I first encountered the argument from David Harvey:

For almost everyone involved in the movement of '68, the intrusive state was the enemy and it had to be reformed. And on that, the neoliberals could easily agree. But capitalist corporations, business, and the market system were also seen as primary enemies requiring redress if not revolutionary transformation: hence the threat to capitalist class power. By capturing ideals of established individual freedom and turning them against the interventionist and regulatory practices of the state, capitalist class interests could hope to protect and even restore their position. Neoliberal was well suited to this ideological task. But it had to be backed up by a practical strategy that emphasized the liberty of consumer choice, not only with respect to particular products but also with respect to lifestyles, modes of expression, and a wide range of cultural practices. Neoliberalization required both politically and economically the construction of a neoliberal market-based populist culture of differentiated consumerism and individual libertarianism. As such it proved more than a little compatible with that cultural impulse called "post-modernism" which had long been lurking in the wings but could now emerge full-blown as both a cultural and an intellectual dominant. This was the challenge that corporations and class elites set out to finesse in the 1980s.

The ruling elites moved, often fractiously, to support the opening up of the cultural field to all manner of diverse cosmopolitan currents. The narcissistic exploration of self, sexuality, and identity became the leitmotif of bourgeois urban culture. Artistic freedom and artistic license, promoted by [New York City]'s powerful cultural institutions, led, in effect, to the neoliberalization of culture...The city's elites acceded, though not without a struggle, to the demand for lifestyle diversification (including those attached to sexual preference and gender) and increasing consumer niche choices (in areas such as cultural production). New York became the epicentre of postmodern cultural and intellectual experimentation. Meanwhile the investment bankers reconstructed the city economy around financial activities, ancillary services such as legal services and the media (much revived by the financialization then occurring) and diversified consumerism (gentrification and neighborhood "restoration" playing a prominent and profitable role). City government was more and more construed as an entrepreneurial rather than a social democratic or even managerial entity...

--A Brief History of Neoliberalism, by David Harvey (2005)

But Mirowski's detailed and nuanced description of neoliberal ideology in Never Let A Serious Crisis Go To Waste is what most got me onto it. The fragmentation of identity as a series of masks (worker/manager/commodity/entrepreneur/etc) to don depending on the situation; reduction of the idea of collective action to the level of being unthinkable; reduction of political participation as an extension of personal expression and virtue; idea that political change can only be achieve through participation in markets; exaltation of market activity and commodity consumption as the highest form of personal expression - all these alements are very much in line with the postmodern idea that there is no universal truth or structure to the known universe. That power is interpreted not in terms of known, material, structural forces but in vague, relativistic terms.

Postmodern Or, The Cultural Logic of Capitalism by Frederic Jameson is unfortunately still in my backlog but I imagine it expands on this conception a great deal.