Economism

An opportunist faction in the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the main follower of Bernsteinism in Russia, and the international vairant of opportunism in Russia. Its main representatives were K. M. Takhtarev, S. N. Prokopovich, Y. D. Kuskova, P. N. Krichevsky, A. Martynov, V. P. Makhnovets and others. The main publications of the economism included the Rabochaya Mysl (1897-1902) and Rabocheye Dyelo (1899-1902).

Under the guise of "freedom of criticism", the economists attacked the Marxist theory of proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, and tried to replace the Marxist theory of class struggle with bourgeois reformism. Lenin pointed out that the economism was a reflection of the liberal bourgeois trend of thought within the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party, a variant of Bernsteinism in Russia. The so-called "freedom of criticism" advocated by the economists was the freedom to introduce bourgeois ideas and bourgeois elements into socialism. The economists “vulgarised Marxism, advocated the theory of the blunting of social contradictions, declared the idea of the social revolution and of the dictatorship of the proletariat to be absurd, and reduced the working-class movement and the class struggle to narrow trade-unionism”. It is interesting to note that the economists, who advocated "freedom of criticism", were in fact very afraid of publicity and criticism. They looked with sincere resentment upon all theoretical controversies and factional disaggrements, and attacked Marxism as "obsolete dogmatism", "the invention of doctrinaries" and "the overrating of ideology". Lenin pointed out that the high-sounding phareses such as "against the ossification of thoughts" put forward by the economists were only used to conceal unconcern and helplessness with regard to theoretical thought; the much vaunted "freedom of criticism" did not imply substitution of one theory for another, but freedom from all integral and pondered theory, which implied eclecticism and lack of principle.

He argued that "without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement" and "the role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory ". In order to further explain the significance of the theory, Lenin confirmed Engels' view that the great struggle of the Social-Democratic Party includes three forms: economic struggle, political struggle and theoretical struggle. Lenin emphasized that socialist consciousness is something introduced into the proletarian class struggle from without and not something that arouse within it spontaneously; the spontaneous development of the working-class movement leads to its subordination to bourgeois ideology.

On the contrary, the fundamental political tendency of the economism was to let the workers carry on the economic struggle, and let the Marxist intelligentsia merge with the liberals for the political struggle. The economists advocated the primacy of the economic struggle, thus the mission of the workers' movement for them was to improve the economic situation. Their motto was "Struggle for economic conditions", and they also argued that "Politics always obediently follows economics" and that "a kopek added to a ruble was worth more than any socialism or politics". They held that the orthodox Marxism "the economic basis of the movement is eclipsed by the effort never to forget the political ideal", and that the workers must first of all acquire "economic power" before they can think about political revolution. Lenin pointed out here that the essence of the economists was to reduce Social Democracy to the level of tradeunionism. The fact that economic interests play a decisive role does not in the least imply that the economic struggle is of prime importance; for the most essential, the “decisive” interests of classes can be satisfied only by radical political changes in general. In particular the fundamental economic interests of the proletariat can be satisfied only by a political revolution that will replace the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by the dictatorship of the proletariat. Therefore, the revolutionary Social Democracy had to"subordinate the struggle for reforms, as the part to the whole, to the revolutionary struggle for freedom and for socialism".

The economists denied the leading role of the working-class party, the necessity of instilling socialist consciousness in the working-class movement, defended the decentralized and small intellectual group activities, opposed the establishment of a centralized and unified working-class party, and argued that the Social Democrats should have not led the mass movement, but follow the mass movement as the tail of the masses.

In the complicated conditions of the struggle in Russia at that time, the ideas of the economists ran the risk of inducing the working class to leave the revolutionary path and thus to become a political appandage of the bourgeoisie. Lenin stressed that the problem can only be this: either bourgeois or socialist ideology and there is no middle course. Hence, to belittle the socialist ideology in any way, to turn aside from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen bourgeois ideology. For the simple reason that bourgeois ideology is far older in origin than socialist ideology, that it is more fully developed, and that it has at its disposal immeasurably more means of dissemination. Lenin pointed out that the fundamental error of the economists is their bowing to spontaneity and their failure to understand that the spontaneity of the masses demands a high degree of consciousness from Social Democrats.

The roots of the Russian economism were: Firstly, international opportunism and revisionism had a great influence in Russia; secondly, the influence of bourgeois reformist ideas was widespread in Russia, and its social base was Russian petty bourgeoisie, which feared that an "excessive" workers' movement would harm its vested interests. In his "A Protest by Russian Social-Democrats", Lenin sharply criticized the programme of the economists, pointing out that the economists' effort to separate the economic struggle from the political struggle was one of the most clumsy and deplorable departures from Marxism. The proletariat muststrive to form independent political workers’ parties, the main aim of which must be the capture of political power by the proletariat for the purpose of organizing socialist society. Iskra played an important role in the struggle against the economists. What Is to Be Done?, also played an irreplaceable role in smashing the economists ideologically.