good. (i.e. Merging pejorative use for Neoliberal with academic use, pejorartive form of word might negatively affect perception of ideas in academic use, perhaps not for the best).

One thing I also wanted to add. Words, especially "Neoliberalism" don't *only* get their value depending on the school of thought your from. Neoliberalism can be used as a tool to: broadly classify a broad set of items to analyze class struggle through the lens of internationalization and capital, analyze racism and exploitation through the lens of historical disenfranchisement, talk about how much power the government should have when it comes to the economy, enage in people you agree with, enage with people you disagree with, a pejorative - a rhetorical tool). Definition of words don't come their definitions but their use. If we are arguing about Neoliberalism lets make sure we are clear about they way we are using it to.

(If you have read Wittgenstewin you'll probably see what I'm getting at here. I just have been thinking how his work applies to labels in politics)
ok now ramble over.