Does "he advocates for use by the Party" mean ...?

Does "he advocates for use by the Party" mean "he advocates that the Party should use such excessively fervent language (in their documents or statements...)"?

Context:

As regards Vollmar’s articles the first in particular, levelled as it was directly against those people who, cost what it may, are clamouring for the repeal of the Anti-Socialist Law, was very good and hit the nail on the head. The second I read rather cursorily before a journey, with 3 or 4 people chattering around me. Otherwise I would not have taken the lenient view I in fact did of the excessively fervent language which, in conclusion, he advocates for use by the Party. Bebel is right about this point which, however, I think he takes rather too seriously. The real weakness of the 2nd article (which I did note, but attached little importance to) lies in its childish idea of the coming revolution which is to begin by the whole world splitting itself ‘A Guelph! A Waibling!’, into 2 armies — on one side ourselves, on the other the whole of the ‘single reactionary mass’. I.e. the revolution is to start with the fifth act, not with the first, in which the masses of the opposition parties stand shoulder to shoulder against the government and its blunders and thus win through, whereupon one after the other of the individual parties amongst the victors loses its efficacy and puts itself out of the running, until finally the mass of the people are thereby forced onto our side, at which juncture the decisive battle so much vaunted by Vollmar can take place.