however, for many radical Marxist historians. Although his ideas were distinctively separate from and more radical than the popular social gospel thinkers who merely wanted progressive reform, many scholars still do not want to label Bliss's ideology to be socialist because it lacked real radicalism. Despite condemning capitalism as a dangerous plutocracy founded on economic individualism and his demands for an entirely new political economic order, many historians still find Bliss to be too moderate for socialist standards because of his wiliness to work with progressive reform centered institutions. These scholars argue that Bliss and other Christian socialists of the day offered watered-down versions of socialism due to their practical goals, respect for unions and the insentience on gradualism. Bliss's willingness to work with the Knights of labor, the populist and other less radical political affiliations push critics to assert that Bliss was not only comfortable with simply achieving small piecemeal reform but that he thought this was the most effective way to achieve a socialist society. There has been some push back on the idea that Bliss was too moderate to be classified within the socialist movement of the Gilded Age. Richard Dressner, in particular, argues that scholars who have labeled Bliss as a moderate have limited the scope of their analysis to the first few decades of his work and have not considered the entire trajectory of his work as a preacher and activist. Most notably, his years with the Christian Socialist Fellowship. According to Dressner, not only was Bliss pushing socialist principles from the pulpit, he was also trying to destigmatize the anti-religious nature of the socialist party itself. During his time with the Fellowship, Bliss along with many of the other Christian socialists moved away from their gradualist perspective and pushed for more immediate political change by writing approvingly not just of workers demanding improved conditions, but of labor strikes that became violent in order to achieve their radical ends. Furthermore, once elected to the executive committee of the Christian Socialist Fellowship, Bliss approved of the fellowship's full endorsement of the socialist party and even advocated Christians to vote the socialist party ticket. Dresser argues that to suggest that Bliss was merely lukewarm to socialism is to not understand the complexity of Bliss. Although early on he frequently worked with moderate progressive reformers, as the times and circumstances changed, Bliss saw his view of Christian socialism