A Brief Note On The Term 'Neo-Liberal'....
There are historical roots which need untangling to discern the actual meaning of this term, as well as the usage it is often put to nowadays in political disputation, in which it is often employed to convey a meaning that is false to fact.
In Europe early in the nineteenth century, aristocratic and feudal hold-overs were still a feature of most societies. The mercantilist economic view, which held that every country should be self-sufficient in money, and was weakened to the degree it could not manage this, was still predominant thought influencing government and business policy. In this milieu, political parties seeking relief from anachronism, and a freeing up of business and trade from both feudal and mercantile restrictions, arose. They called themselves Liberals, or even Radicals, and did more or less advocate for Capitalism, as opposed to Feudalism and autocratic control. Often, but not always, their platforms included greater freedom of political speech and artistic endeavor, and more modern social behaviors. A feature odd by modern lights is that army officers often adhered to these Liberal or Radical parties, for they saw modernizing society could enhance a nation's military power.
Once Socialist, and even Anarchist thought became a feature of European politics, these parties advocating for Capitalism and social reforms ceased to be the cutting edge of opposition to the old order. Soon enough in most countries, the old conservative parties made their peace with Capitalism, while generally still favoring traditional behaviors and arrangements otherwise. The surviving Liberal parties opposed Socialism, but often did tend towards social reforms seen as improving the lot of the poor (which at the time was most if not all of the working people). The Progressive movement in the United States early in the twentieth century, which arose in the Republican Party, is one example of this, as is the old Liberal Party in England, which fostered the formation of the Labour Party, an explicitly Socialist body there.
In places where political and social life did not advance much in the early twentieth century, what survived of Liberal or Radical parties remained, and the labels retained their original meanings. Spain is one example. During the Spanish Republic, Liberal and Radical parties, though small indeed, ranged themselves with larger rightist parties, whether of traditionalist or modernizing ilk, for these parties were certainly opposed to Anarchism and Socialism, which were predominant on the left of Spanish politics during the brief Republic. Latin American politics had similar features, so did the politics of Central Europe.
In the West, including the United States, the term Liberal came to mean during the twentieth century a political tendency desiring relief from traditional constraints on behavior, on mores and artistic expression, combined with improvement of the living standards of poor and working people, but without any great re-working of economic arrangements. Liberals remained loyal to Capitalism, but desired it be regulated, and restrained from its worst excesses. Once Soviet totalitarianism had done its unfortunate work in discrediting Socialism as a viable political force for the supplanting of Capitalism, the reforming and regulating and modernizing program of Liberalism became the chief tendency on the left of our politics.
The intent and distortion behind much use of the term 'neo-liberal' should be apparent from the above. It is a claim there is really no difference between a Liberal today and a Liberal circa 1840 in France, or circa 1935 in Spain. This is nonesense. The older parties sought to establish Capitalism against autocratic and feudal opposition. The modern Liberal seeks to regulate and restrain Capitalism, and some do, where it seems possible, seek to use the mechanisms of Capitalism to achieve these ends, by manipulating markets and taxes to favor reforms they desire. The term 'neo-liberal' attempts to cast such policies as a throwback to the original meanings and intentions of those so labeled, and so to suggest that Liberalism, which actually does constitute by far the strongest tendency on the left of our politics, is really not of the left at all, but part and parcel of the right.
The change over time of the meaning conveyed by 'liberal' blurs the question enough for people to perhaps imagine themselves being honest when they make the charge. Though it is obvious to anyone aware of the background that the term properly applies only to the 'free-marketeers' and Randites and such, who are the real present day heirs of the old European Liberal parties, and range themselves, just as did their late survivals in Spain, alongside the christo-fascist right.
"Defeat of a hated enemy is something to be for."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Excellent! Very informative and educational. Thank you! 
