Leftist actually does have meaning. Neo-liberalism is a right wing ideology built on imperialism and capitalism. To conflate the two is dishonest.

I agree with you. But there is a lot of leftist infighting, especially between MLs, Anarchists, LibSocs, DemSocs, AnComs, etc...

And there is also of neoliberals that pretend to be leftist, yes, so called "Radlibs".

Then there are leftists that accuse other leftists that aren't of their same brand of being liberals, for example MLs calling anarchists liberals because they admit markets, or anarchists calling MLs capitalists/liberals because of state capitalism and the DotP, and then MLs calling DemSocs liberals because they want to operate at least partiallty within "bourgeois democracy", etc...

It's a very North America thing, though.

I don't totally disagree with you, but the leftist infighting is of a very different nature than left vs. the establishment. For one, those on the left don't actually have the power to cancel each other. The platforms are owned by the neo-liberals, which direct the canceling through who they allow to speak their mind and who they don't.

> And there is also of neoliberals that pretend to be leftist, yes, so called "Radlibs".

These are the people doing the canceling (both to the left and the right of them). It's worth nothing the distinction as it's this group with the power.

Agreed. Leftists don't actually have the power over the media to cancel anyone these days, it's overwhelmingly done by radlibs.

No one (on the Left, obviously the Right does this), including people who critique Leninists (who I assume you are referring to as MLs) for supporting “state capitalism”, calls Leninists “liberals”.

Or, at least, approximately nobody; you can find examples of anything, but it's not like a significant thing.

It's a stupid and ridiculous critique, I agree, but yes I have seen people call MLs liberals. It is quite wild.