I don't think it's necessarily true that every neoliberal critique is pressure by the rich to manipulate socialism, at least if we consider
only the specific work of neoliberals in critiquing Keynesianism in academic works. This is, today, a rather narrow band of minor comments and refinements on policies are valid in fairly specific subjects of macroeconomics. My view is that, if the role of neoliberalism both started and ended here, it would be entirely okay.
I want to separate this though from neoliberalism as a policy advocacy of Reagan and Thatcher. In the case of Reagan and Thatcher, neoliberalism became a vessel to radically change policy against interventionism even when it makes sense and fixes market failings. In a sense, the policy changes of neoliberalism, which should have been far more moderate, were co-opted and used as a method of class warfare.
Paul Krugman wrote about this disparity in Friedman's work, and I hardly think Krugman could qualify as an economist who advocates unrestrained capitalism.
Absolutely agreed on all counts. Globalization has primarily benefited a narrow band of elites. Any economy which wants to globalize and wants to remain strong long-term should also implement policies that disrupt the effects globalization has on inequality.
Basically, tax the **** out of the rich and use that money to benefit all people in a nation. Or, in some way narrow the comparative advantage they have on the global scale, maybe government-sponsored projects to help small companies gain access to global markets? I'm in no position to make policy pronouncements, but I'm sure no matter what policy would work, it'd be hysterically regarded as socialist in any neoliberal country.
Again, absolutely agree. Nearly all of this rent-seeking behavior is toxic and even create conditions under which markets don't perform. Markets perform best when there's open access to capital, low barriers to entry, and policies which work against rent-seeking behavior. In an ideal world, and in rhetoric, this is what neoliberals want.
The problem is, and as I suggested above, pre-neoliberal western countries
already were massively liberal. I suspect the marginal benefits of liberalizing markets reduces the more liberal your economy is. As well, as with all policies, they're easily manipulated to benefit certain people, as you suggest.
In other words, the "free market" religion of neoliberals states that free markets are inherently better, rather than usually or idyllically better. And I'd argue, in the past 30 years, markets aren't becoming "freer" in any sense that much matters.
Agreed, with the above caveat that we mean "neoliberal" to mean basically Reaganomics, free market worship, irrational anti-statism, overemphasis on monetary policy and de-emphasis of fiscal policy when it doesn't make sense. Which is what "neoliberalism" actually means in policy discussion, basically GOP economics and Democrat concessions to GOP economics.