Comrade Larrivee afterwards spoke.

“I am not of my friend, Phoenix’s opinion but I am not with my friend Sapor either.  I do not believe that the party is bound to embrace a cause as soon as we are told that that cause is just.  That, I am afraid, is a grievous abuse of words and a dangerous equivocation.  For social justice is not revolutionary justice.  They are both in perpetual antagonism:  to serve the one is to oppose the other.  As for me, my choice is made.  I am for revolutionary justice as against social justice.  Still, in the present case I am against abstention.  I say that when a lucky chance brings us an affair like this we should be fools not to profit by it.

“How?  We are given an opportunity of striking terrible, perhaps fatal, blows against militarism.  And am I to fold my arms?  I tell you, comrades, I am not a fakir, I have never been a fakir, and if there are fakirs here let them not count on me.  To sit in meditation is a policy without results and one which I shall never adopt.

“A party like ours ought to be continually asserting itself.  It ought to prove its existence by continual action.  We will intervene in the Pyrot affair but we will intervene in it in a revolutionary manner; we will adopt violent action. . . .  Perhaps you think that violence is old-fashioned and superannuated, to be scrapped along with diligences, hand-presses and aerial telegraphy.  You are mistaken.  To-day as yesterday nothing is obtained except by violence; it is the one efficient instrument.  The only thing necessary is to know how to use it.  You ask what will our action be?  I will tell you:  it will be to stir up the governing classes against one another, to put the army in conflict with the capitalists, the government with the magistracy, the nobility and clergy with the Jews, and if possible to drive them all to destroy one another.  To do this would be to carry on an agitation which would weaken government in the same way that fever wears out the sick.

“The Pyrot affair, little as we know how to turn it to advantage, will put forward by ten years the growth of the Social party and the emancipation of the proletariat, by disarmament, the general strike, and revolution.”

The leaders of the party having each expressed a different opinion, the discussion was continued, not without vivacity.  The orators, as always happens in such a case, reproduced the arguments they had already brought forward, though with less order and moderation than before.  The dispute was prolonged and none changed his opinion.  These opinions, in the final analysis, were reduced to two:  that of Sapor and Lapersonne who advised abstention, and that of Phoenix and Larrivee, who wanted intervention.  Even these two contrary opinions were united in a common hatred of the heads of the army and of their justice, and in a common belief in Pyrot’s innocence.  So that public opinion was hardly mistaken in regarding all the Socialist leaders as pernicious Anti-Pyrotists.