The socialists, on the contrary, called upon the workingmen to participate in the parliamentary life of the country. Political abstention, they asserted, is neither helpful nor possible.[58] The workingman believes in using his right to vote, and to ignore his attitude of mind is of no avail. Besides, to bring about the transformation of capitalist society into a collectivist society, the political machinery of the State must be used. There is no other way of accomplishing this task. The State will disappear after the socialist society has been firmly established. But there is an inevitable transitory period when the main economic reforms must be carried out and during which the political power of the State must be in the hands of the socialist party representing the working-class. The first act of the Social Revolution, therefore, is to conquer the political power of the State.[59] [58] _L'Égalité_, 30 June, 1880. [59] In socialist writings this transition period is always spoken of as the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat." Within the socialist ranks themselves further divisions soon took place. In 1882, at the Congress of St. Etienne, the party was split into two parts; one part followed Guesde, the other followed Paul Brousse. The latter part took the name of _Parti ouvrier socialiste révolutionnaire français_--it dropped the word "_révolutionnaire_" from its title in 1883--and continued to bear as sub-title, the name "Federation of socialist workingmen of France." Guesde's party took the name of _Parti Ouvrier Français_. The _Parti Ouvrier Français_ claimed to represent the "revolutionary" and "scientific" socialism of Marx. It accepted the familiar doctrines of "orthodox" Marxism, which it popularized in France. It affirmed its revolutionary character by denying the possibility of reforms in capitalist society and by insisting upon the necessity of seizing the political power of the State in a revolutionary way. In 1886 J. Guesde wrote as follows: In the capitalist régime, that is, as long as the means of production and of existence are the exclusive property of a few who work less and less, all rights which the constitutions and the codes may grant to others, to those who concentrate within themselves more and more all muscular and cerebral work, will remain always and inevitably a dead letter. In multiplying reforms, one only multiplies shams (_trompe-l'oeil_).[60] [60] Jules Guesde, _Le Socialisme au jour le jour_ (Paris, 1899), p. 268. Inability to carry out real reforms was ascribed to both national legislative bodies and to the municipalities. Therefore,