Recent works that assess whether development has been well-served, or served at all, by international aid, are overwhelmingly pessimistic in their assessment and in favor of the market as the antidote to international aid (Klees, 2010). The author finds that Steve Klees' essay focuses on the neoliberal and liberal frameworks that represent the mainstream view on aid, but offers very little elaboration of the progressive perspective that Klees endorses. In this article, the author extricates the progressive perspective (as defined by Klees) from its premature burial and elaborates on progressive analysis on the future of aid and development. This is done by first parsing the very category of "progressive" and contending that its typical usage within U.S. political discourse obfuscates rather than clarifies political analysis. Building on this point, this author argues that the ways in which the "progressive" perspective is circumscribed in Klees' essay and within general U.S. political debate rules out Left critiques of international aid and the alternatives proposed from within this framework. Finally, Kamat outlines some recent policy actions and people's struggles in different parts of the Third World that illustrate a Left perspective on aid and development quite distinct from the liberal progressive critiques that are on the table thus far. (Contains 10 endnotes.)