He went on to attack the notion of so-called freedom of criticism put forward by the Economists as a fashionable slogan of those who were determined to drive “Social-Democracy into trade unionist channels.” He saw this freedom of criticism as a clear attempt to be free to smuggle in alien ideas into the revolutionary party. Lenin explained:
And if we judge people, not by the glittering uniforms they don or by the high-sounding appellations they give themselves, but by their actions and by what they actually advocate, it will be clear that ‘freedom of criticism’ means freedom for an opportunist trend in Social-Democracy, freedom to convert Social-Democracy into a bourgeois party of reform, freedom to introduce bourgeois ideas and bourgeois elements into socialism… The cry heard today, ‘Long live freedom of criticism’, is too strongly reminiscent of the fable of the empty barrel…
Above all, Lenin attacked those who wanted a free-for-all to water down or abandon revolutionary politics. In response, they accused him of an inability to compromise and of being sectarian. But Lenin warned his fellow comrades against being dragged into the marsh by those who wanted to take them in an opportunist direction. He posed the question very sharply but very clearly:
We are surrounded on all sides by enemies, and we have to advance under their fire. We have combined, by a freely adopted decision, for the purpose of fighting the enemy, and not of retreating into the neighbouring marsh, the inhabitants of which, from the very outset, have reproached us with having separated ourselves into an exclusive group and have chosen the path of struggle instead of the path of conciliation. And now some among us begin to cry out: ‘Let us go into the marsh!’ And when we begin to shame them, they retort: ‘What backward people you are! Are you not ashamed to deny us the liberty to invite you to take a better road!’ Oh, yes, gentlemen! You are free not only to invite us, but to go yourselves wherever you will, even into the marsh. In fact, we think that the marsh is your proper place, and we are prepared to render you every assistance to get there. Only let go of our hands, don’t clutch at us and don’t besmirch the grand word freedom, for we too are ‘free’ to go where we please, free to fight not only against the marsh, but also against those who are turning towards the marsh!
In What is to be Done? Lenin defined the outlook of the Economists as a tendency which displayed complete disdain for theory.
Theory, they said, was of no interest to workers. “Our concern is the working-class movement,” stated the Economists, “the workers organisations here, in our localities.” They went on: “all the rest is merely the invention of doctrinaires, ‘the overrating of ideology’…”
Their constant talk of the ‘working class movement’ was a cover for their real contempt towards workers. As with the sectarian organisations today, they believed that the workers are not intelligent enough to understand theory. Therefore, the revolutionary movement had to concentrate on ‘bread and butter’ issues. The sects trail after the workers, telling them how bad things are. But workers are not stupid and know quite well that their wages and conditions are bad. This approach was the hallmark of the Economists. While basic demands and slogans have their importance, in this epoch of deep crisis, workers are searching increasingly for broader explanations and not agitation.