Even pretending that Michael's point isn't correct (and it is correct), I'm having trouble seeing why this is relevant or even remarkable. It seems to me it only is if you assume progress to be the movement of history, if you expect us (21st centurians) to be more advanced than them (20th century boys). But it's worth pointing out, for the eight thousandth time, that "postwar practice in Europe" was a complete anomaly in capitalism's history. It was the exception, not the norm.
> Neoliberalism was a setback that current reform proposals don't recuperate.
It wasn't a "setback." It was/is a movement that changed the way capitalism functioned, to the detriment of many who were protected by the previous form and for the benefit of some who were excluded from what came before.