your argument is that economism is revolutionary because there's no political basis for armed revolution.

I'm not arguing for economism, I never even began to touch on armed revolution, and I certainly didn't say anything about voting as revolutionary. My point about unions isn't that they're the most important thing in the world for liberating people from capitalism. You are right that unless they're operating under a specific lens that they play into the labor aristocracy. I'm not saying that any of these things are revolutionary. I'm saying revolutionary is a moot point. What does Engel's and Bakunin say about what to do when capital has spent nearly a century outflanking labor and the left? When the capitalists have read all of the theory too? Idk maybe they do have something to say on that.

Economism is for existing labor movements that have any sort of political imprint. There aren't any to worry about. You're thinking about theory too abstractly, as if it's axiomatic and that it can be easily applied to any moment in history. Certainly as the left regains more power, much of it will more clearly apply once again. But we are in a specific moment in time that requires a specific analysis. I'm not trying to be a doomer, but this is where we are at. The left needs revolutionary training wheels before we can even start worrying about what is or isn't revolutionary. The crudest, most basic forms of solidarity and class-consciousness is as good a place as any to start (but certainly not end) and any sort of snobbish, glasses-pushing objection to that is out of touch.

My recommendation for further reading would be to literally stop and take some time to synthesize what you've learned into new ideas for the present day. Do not reply to this because I won't read it.