ISJ Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
From International Socialism, No.57, April 1973, pp.19-21.
Transcribed & marked up by by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
Duncan Hallas is less than complete in his account of economism (IS 56). We have tried briefly to outline the relevance of Lenin’s debate with the ‘economists’ to revolutionaries today. It is not intended to be a point-by-point answer to Duncan Hallas’ contribution.
To Lenin ‘economism’ existed as a tendency within the Russian Social-Democratic movement, characterised by ‘its slavish cringing before spontaneity.’ What the economists argued was that in the economic struggle the working class inevitably and spontaneously develops an independent socialist political position for themselves.
Lenin argued against them that socialist politics (as opposed to trade union politics), did not develop automatically within the day-to-day struggle of the class. Rather it had to be fought for consciously by a social democratic party. Martynov, one of the principle ‘economists,’ argued that Lenin was seeking to impose alien politics from the outside as opposed to letting them develop spontaneously from the economic struggle.
In reply to Lenin’s stress on the need to win workers to a clear socialist world view and support for the social democratic programme, the economists characteristically replied:
‘the political struggle of the working class is merely the most developed, wide, and effective form of economic struggle.’ [1]
To Lenin’s stress on winning a politically conscious workers’ vanguard as the revolutionary party, they accused him of over emphasising the role of ideas and ideology. Their whole criticism of Lenin’s view of the party stemmed from their conception of the spontaneous relationship between economics and political struggle.
Lenin argued that there were two spontaneous tendencies in the workers’ movement: one towards socialism, the other towards acceptance of bourgeois ideology. The party was a necessity in order to transform the former tendency into consciousness on the basis of disciplined agitation for the strategy which flowed from the party’s programme. The economists’ views of spontaneous consideration without the party led to disastrous consequences. As Lenin put it in What is to he Done.
All worship of the spontaneity of the working class movement, all belittling of the role of social democracy, means quite independently of whether he who belittles that role desires it or not, a strengthening of the influence of bourgeois ideology upon the workers.
For Lenin then the question of politics, of what defines ‘political’ as opposed to ‘economical’ was not just the breadth of the struggle as the economists suggested. He made a clear distinction between trade union politics and socialist politics. The former he calls:
‘... the common striving of all workers to secure from the government measures for alleviating the distress to which their condition gives rise, but which do not abolish that condition.’
A strike against the government, even a general strike is certainly political, but it does not itself automatically develop socialist consciousness. This is the position which Lenin developed which is central to any discussion of the demands revolutionaries raise in the day-to-day struggle of the class.
What does our historical experience of the debate on ‘economism’ and the distinction between trade union and social democratic politics teach us when we come to the problem of what demands we raise and fight for as revolutionaries?
Having not clearly understood economism, having simplified it to the level of not wanting to build a revolutionary workers’ party, Duncan Hallas all too lightly dismisses the importance of the ideas expressed in the debate. He argues that if the Labour Party and the TUC are the real ‘economists’ how can a revolutionary group run the risk of economism in its agitation? In Duncan Hallas’ scheme there is no such danger. This can be seen if we take his approach to the raising of demands; ‘it is a matter of judgement, and a sensible judgement can only be made on the basis of a serious knowledge of the industry, the state of feeling among the workers at the time, the situation in the unions, the employers strategy and soon.’
This only goes half way to answering the question. Any trade unionist worth his salt would do precisely that.
As revolutionary socialists we work with the clear goal of the socialist revolution. This is what differentiates Marxism from pure and simple trade unionism. We fight to build within the class a leadership of those militants consciously committed to the socialist revolution. This is not a task that can be solved by any number of abstract declarations of principle delivered to the class.
It can be solved, (the building of the revolutionary party), as a result of our ability to connect and relate the day-to-day battles of the class with the politics of socialist revolution. In other words our activity within the class is dominated by the goal.
As socialists we need a clear idea and strategy for the way forward to that goal. Communist Party members, for example, have much of their theory and practice distilled in The British Road to Socialism. Their day-to-day politics, for example their attitude to rank and file activity and the Left trade union leaders flow from this strategy, this political position. So in IS our activity, our demands flow also not just from the yardsticks advanced by Duncan Hallas but also, most centrally, from how the struggle relates to our strategy for the socialist revolution.
Put simply IS strategy depends on:
- A mass national rank and file trade union minority movement.
- A leadership of politically conscious militants embodied in the revolutionary party.
As a result our demands and slogans are not the product of playing by ear, as Duncan Hallas seems to be suggesting, but out of an attempt to relate our politics to the day-to-day struggle.
Does this mean that we do not fight with the class for the successful conclusion of all battles for reforms? Of course that is not so. What it does mean is:
- We outline the clear demands by which the particular struggle may be won. For example the demands Duncan Hallas points out were used by IS in the recent builders strike. It is crucial here that we locate the struggle in the total strategy we are fighting for in the class.
- We seek to raise in our agitation and propaganda the politics which are posed by the struggle. We do not seek to stand outside and inject political purity into the battle from a position of non-involvement. Rather our involvement seeks to explain and raise the problems posed by the struggle itself. For example, the present battle against steel redundancies acutely raises the question of the nature of nationalisation in a capitalist society.
For revolutionaries there is always more than the particular demands of the particular dispute. There is the attempt to raise and pose the relevance of their political world view. That is why Trotsky could say: ‘trade unions are not ends in themselves: they are but means along the road to the proletarian revolution.’
The revolutionary international, he argued:
‘... indefatigably, ... defends the democratic rights and social conquests of the workers. But it carries on this day-to-day work within the framework of the correct actual, that is revolutionary perspective.’ [2]
Revolutionaries win leadership within the class not through the purity of their position (sectarianism) nor because they are the best shop stewards (trade unionism). They seek to win the leadership, in a period of social crisis, on the clear understanding that their politics enable them to be the best shop stewards. In a period of capitalist crisis and employers’ offensive we have always argued that only socialist politics and strategy can give an effective way forward in the day-to-day struggle. [3]
What does this approach imply when we come to a concrete situation such as the dockers strike of 1972. IS 55 said of this dispute: ‘in 1972 the dockers proved the instability of Tory power, and at the same time the limitation of politically uninformed militancy.’
Such a strike posed two major tasks for revolutionaries:
- To assist in the spreading and maintenance of the strike to ‘free the five.’
- To fight for their political ideas and strategy within the strike itself.
In other words the demands to be raised do not flow from the needs of the struggle alone but from our political position. Where objectively the conflict is political, Lenin’s debate with the economists is of crucial relevance to us today in differentiating between objectively political disputes with the state and socialist politics. Duncan Hallas’ contention that the difference between ‘political’ and ‘economic’ is a matter of degree of generalisation misses the point Lenin made in the distinction between trade union politics and socialist politics.
The dockers’ strike posed the question of the class nature of the state and law. With the prospect of a one-day general strike being called by the TUC it also posed the nature of the trade union leadership and the general strike weapon. Large numbers of dockers, subject to bourgeois hysteria, argued that it was not the law they were against but ‘bad law.’ In other words our propaganda and agitation, flowing from our political analysis and strategy, had to seek to raise and explain these political problems.
In the battle to build a revolutionary party any underestimation of the relevance of the ‘economism’ debate is dangerous. This is especially so when Duncan Hallas tends so clearly to oversimplify the ‘economist’ tendency. As a result, he comes very close to such openly ‘economist’ formulations as differentiating sectional ‘economic’ struggle from general political battle.
Today’s economists do not exist in the Labour Party or the TUC as Duncan Hallas claims. They are that tendency – and Lenin insisted they represent a trend and tendency not a fixed political position – which underestimates or ignores the need to fight openly for and raise political ideas in the everyday struggle.
There are those who consider militancy itself automatically develops socialists ideas and so eradicates racism and chauvinism from within the working class. There are those who see the road to socialist revolution just in terms of generalising the experience of the class, not in terms of the fight for a vanguard party with a clear conscious revolutionary strategy and programme.
Lenin provided us with the essential tools to fight any such tendencies. We must not lightly throw them away.
1. What Is To Be Done, 1903, Selected Works 1, p.149, London 1937.
2. Both citations are from The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the 4th International, 1938, SLL edition, 1970.
3. See for example Chris Harman’s article on the trade union leadership and the freeze in Socialist Worker 309.
ISJ Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 15.2.2008