Simply put, progressivism is middle-class politics. In progressive terms, the middle-class carry social-justice, because they're able to secure public benefits like social-security and workman's comp that don't occur to the rich but do benefit the poor.
Yet if it engenders kinder outcomes than conservatism, they are the surpluses of other classes' good fortune. Progressivism still lacks tactics that favor the poor. For example, the call from every concerned liberal today is for job training. Yes, firms may pay a premium for skilled-labor, but namely, the market price. But the market has one, and one only function; to increase profits.
They pretend it's not Malthusian, yet as much progressive-liberalism strives to empower workers through 'opportunity', it at the same time pushes the market into the hands of large firms that can afford to organize the worker-economy, and use the newly-skilled to increase their market power.
The result, no-denying, has been a widening gap between skilled and (virtually discarded) un-skilled labor. With that, to a degree, progressivism has devolved into a boutique cosmopolitanism that sees populism as its enemy, not a version of itself, and has in many ways distanced itself from the working class.
Ergo, progressivism doesn't even bode well for the middle-class. To gain from increased productivity, instead of confrontation, which may for example increase wages, in the long run means a smaller percent of the larger pie. As we've seen over the past 40 years, since the 'golden-age' of capitalism, trading profits for better wages may be the one case on Earth, where Malthus' rules apply: Profit increases power exponentially. Pay increases it additionally, when it increases.
What did Marx call profits? The amount you didn't pay another for their labor.
Still, there remain two argument for us to support progressive causes. One is suspect but cited enough to bear mention. It's to attach something-akin to Maslow's 'hierarchy of needs' to capitalism. His theory is a good one. Does it apply?
By Maslow's approximation (mind, I'm over-simplifying), until our basic needs are met, we're not prepared for more complex or forward-looking challenges. Unspoken premise when applied to capitalism: that we must raise ourselves to atomized, first-world standards before we are mature enough to disengage atomized, first-world trappings.
Really? No doubt Americans, on average, eat more calories than folks in Uruguay or South Korea. Yet the World Economic Forum ranks both healthier democracies. Recall also, literacy rates are lower here than in Cuba. And Cuba achieved that by revolting against first-world standards of living. Furthermore, as part of the global community, the US has done a better job denying at least 40 countries democracy than it has upholding its own. And I'm sure I could list 40 more reasons for doubt.
The second argument relates but is a bit more-substantive. And that is, just accepting that we'll have to maneuver our way there. Certainly, we need to further on, and in most cases that means legislate, because they will whether we do or not, and there's no need for us to lose even harder than were used to. But I'm not convinced there's still a path forward in the US that could out run climate catastrophe or the next big war. (Bolton is clearly in a hurry.)
I'm not sure progress hasn't become a ruse whenever spoke in Washington. But more likely, it's just something to start with then bargain away, as with, for example, socialized healthcare--until progress is turned on its head; socialized to anchor us to the insurance companies, with care, itself secondary.
Consider this proposition from the World Bank 2019 annual report:
Even in advanced economies, the payroll-based insurance model is increasingly challenged by working arrangements outside standard employment contracts. "This Report "calls for a universal, guaranteed minimum level of social protection. It can be done with the right reforms, such as ending unhelpful subsidies; improving labor market regulations; and, globally, overhauling taxation policies.
In other words, disinvestment in current social services, dismantling labor protections, and Trump's tax cuts, already in effect. Replaced by:
A societal minimum that provides support independent of employment is one option. This model, which would include mandated and voluntary social insurance, could reach many more people.[iv]
That is to say, for-profit UBI, like Obamacare is to UHC. Mandates amount to flat taxes on workers and upward redistribution, i.e. disinvestment in the poor. And they will help keep taxes low on high earners by having us all pitch in. Thus, they are a handout to the .001%--Socialism turned on its head to serve capital.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).