but let's run through the list:
Fascist: inasmuch as Fascism pushed a Corporatist economic program, yes. inasmuch as Fascism depended upon a nationalistic model, no; though one could make a partial argument via their tendency to support trade barriers
Socialist: see above response to 1069
Communist: with the exception of their approach to a few industries, and a few more extreme individuals, no. certainly they are willing to make common cause with Communists
Feminists: yup. the progressive movemet in general is all about 1) interest groups and 2) pushing a narrative that involves that interest group as a victim, America as a victimizer, and themselves in the role of savior/protector
Pro-Labor: yup. this is one of the aspects where they bleed from corporatism into differing forms of socialism, but also feeds in to the interest group bit directly above.
Reformist
i suppose that depends on your definition of 'reform'. conservative activists would consider themselves reformists as well, after all.
Pro-Civil Liberties
not necessarily, no. whether it's Nancy Pelosi suggesting that the government investigate opponents of the 9/11 'victory mosque', or Wilson having it declared illegal to disagree publicy with his foriegn policy and organizing armed thugs to beat those who disagreed with his domestic policy, the Progressives assumption of the superiority of nationalized unified purpose has often led them to consider limiting the civil liberties of others as a necessary step in the road to the future.
Middle Class
:shrug: some of them, but they are concentrated in our
political class
Pro-Eugenics
again this comes to how one defines the term. for example, the older progressives were certainly in favor of eugenics as a means of reducing the numbers of unfit races and mental standards (two standards which they considered to have considerable overlap) - that's why they brought in forced-sterilization laws and siezed 50,000+ Americans to perform surgery on them against their will. the progressive Supreme Court even backed it. however, with the discovery of the use that all that research had been put to by ze germans, eugenics as an open program suddenly became politically untenable. the language had to change. planned parenthood, originally founded to help protect the white race from 'hordes of blacks and asian mongrels', shifted to abortion (which would have perhaps surprised it's founder, maggie sanger, who was pro-life at least, though a horrendous racist), which was seen by some as having the same effects without all the (now unwanted) political fire of being connected to eugenics. that's why (for example) al sharpton referred to abortion as 'stealth genocide' before he decided he wanted power within the Democratic party. the remaining
logic (if not the overt racial overtones) are seen today in the claims that abortion has lowered crime; you know, the only population that we're losing is the 'undesireable' part, coming from 'that sort of people' most likely to engage in criminal enterprise, etc.etc.
Liberal
in the classic sense of what Liberalism actually
meant; no. they stole the term because 'Progressive' was becoming too hot to handle and they needed something with positive connotation. John Dewey (who led this charge) in particular was very open about this. in the modern sense of how we use the word, yes.