Economism

Economism is a deviation within the socialist and labor movements that reduces all political questions to immediate economic struggles, denying the necessity of independent political organization, revolutionary theory, and class consciousness. Economism subordinates politics to economics and revolutionary strategy to trade union activity.

Characteristics of economism

Economism manifests in several related forms:

Trade unionism: The belief that workers need only fight for better wages and working conditions through trade unions, and that socialist consciousness will arise spontaneously from economic struggle alone, without the need for a revolutionary party or political education.

Tailing spontaneity: Following the spontaneous movements of the working class rather than providing leadership, political education, and strategic direction based on revolutionary theory.

Rejection of political struggle: Viewing independent political struggle, against the state, for democratic rights, against imperialism, as unnecessary or secondary to economic demands.

Stages theory economism: The mechanical materialist belief that socialism can only come after capitalism has fully developed economically, and that therefore political struggle for socialism is premature in less developed countries.

Lenin's Critique

Lenin provided the most systematic Marxist critique of economism in his 1902 work 'What is to be done?' Lenin identified economism as the dominant error of the Russian socialist movement in the late 1890s and early 1900s.

The Economists and the root, namely, subservience to spontaneity, with which we dealt in the preceding chapter as a general phenomenon and which we shall now examine in relation to its effect upon political activity and the political struggle. At first sight, our assertion may appear paradoxical, so great is the difference between those who stress the “drab everyday struggle” and those who call for the most self sacrificing struggle of individuals. But this is no paradox. The Economists and the terrorists merely bow to different poles of spontaneity; the Economists bow to the spontaneity of “the labour movement pure and simple”, while the terrorists bow to the spontaneity of the passionate indignation of intellectuals, who lack the ability or opportunity to connect the revolutionary struggle and the working-class movement into an integral whole.

Lenin argued that economism resulted from: Mechanical materialism: Believing economic development automatically produces revolutionary consciousness.

Worship of spontaneity: Denying the necessity of raising socialist consciousness among the working masses.

Bourgeois influence: Allowing bourgeois ideology to dominate the workers' movement by restricting it to economic demands acceptable to capitalism.

The demand “to lend the economic struggle itself a political character” most strikingly expresses subservience to spontaneity in the sphere of political activity. Very often the economic struggle spontaneously assumes a political character, that is to say, without the intervention of the “revolutionary bacilli — the intelligentsia”, without the intervention of the class-conscious Social-Democrats. The economic struggle of the English workers, for instance, also assumed a political character without any intervention on the part of the socialists. The task of the Social-Democrats, however, is not exhausted by political agitation on an economic basis; their task is to convert trade-unionist politics into Social-Democratic political struggle, to utilise the sparks of political consciousness which the economic struggle generates among the workers, for the purpose of raising the workers to the level of Social-Democratic political consciousness. The Martynovs, however, instead of raising and stimulating the spontaneously awakening political consciousness of the workers, bow to spontaneity and repeat over and over ad nauseam, that the economic struggle “Impels” the workers to realise their own lack of political rights. It is unfortunate, gentlemen, that the spontaneously awakening trade-unionist political consciousness does not “impel” you to an understanding of your Social-Democratic tasks.—Lenin

Relationship to mechanical materialism

Economism is the practical political expression of mechanical materialism. It treats the economic base as mechanically determining consciousness and politics in a one-directional, undialectical way. This ignores:

- The relative autonomy of politics and ideology.

- The reciprocal influence of superstructure on base.

- The necessity of organized intervention to transform spontaneous trade union consciousness into revolutionary socialist consciousness.

Contemporary manifestations

Economism persists in various forms:

Reformism and social democracy: Limiting workers' struggle to demands for higher wages, benefits, and reforms within capitalism while abandoning the struggle for socialism.

Syndicalism: Believing trade unions alone can overthrow capitalism through general strikes, without the need for a revolutionary party or seizure of state power.

Movementism: Tailing whatever spontaneous movement exists without providing strategic leadership or connecting immediate struggles to the broader fight for socialism.

Stagism in semi-colonial countries: Arguing that underdeveloped countries must first complete capitalist development before socialism becomes possible, thus postponing revolutionary struggle indefinitely.

The Marxist alternative

Against economism, Marxism-Leninism argues:

Political leadership is necessary: A revolutionary vanguard party must raise class consciousness in workers, training them in socialist theory and connecting economic struggles to political strategy.

Consciousness must be brought from without: While workers develop trade union consciousness spontaneously, socialist consciousness requires theoretical understanding of capitalism as a system and the historical mission of the working class.

All-sided political struggle: The party must lead struggles on all fronts, economic, political, ideological, and connect immediate demands to the strategic goal of overthrowing capitalism.

Revolutionary theory guides practice: Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement. Economic struggle alone cannot produce the consciousness necessary for revolution.

As Lenin concluded in 'What is to be done?' :

Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This idea cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity.