They then propose to attribute whatever success they may have gained, not to the fact that they also have become reformers like the rest, but to the fact that they happen to be Socialists.

The non-Socialist reformers, they say again, are gaining a valuable experience in government; the Socialists must go and do likewise.
Reforms which were steps in capitalism thus become to them steps in Socialism.

It is not the fashion of "reformists" to try to claim that they are very great steps--on the contrary, they usually belittle them, but it is believed that agitation for such reforms as capitalist governments allow, is the best way to gain the public ear, the best kind of political practice, the most fruitful mode of activity.
One of the leading American Socialist weeklies has made a very clear and typical statement of this policy:-- "_If we leave the field of achievement to the reformer, then it is going to be hard to persuade people that reform is not sufficient.
If Socialists take every step forward as part of a general revolutionary program_, and never fail to point out that these things are but steps forward in a stairway that mean nothing save as they lead to a higher stage of society, then the Socialist movement will carry along with it all those who are fighting the class struggle.

The hopelessness of reform as a goal will become apparent when its real position in social evolution is pointed out."[94] The leading questions this proposed policy arouses will at once come to the reader's mind: Will the capitalist reformers in control of national governments allow the Socialist "reformists" to play the leading part in their own chosen field of effort?
If people tend to be satisfied with reform, what difference does it make as to the ultimate political or social ideals of those who bring it about?
If the steps taken by reformers and "reformists" are the same, by what alchemy can the latter transform them into parts of a revolutionary program?
Mr.Simons, nevertheless, presents this "reformism" as the proper policy for the American Party at its present stage:-- "It has become commonplace," he says, "to say that the Socialist movement of the United States has entered upon a new stage, and that with the coming of many local victories and not a few in State and nation, Socialist activity must partake of the character of preparation for the control of society.
"Yet our propaganda has been slow to reflect this change.

This is natural.