From a political perspective, the dictionary definition of progressivism is "a political ideology that favors progress towards better conditions in society" - but the question about today's "progressives" is not so much about what they see as human progress but how that progress is achieved. Contemporary progressivism has little to do with actual progress, it is now solely about the control of the process, whatever the goal.
Perhaps progressivism was once about making real progress for people – but at some point during Woodrow Wilson's terms, the “progressive ideal” shifted to become less about creating a better world for people (building roads, dams) and more about creating a better people for the world (social programs and social engineering).
Prior to WWII, the various communist movements in America began to lose traction and began to blend into the progressive movement. After the war, when the evils of Nazism, fascism, socialism, and communism became self-evident, the progressive movement all but disappeared from the political landscape – at least in any serious way - only to return in the late 50's in the union halls of organized labor and because of the civil unrest of the 60's. Over time, it became wing of the Democrat Party, where it remains today.
Some would say it is more than a wing, it is now the heart.
But this is not your granddaddy’s progressivism. The communist movements that found a home in the progressive movement of the pre-WWII era became radicalized after the war as support poured in from the Soviet Union as the Cold War began and gradually began a slow and deliberate takeover. The move toward a more authoritarian ideology paralleled the progressive’s desire to perfect the person – that is a heavy lift if people maintained their individual freedoms, and the Marxist ideal solved that problem.
So, Marxism went on the march. Antonio Gramsci's "long march" through the institutions was a resounding success (The term “long march” was actually coined by Communist student activist Rudi Dutschke sometime around 1967 to describe his strategies, based on Gramsci’s writings, for establishing the conditions for revolution: subverting society by infiltrating institutions). There is no possibility one can look at government, academia, the media - and now the "woke" corporations (especially the tech oligarchy) - and not see the impact of the Frankfurt School and people like Michel Foucault and Herbert Marcuse. Critical Theory, which spawned Critical Race Theory and Cultural Marxism, are the drivers behind the authoritarianism prevalent in the Democrat Party today.
Marx saw his ideology as a bridge between socialism and global communism, and all three share the same DNA, they are simply different stages of global collectivism.
It is not difficult to see the global perspective of the contemporary Democrat Party – the addiction to joining global initiatives (like the Paris Accords) that disadvantage America, the idea that America should take direction from global bodies like the UN or the International Criminal Court, the concept that the Supreme Court of the United States should use foreign law as a basis for decisions, the apathy that created an open border, when in domestic leadership control, the Democrats never miss an opportunity to surrender US sovereignty to a foreign entity.
No, today’s progressivism is just Marxism with better PR.