Answering something such as this is a gigantic task that for even rough approximations would require an entire department of a state apparatus to conduct the necessary work needed to answer the, therefore to speak on the subject would need either a lot of previously-done research performed by various States to craft an accurate answer or rely on a significant amount of sweeping generalizations to give a somewhat nebulous answer - The latter one I'll be doing because I'm just one person who doesn't want to write a book.

Capitalism in the modern period could only be concidered a progressive force when subordinated under the direction of a communist party insofar as the party considers it necessary in order to build the jumpingboard to transitioning towards a socialist economy. The Soviet Union utilized the NEP plan, to rebuild after the civil war and prepare for the inevitable clash against capitalist states in the future, then transitioned to a socialist economy while liquidating the capitalist and petty bourgeoise NEPmen and kulaks that opposed the transition. The PRC on the other hand - from my barest understanding on the topic - entered their own version of the NEP plan and in order to stave off the inevitable clash against capitalist states in the future partially subordinated their country to the whims of international capitalism and harnessed/was harnessed to the anarchy of capitalism to do in decades what took the soviets years. And at this time the PRC is not a socialist economy but has on it's long-term plans to begin transitioning to a socialist economy within this century - something we, the living, will see occur or not occur in our lifetimes -

At the end of the day it is a tool, a rube goldberg machine in truth, that when used and directed properly helps build the foundations of a socialist society then be promptly discarded can be considered to be progressive. Otherwise it is as erratic as a pinball machine and often reactionary.