There are two things going on here causing confusion and the first is the misuse and misunderstanding of the word socialism. DeathsEmbrace is using it to mean something more like the "nordic model" safety net thing but applied to the corporations. It's incorrect but it's a common early leftist pitfall. It's the "socialism for the bourgeoisie/corporations but not for the workers" thing. It's not actually incorrect analysis - the government does provide a social safety net for the bourgeoisie and will always come to their rescue in a capitalist country. That is true, but it's a misnomer and misleading to call this "government socialism" or "socialism for the rich" because socialism is not "government does stuff" or "government comes to the rescue," rather it's worker control over the means of production. "Socialism for the owners" is nonsensical when you actually understand these terms. As Marxists we know this is simply how capitalism works and is not a special case within capitalism that is only just now happening with things like the 2008 bailouts. Again, it's not wrong pointing out that the state rescued all the banks to the detriment of working people while simultaneously refusing to help the working people. But it's a mistake to associate that with the word socialism, even in a "socialism for the rich" sort of way, a mistake that is often made because the general public were never educated about what socialism really is.

The other issue is the difference between what capitalists say neoliberalism is (when they even use the word neoliberalism, which is less often since it is usually a pejorative) and what neoliberalism actually is. This means there are going to be conflicting definitions. RedWizard is absolutely right that it is very much about further leveraging the state on the behalf of capital to more completely dominate over labor. As Marxists we know they were always doing this, but neoliberalism is still a ramping up using new policies specifically tailored to better addressed the the world order given modern global imperialism. DeathsEmbrace is just plain wrong here if they think neoliberalism is simply ultra laissez-fair capitalism. Neither side defines it like that.

Not to be too pedantic, but the first quote RW used actually backs up DE's mistaken position. RW is right of course, but that quote is not a good one to use to prove the point. "Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as [...] reducing [...] state influence in the economy." That definition you quoted is doing the "reducing big government" thing. They want us to think their neoliberal policies are "keeping big government from controlling the free economy!" after all, big government control is what they want you to think the "totalitarian" communists do, when in fact the ruling class is of course using the government to control the economy, just on behalf of and for the benefit of themselves, the capitalists.

I know that you know all this, RedWizard, and I'm not trying to educate you on any of it, I just saw an argument going on that I think might boil down to mostly semantics. I am just trying to sus out those semantic differences and maybe help out any lurkers, especially from other instances, who don't necessarily know this stuff.

As for you, @DeathsEmbrace@lemm.ee, humans can and do "do economy" just fine, even brilliantly in some cases. Some of them "do economy" such that it further enriches a tiny select few, and some of them "do economy" to uplift a population and increase the quality of life of the masses. Both have been done with great success.

don't take this argument to "reality" or you're axbout to get an education on what the real purpose of rich communism is.

Oh STFU. I was trying to be charitable, even generous regarding your misunderstandings because I thought you might be a new leftist who means well. Maybe I was wrong. Either way, you're clearly the one here who needs an education, even on such basics as the meaning of the words you're trying to use.