That's actually a good thing. One thing I really hate about, say, Scrum, is that they renamed everything. That way, decades of experience with project management was lost to young people, who fail to see the connection. I think it was entirely intentional, though, because how else could you sell snake-oil?

It's not a rename. It's completely different. Similar responsibilities are split between the Product owner(Planning what features to include, interacting with users and some roadmapping), scrum master(Normally ex developer, coaching developers on how to improve the process, TDD, Code review) and the team itself(Estimates, final say about much goes in a sprint).

I think most people prefer kanban or scrum over traditional PM style management.

However they have failed deliver on all promises.

When people complain about agile, they aren't harken back to traditional pms

And the reason for this reorganization of responsibility is what, exactly? See, that's the problem. If you rename it, people won't compare it. So it gets easier to sell, because if people compare it, they might get a clue and find some flaw in it.

I am not against some shuffling of responsibility. But ideally, you should know why you do it and best if it's backed up by some studies. You can't do a study if there is no way of comparison.

It's not just people though, it's also stories, sprints, iterations, epics,... you name it. Also, everything that came before was retroactively (and derogatorily) renamed "waterfall", despite the fact that many of the advantages of agile were actively discussed since 1960s.

And, yes, I believe well managed project can be better than agile, at least in some cases. We have Agile in our organization, ostensibly, but in effect it's lot more paperwork than it ever was under so-called waterfall. At least that is my experience, of course some other people can have different one. Maybe you just didn't get in the contact with the right snake-oil salesmen - good for you!

A project manager is very different from a scrum master.

I admit I don't know much about project management. So it's quite possible you're right, and most of the project management work is put on the team (for better or worse, I think it's for the worse, anyway).

But, what I think is crucial, is (at least for someone) to know the history. So if the scrum master is to successfully improve the process, he should have a clue about project management and what was tried with what result. Otherwise he will just rediscover Brooks (Fred, although Mel is probably also a possibility). And that's why it's bad to say things like you are saying, that scrum master is not project manager, because then you will get people who really have no clue.

But a scrum master really isn't a project manager. That's like saying it's bad to say that a stakeholder isn't a project manager. It's a completely different project role.