Socialist or Progressive?

Among a certain political sect it is fashionable to call oneself a progressive. Of course the term “progressive” like the term improvement or advancement is, of itself, rather meaningless. One cannot make abstract progress, there must be a specific proposition, not currently realized, that one is progressing toward.
Now most would identify the position most progressives are progressing toward, as socialism, and I would have to agree with that, but that does not mean that one should identify progressives with socialists.
True socialists are actually rather rare, in fact there are a great many people who claim to be socialist, who in fact are not. A true socialist is some one who follows the principles of socialism to their logical conclusion, and desires that conclusion. Now the fundamental principle of socialism is that an elite (the government) should control and manage all resources, and thus naturally also the life of the individual, including, or rather primarily regarding, procreation (since obviously in any sound economic system involving humans, who ever controls the recesses must control procreation).
The progressive on the other hand, though he likes the socialist’s principle, gets squeamish when it is carried to its logical conclusion.
Of course many who call themselves progressive would probably not balk too much at the idea of a general restriction on the number of children a woman can have. But such would hardly be adequate for responsible socialism, and would really be no better and probably worse than letting women procreate willy-nilly. It could function as somewhat of a clumsy emergency shutoff mechanism, but one could hardly call an automobile operator a good driver, if his sole ability were to hit the breaks.
Making the restriction disproportionate, so that the prime females could have more children than the culls might appear to be progress, but this could still leave the society inadequately, and inappropriately populated if the prime females did not choose to procreate enough.
If the elite (the government) is to be truly responsible it must not merely restrict procreation for the culls, it must compel it for the primes, so that an appropriate population can be achieved. But it is pointless for the prime females to have more children if their mates are culls. So a responsible government must not only dictate how many children a woman has, but also who she marries.
It is this, the logical conclusion of socialism, which the progressive does not like. And that is why he calls himself a progressive. If he were a socialist, he would desire its fullness and nothing less. But where the socialist desires a sound (if fairly abominable) economic system. The progressive desires neither soundness nor stability but merely an endless Zenonean progress towards socialism.
Or perhaps more close to reality, the progressive is looking for a free lunch. He wants resources, but he does not want to pay for them, either by being responsible for them himself, or surrendering that responsibility to another. There is, of course, a way to get a free lunch, and that is to steal it. This is what the progressive truly is, not a respectable advisory like the socialist, but merely a despicable thief. He wishes to steal from both sides and escape before he is caught. If there are any true socialists, they should despise the progressive as much as we do.