He claimed that a majority of this latter party were Socialists, when, as a matter of fact, only a minority were members of any Socialist party even in the ultra-moderate sense in which the term is employed in England, and he accredits all the chief reforms brought about by the Liberal government to this handful of "Socialists," including even the old age pensions which were almost unanimously favored by the old parties.[96] He even lists among his signs of the progress of Socialism the fact that, at the time of writing, fifty-nine governments owned their railways, while a large number had instituted postal savings banks.
The same tendency to claim everything good as Socialism is very common in Great Britain.

Even the relatively advanced Socialist, Victor Grayson, avoids the question whether there is any social reform which is not Socialism,[97] and it seems to be the general position of British Socialists that every real reform is Socialism--more or less.
August Bebel, on the contrary, is quoted as saying, "_It is not a question of whether we achieve this or that; for us the principal thing is that we put forward certain claims which no other party can put forward._" The great German Socialist sees clearly that if Socialism is to distinguish itself from the other parties it must rest its claims solely on demands which are made exclusively by Socialists.

This is what those who claim that every reform is Socialism, or is best promoted by Socialists, fail to see.

By trying to make the word, "Socialism" mean everything, they inevitably make it mean nothing.
It is true that for a time the very advertisement of the word "Socialism," by this method, and even the widest and loosest use of Socialist phrases had the effect of making people think about Socialist principles.

But this cannot be long continued before the public begins to ask questions concerning the exact meaning of such expressions as applied to everyday life.