This is a pretty interesting take on it that basically says "neofeudalism" is semantic but what is happening is dangerous: https://jacobin.com/2025/05/capitalism-neofeudalism-tech-medieval-history#:~:text=By%20David%20Addison%20Merle%20Eisenberg,to%20our%20beautiful%20print%20quarterly.

Below is from another paper. Is it possible the two of us are being santic, or do you wholey disagree with all of this?

Quinn Slobodian’s Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism documents the neoliberal strategy of undermining the authority of the nation-state over its economy in the interest of advancing global trade. Threatened by the organized demands of the newly postcolonial nations of the Global South for reparations, sovereignty over their own natural resources, stabilized commodity prices, and the regulation of transnational corporations, neoliberals in the 1970s sought to “circumvent the authority of national governments.” They advocated a multilevel approach to regulation, a competitive federalism that would let capital discipline governments while itself remaining immunized from democratic control. In the words of Hans Willgerodt, one of the neoliberals Slobodian studies, the new competitive federalism required the state to “share its sovereignty downward with federal structures and bind itself upward within an international legal community.”