You will see I am running through Martynov's article that Robert Knight engaged more in 'calling the masses to certain concrete actions,' while Liebknecht engaged more in 'the revolutionary explanation of the whole of modern society, or various manifestations of it'; that Robert Knight 'formulated the immediate demands of the proletariat and pointed to the manner in which they can be achieved,' whereas Wilhelm Liebknecht, while doing this, 'simultaneously guided the activities of various opposition strata,' 'dictated to them a positive program of action' that it was precisely Robert Knight who strove 'as far as possible to give the economic struggle itself a political character' and was excellently able 'to submit to the government concrete demands promising certain palpable results,' while Liebknecht engaged more in 'one sided exposures'; that Robert Knight attached more significance to the 'forward march of the drab, every day struggle,' while Liebknecht attached more significance to the 'propaganda of brilliant and finished ideas'; that Liebknecht converted the paper he was directing into 'an organ of revolutionary opposition exposing the present system and particularly the political conditions which came into conflict with the interests of the most varied strata of the population,' whereas Robert Knight 'worked for the cause of labor in close organic contact with the proletarian struggle' if by 'close and organic contact' is meant the subservience to spontaneity which we studied above from the example of Krichevsky and Martynov and 'restricted the sphere of his influence,' convinced, of course, as is Martynov, that 'by that he intensified that influence.'