1) Lorenzo matter of principle—this decided. 

2) Abstention impossible. Newspaper politics is also politics; all 
abstaining papers attack the government. The only question is how 
and how far to get involved in politics. This depends on 
circumstances and cannot be prescribed. 

2) Abstention nonsensical; one should abstain because bad 
people might be elected—so no contributions because the 
treasurer might abscond. So, no newspaper because the 
editor is just as likely to sell himself as the deputy. 
3) Political freedoms—particularly of association, assembly 
and press—our means of agitation; is it unimportant 
whether these are taken from us or not? And should we not 
resist if they are attacked? 
4) Abstention preached, because otherwise one is recognis- 
ing the status quo. The status quo exists and se fiche pas mal? 
about our recognition. If we use the means offered us by the 
status quo to protest against the status quo, is that 
3) Abstention impossible.“ The Workers’ Party as a political party 
exists and wants to act politically, and to preach abstention to it 
is to ruin the International. The mere contemplation of conditions, 
of political suppression for social ends forces the workers into 

politics; the preachers of abstention are driving them into the arms 
of bourgeois politicians. After the Commune, which put the political 
action of the workers on the agenda, abstention impossible. 

4) We want the abolition of classes. Sole means is political power 
in the hands of the proletariat—and we should not go into 
politics? All abstentionists call themselves revolutionaries. Revolu- 
tion is the highest act of politics, and anyone who wants it must 
also want the means of preparing revolution, educate the workers 
for it, and see to it that he is not cheated again by Favre and Pyat 
the following day. It is purely a question of which politics— the 
exclusively proletarian, not as the tail of the bourgeoisie.