Well, that is a very expansive topic. I think one thing worth mentioning at the start is that many scholars today no longer even believe in the value of the term "feudalism", because it is used to refer to a great variety of systems and arrangements all over Europe and over a centuries long period of time, to boot. If we include other societies like premodern China, Japan, India etc. the use of the term becomes even more problematic.

When I use the word "feudalism", I use it in the same sense Evola does, in order to refer to an ideal type of government where the organic principle prevails. Feudal societies were based on the concept of mutual obligations and mutual interest, on self-sufficiency, differentiation (farmers, artisan guilds, warriors etc), as well as local and familial ties. Incidentally, all of these things curtail the exercise of money power, and were consequently opposed and destroyed by liberals to clear the way for a bourgeois regime.

The problem I have with the "neo-feudalism" frame is that it links modern neoliberalism with feudalism, consequently making liberalism proper appear as some sort of high point sandwiched between those two eras, even though the two systems are absolutely nothing alike.

I think a much more accurate comparison could be made with early liberalism, since it eliminated the strong social links and institutions that helped sustain communities in order to atomise and standardise various groups of people into "workers", who would work any job they could get, no matter how dangerous, poorly paid and unfulfilling, with no obligations on behalf of the employer whatsoever other than providing these workers with "the priviledge of work". Additionally, by eliminating the political priviledges of the aristocracy, not only was control of the state opened up to just anyone with money, but the aristocrats themselves, left with nothing to do and no option other than to compete with merchants, would go into moneymaking themselves, which transformed them from a caste with a function into a mere class of rich people, de facto merchants. Land monopolies (held to a large extent by the remnants of the aristocracy) and capital monopolies (held by bankers, merchants and to a lesser extent industrialists) formed the basis of this early form of liberalism and are the chief reason why the ideology of "free trade" and "free markets" was as powerful as it was. Despite many ethical and political challenges, it took the massive stress of the world wars to force an end to this system and usher in a more social consensus and the era of the welfare state. Even that, of course, was done at the cost of the poorer sections of the upper classes, not at the cost of big capital. That is a bit of a digression, though. The point is that this pre-war liberalism, with its monopolies, brutal exploitation, completely anti-social character, plutocracy, and moneymaking rationale, is a much clearer match for the neoliberalism of today. This same issue of massive wealth and even more massive wealth inequality coinciding has already been seen at various times during the past two hundred years. Rather than a hypothetical regression to feudalism, it is a true regression to monopolistic liberalism, only woke and paired with a Netflix subscription this time.