One can debate precise definitions, but neoliberalism is what replaced the post-war model of capitalism — in which government was heavily involved in the productive side of the economy. In the 1980s and 90s, a wave of privatisation and deregulation rolled back the frontiers of the state — but not all the way. The welfare state, despite some reforms, stayed very much in place.

That’s what makes neoliberalism ‘neo’ and not ‘retro’. As with the laissez-faire era of the 19th century, the private sector is mostly left alone to make money; but very much unlike the Victorian age, the public sector continues to spend a great big chunk of it.

Replacing neoliberalism with ‘marketism’ would suggest there’s something uniquely market-focused about the times we live in. But markets are old. Older than capitalism. Older than money itself.

A lot of neoliberals don’t like the word neoliberalism. That may be because it’s used pejoratively and pretentiously by contemporary anti-capitalists. But I suspect, there’s also some defensiveness at work here. Naming particular eras of capitalism allows comparisons to be made between them, which aren’t always comfortable for defenders of the status quo — especially not when it comes to the rate of economic growth and productivity improvement (which used to be a lot higher).