No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Business, corporatism and the crisis of the French Third Republic. The example of the silk industry in Lyon, 1928–1935
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Abstract
The main purpose of this case study of an abortive entente in the Lyon silk industry in 1935 is to show that corporatism, often depicted by historians as a vague intellectual doctrine with little or no appeal to real business, was in reality a key category, linking business, politics and ideology. It is suggested that the problems of the silk industry must be seen in the context of a crisis of the Lyonnais liberal tradition and of the economic and ideological contradictions of French society as a whole. These tensions help in turn to explain the authoritarian potential of corporatism in the 1930s and the attraction of many business people to anti-parliamentary political movements. The example of the silk industry also reveals that corporatism cannot easily be categorised in terms of a traditional/modern dichotomy and that the impetus for the transformation of the French economy originated as much in the ideas of business people themselves as in the actions of the elite groups emphasised by some historians.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995
References
1 I wish to thank John Breuilly and Richard Vinen for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.
2 Hoffman, S., ‘Paradoxes of the French political community’, in In search of France (New York, 1963)Google Scholar. P. Milza's discussion of the failure of fascism in France makes many of the same assumptions (Fascisme français. Passé et présent (Paris, 1987), pp. 224–5)Google Scholar. For the influence of Hoffman's ideas on discussions of business behaviour see, for example, Kolboom, I., La revanche des patrons. Le patronat français face au Front populaire, (Paris, 1986), especially pp. 39–109.Google Scholar
3 For the traditional interpretation see Sauvy, A.. Histoire économique de la France de l'Entre-deux-guerres (4 vols., Paris, 1965–1967)Google Scholar. For the revisionist view see Malinvaud, E., Carré, J. and Dubois, P., La croissance française (Paris, 1975)Google Scholar, Lévy-Leboyer, M., ‘Le patronat français. A-t-il été malthusien?’, Mouvement social, 88 (1974), 3–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 The new econometric studies have the disadvantage of obscuring rather than resolving the old problem of whether the inflated small production sector was a constraint upon economic development. Kemp, T., ‘French economic performance: some new views critically examined’, European History Quarterly’, XV (1985), 473–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Kuisel, , Capitalism, pp. 102–4Google Scholar: Vinen, R., The politics of French business, 1936–1945 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Jackson, J., The politics of depression in France (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 95–6Google Scholar, sees the Marchandeau bill of 1935 as an example of restrictive practices. Discussing the ‘entente professionelle’ in the shoe industry introduced in 1936 Alfred Sauvy quotes his former patron Paul Reynaud on the subject of ‘la république de semelles percées’, A, Sauvy, Histoire économique de la France, pp. 371–2.Google Scholar
7 Yves, Lequin, Les ouvriers de la région lyonnais (1848–1914), (Paris, 1972).Google Scholar
8 Isaac, A., ‘Les cahiers de l'industrie française. La soie’, Revue des Deux Mondes, 1930, pp. 89–106Google Scholar: the USA consumed 80% of world raw silk production.
9 A. Isaac, ‘Les cahiers’.
10 Sabel, C. and Zeitlin, J., ‘Historical alternatives to mass production: politics, markets and technology in nineteenth century industrialization’, Past and Present, 108 (1985), 173–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This article is not, of course, written from a functionalist perspective. But the attempt to demonstrate that early examples of flexible production were not intrinsically inferior to mass production leads on occasion to underestimation of the contradictions within the production systems considered.
11 Compte rendu annuel des travaux du syndicat des fabricants de soieries de Lyon (CRSFS) 1928; Garcin, S., ‘La fabrique lyonnaise de soieries de 1900 à 1929’ (unpublished DES, Lyon II, 1969).Google Scholar
12 Bourgeon, M.-L., ‘Répartition des métiers de tissage de la soie au service de la fabrique lyonnaise en 1937–8’, Etudes rhodaniennes, IX (1938), 215–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 Laferrère, M., Lyon, ville industrielle (Lyon, 1957), p. 96Google Scholar; Isaac, , ‘Les cahiers’, p. 104.Google Scholar
14 Bertrand, H., Soierie lyonnaise, chardonne et soie ordinaire, evolutions récentes; situation actuelle (Lyon, 1930), pp. 80–1.Google Scholar
15 Isaac, , ‘Les cahiers’, p. 100.Google Scholar
16 Zdatny, S., The politics of survival. Artisans in twentieth century France (Oxford, 1990), chapter 1.Google Scholar
17 Laferrère, , Lyon, ville industrielle, pp. 180–1Google Scholar. Bertrand, , Soierie lyonnaise, p. 46.Google Scholar
18 Lequin, , Les ouvriers, pp. 76–85Google Scholar; Bourgeon, , ‘Repartition des metiers’, p. 229Google Scholar; Laferrère, , Lyon, ville industrielle, pp. 177–8Google Scholar; Isaac, , ‘Les cahiers’, pp. 89, 92Google Scholar. Automatic looms represented less than 5% of the total in 1873, 72% in 1914, 90% in 1931 and 97% in 1936.
19 Pinton, , ‘La soie artificielle à Lyon’, Etudes rhodaniennes, VI, (1930), pp. 242–3Google Scholar; Isaac, , ‘Les cahiers’, pp. 95–7.Google Scholar
20 Figures for the number of workers vary from 20,000 (Nouvelliste, 24 May 1928) to 27,000 (Nouvelliste, 21 Mar. 1931). A more reliable survey in Compte rendu annuel des travaux de la Chambre de commerce de Lyon (CRCCL), 1935, p. 148, gives a figure of 15,157 looms–45% of those available to the fabrique.
21 CRCCL, 1935, p. 148.
22 CRSFS, 1928: 36% of fabricants-usiniers, 11% of non-usiniers. The latter figure would be much lower were non-syndiqués to be taken into account.
23 Laferrère, , Lyon, ville industrielle, p. 187.Google Scholar
24 Laferrère, , Lyon, ville industrielle, p. 205.Google Scholar
25 Pinton, A., ‘La soie artificielle’Google Scholar; Perret, J., ‘Dans la banlieu industrielle de Lyon: Vaulx en Velin,’ Etudes rhodaniennes, VIII, 1937, 24–33Google Scholar. Laferrère, , Lyon, ville industrielle, pp. 210–12Google Scholar; Bonneville, M., Naissance et metamorphose d'une banlieu ouvrère: Villeurbanne (Lyon, 1978), pp. 17, 51Google Scholar; Laferrère, , Lyon, ville industrielle, pp. 210–12, 226Google Scholar; Peyronnet, M., La dynastie des Gillets. Les maîtres de Rhône-Poulenc (Paris, 1979), pp. 108–9.Google Scholar
26 Pinton, , ‘La soie artificielle’, p. 237.Google Scholar
27 Pinton, , ‘La soie artificielle’Google Scholar, there were 107 members of the Union des marchands de soie in 1920, Bertrand, , Soierie lyonnaise, pp. 55–9Google Scholar; Peyronnet, , La dynastie de Gillets, pp. 201–8.Google Scholar
28 CRCCL, 1929; Bertrand, , Soierie lyonnaise, passimGoogle Scholar; Nouvelliste, 25 May 1928.
29 PVCCL, 7 Feb. 1929.
30 In 1928 eight out of nine members of its bureau can be identified, of whom seven were factory owners.
31 Procès verbaux de la Chambre de Commerce de Lyon (PVCCL), 10 Jan. 1929, 14 Feb. 1935.
32 Morel-Journel, H., Notes sur la Chambre de Commerce de Lyon à l'usage de ses membres (Lyon, 1937), p. 27Google Scholar: five of the Chamber's six presidents since 1890 had presided over the Societé d'économie politique, which was dedicated to the propagation of liberal principles.
33 Giddens, A., The constitution of society (Cambridge, 1984).Google Scholar
34 Laferrère, , Lyon, ville industrielle, p. 188Google Scholar; Bertrand, , Soierie lyonnaise, p. 187.Google Scholar
35 Gillet, P., Edmund Gillet 1873–1831. Industriel, régent de la Banque de France (Lyon, 1932), p. 2.Google Scholar
36 See Victor Perret on the supposedly artisanal origins of many Fabricants (L'Union républicaine, 18 Mar. 1934), and Calixte's contemptuous dismissal of the aristocracy (Dufourt, , Calixte, p. 125).Google Scholar
37 Laffey, J., ‘Lyonnais imperialism in the Far East, 1900–1938’, Modern Asian Studies, X, (1970). 225–40.Google Scholar
38 Laffey, , ‘Lyonnais imperialism’, passimGoogle Scholar; Laffey, J., ‘Roots of French imperialism in the nineteenth century: the case of Lyon’, French Historical Studies, VI (1969), 45–67.Google Scholar
39 See, for example, the quotation from Auguste Isaac (18 Aug. 1932) in Ladous, , ‘Auguste Isaac et la tradition républicaine’, p. 158.Google Scholar
40 Ladous, R., ‘Auguste Isaac’, pp. 146–7Google Scholar; Moissonnier, M. and Boulmier, A., ‘La bourgeoisie lyonnaise et l'Union civique de 1920?’, Cahiers d'histoire de l'lnstitut de recherches marxistes, IV (1980–1981), 106–33.Google Scholar
41 CRCCL, 1928, pp. 360–9.
42 Laferrère, , Lyon, ville industrielle, pp. 95, 97, 107.Google Scholar
43 CRSFS, 1937; Geni, F., ‘L'organisation professionnelle de la fabrique lyonnaise de soieries: etude historique et critique’ (unpublished thèse de droit, Grenoble, 1942), p. 52Google Scholar; CRSFS, 1937.
44 Fonds Justin Godart, carton I (hereafter FJG, all documents from carton I), Report of Daniel Isaac, 13 Oct. 1935.
45 The support of many artisans in France as a whole for Radicalism is well known (Berstein, S., Histoire du Parti radical (2 vols., Paris, 1980–1982), pp. 267–70)Google Scholar. Lyon was not an exception to this pattern, Pinol, J.-L., Espace social et espace politique. Lyon à l'époque du Front populaire (Lyon, 1980).Google Scholar
46 Le Nouvelliste, 1 Jan. 1932; Ladous, R., ‘Auguste Isaac et la tradition républicaine’Google Scholar, in Durand, J.-D. (et al.), Cent ans de catholicisme social à Lyon et en Rhône-Alpes (Lyon, 1992), pp. 140–4Google Scholar; Aynard, , Discoursprononcées à la Chambre des députés de 1893 à 1913 (Paris, no date), p. 534Google Scholar, speech of 25 June 1896.
47 Ladous, , ‘Auguste Isaac et la tradition républicaine’, pp. 141–4.Google Scholar
48 Ehrmann, H., Organized business in France (Princeton, 1957), pp. 28–9.Google Scholar
49 Louis, Guéneau, La soie artificielle (Paris, 1928)Google Scholar; Bertrand, , Soierie lyonnaise, p. 18Google Scholar: ‘Forward! For the new and colossal product, to the power of new and modern means of production’.
50 Bertrand, , Soierie lyonnaise, p. 135 ff.Google Scholar
51 Morel-Journel, Journal, 11 Nov. 1932.
52 PVCCL, 7 Feb. 1929.
53 Zdatny, , The politics of survival, pp. 27–8, 49–60Google Scholar. The Lyon Chamber also fought to keep shopkeepers out of the chambers of trades (PVCCL, 19 June 1930).
54 On this issue big business had the support of many artisan bodies, which also wished to limit employment of compagnons to one. It was small business proper rather than the artisanate that wished to widen the definition. Thus before the depression big business did not reject he idea that some small producers ought to be protected, it simply attempted to limit the number of beneficiaries. But in the new circumstances of the depression small business as a whole came under attack.
55 Le Nouvelliste, 31 Mar. 1928.
56 Ladous, , ‘Auguste Isaac et la tradition républicaine’, pp. 147–8.Google Scholar
57 Bertrand, , Soierie lyonnaise, pp. 49, 147–8Google Scholar: ‘L'ouvrier français est plus habile – et moins discipliné – et cela ne se compense pas’.
58 PVCCL, 24 Oct. 1929.
59 Kuisel, R., Ernest Mercier, French technocrat (Berkeley, 1967).Google Scholar
60 John, Laffey, ‘Imperialism 1900–1938’, p. 231Google Scholar, quotes Auguste Isaac, for whom the mission civilisatrice meant elevating the native to the status of ‘one who understands the services rendered to him and is accustomed to pay for them’.
61 Formed by a fusion of the Association des patrons lyonnais, close to the Nouvelliste, and the Union catholique lyonnais which was more moderate. Nouvelliste, 13 Mar. 1928, 12 Mar. 1929, 10 Mar. 1930; Ponson, C., ‘La “Chronique sociale” de Lyon en 1940’ in Eglises et chrétiens dans la deuxième guerre mondiale (Lyon, 1978), p. 28Google Scholar; Henry, Bertrand, Soierie lyonnaise, pp. 49, 147–8Google Scholar, endorsed a social Catholicism, ‘tinted with a light varnish of socialism’.
62 Passmore, K., ‘The right and the extreme right in the department of the Rhône, 1928 to 1939’ (unpublished Ph. D., Warwick, 1992), pp. 178–84.Google Scholar
63 Laferrère, , Lyon, ville industrielle, p. 110.Google Scholar
64 Demaison, , ‘Visites à la presse de province (V), Bourgogne et région lyonnaise’, Revue des Deux Mondes, 15 Oct. 1929Google Scholar: ‘à Lyon on ne compte pas seulement sur l'individu, trop vite périssable, mais sur la famille dont le nombre est ainsi garant de continuité, de durée prospère’.
65 Garcin, S., ‘La fabrique lyonnais de soieries’.Google Scholar
66 CRCCL, 1928, p. 625.
67 Isaac, , ‘Les cahiers’, pp. 91–2.Google Scholar
68 Garcin, , ‘La fabrique lyonnaise’, passim.Google Scholar; Christiane, G., ‘La fabrique lyonnais de soieries et la Grande dépression, 1929 à 1934’ (unpublished DES, Lyon II, 1969).Google Scholar
69 Laferrère, , Lyon, ville industrielle, pp. 217–18Google Scholar; CRCCL, 1930, pp. 567, 644; CRCCL, 1931, p. 557.
70 The silk industry accounted for 11% of French exports in 1928, but only 5% in 1935.
71 CRSFS, 1928 and 1937: a fall of 60%.
72 Lyon républicain, 26 Sept. 1934; Geni, , ‘L'Organisation professionnelle’, p. 112Google Scholar, stated that in 1935 60% of looms were not working. Bonneville, , Naissance et metamorphose, pp. 52–3.Google Scholar
73 CRCCL, 1931, p. 581; Nouvelliste, 5 Mar. 1931.
74 CRCCL, 1931, p. 577.
75 Pinton, A., ‘La soie artificielle à Lyon en 1935’, Etudes rhodaniennes, VII (1936), 104–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
76 CRCCL, 1929, p. 644: Louis Guéneau stated that the rise of rayon ‘s'est produite avec une intensité, avec une rapidité si differentes de celles du passé en matières textiles qu'on est déconcerté’.
77 Report of Vautheret in CRCCL, 1932, pp. 285–91; PVCCL, 22 Mar. 1932.
78 CRCCL, 1930, pp. 552–3.
79 FJG, Vautheret to Godart, 5 Nov. 1934.
80 FJG, Daniel Isaac to minister of commerce, 13 Oct. 1935.
81 PVCCL, 30 Oct. 1935 and 14 Nov. 1935.
82 FJG, Eymard to Van Gelder, 4 Nov. 1935.
83 Quoted in Jackson, , The politics of depression, p. 96.Google Scholar
84 PVCCL, 24 Jan. 1935.
85 PVCCL, 14 Feb. 1935. As one slightly hysterical opponent of the entente put it, ‘non seulement le Ministère du Commerce est représenté dans le soviet qui doit présider aux déstinées des ententes professionnelles mais encore le Ministère du Travail s'est infiltré dans ce même comité par la présence d'un délégué et, d'autre part, […] il y aurait un délégué ouvrier et certainement, il y en aura plusiers: probablement un représentant chaque région de tissage. C'est done la socialization complète de notre industrie’ (FJG, Eymard to Van Gelder, 4 Nov. 1935).
86 Nouvelliste, 26 Nov. 1931, 28 Nov. 1931.
87 Nouvelliste, 1 Nov. 1931, 26 Nov. 1931, 29 Nov. 1931; Voix sociale, July 1932; Lyon républicain, 20 Apr. 1935; CRCCL, 1932, p. 287.
88 Voix sociale, July. 1932; February and November 1935.
89 Massoubre, E., ‘Les ententes professionnelles dans le cadre national et la doctrine économique’ (unpublished Thèse pour le doctorat, Paris, 1935).Google Scholar
90 FJG, circular of the SFS, 10 Sept. 1935; Eynard to Van Gelder, 30 Oct. 1935.
91 CRCCL, 1935, p. 148.
92 For a summary of the history of the entente see Geni, , ‘L'organisation professionnelle’, pp. 112–41.Google Scholar
93 Henry Morel-Journel reported in his diary on 29 Apr. 1932 that there had been disagreement in the Union des Marchands de Soie over this issue.
94 FJG, rapport Isaac, 13 Oct. 1935; circular from Comité de défense, 12 Nov. 1935.
95 FJG, rapport Isaac, 13 Oct. 1935; a circular of the Comité de défense asked ‘Pourquoi les commerçants prudents feraient-ils les frais de ceux qui ont vu trop grande?’. An article in Salut public, 20 Nov. 1935, of which Isaac was managing director, took up the same theme.
96 Nouvelliste, 5 Dec. 1935.
97 L'Union républicaine, 17 Feb. 1935.
98 L'Union républicaine, 24 Nov. 1935.
99 PVCCL, 25 Oct. 1934. Henry Morel-Journel saw a combination of ententes, state backing and private initiative as an alternative to corporatism, Lyon républicain, 27 Oct. 1935.
100 FJG, Fructus to Godart, 28 Sept. 1935, 30 Sept. 1935: he used the example of his own firm to show that the entente was a threat to the whole system of flexible production. Year round weaving of cheap fabrics for the east, made possible by low costs, was the only means of keeping in action looms that were also able to produce certain luxury silks when fashion demanded. See also the motion of Group II of the SFS (Articles pour l'Orient), 26 Oct. 1935 (FJG).
101 Not a tarif, which would penalise non-usiniers, but a minimum wage to be applied to the whole industry.
102 FJG, Fructus to Godart, 16 Dec. 1935.
103 Bulletin mensuel du commerce, de l'industrie et de l'agriculture, Jan.–Mar., 1928. The views of such people confirm Max Weber's view, that ‘not ideas, but material and ideal interests, directly govern men's conduct. Yet very frequently the “world images” that have been created by “ideas” have, like switchmen, determined the tracks along which action has been pushed by the dynamic of interest’. (Quoted in Murphy, R., Social closure. the theory of monopolization and exclusion (Oxford, 1988), p. 1).Google Scholar
104 Journal d'Henry Morel-Journel, 18 Oct. 1935.
105 Bulletin des soies, 25 Apr. 1936.
106 Passmore, , ‘The right and the extreme right’, pp. 196–8Google Scholar. The silk industry's opposition to agricultural protectionism was weakened by the fact that it too demanded measures against Japanese ‘dumping’.
107 FJG, Circular of SFS (undated).
108 Lyon républican, 20 Apr. 1935.
109 Kuisel, R., Capitalism and the state, pp. 102–4.Google Scholar
110 For a stimulating discussion of corporatism see Berger, S., Peasants against politics: rural organization in Brittany (Massachusetts, 1972), pp. 120–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
111 PVCCL, 19 Jan. 1933.
112 PVCCL, 13 Feb. 1936.
113 pvCCL, 13 Feb. 1936, 30 Apr. 1936; Morel-Journel, Journal, 14 May 1936.
114 L' Union républicaine, 17 Feb. 1935.
115 On these distinctions see Passmore, K., ‘The French Third Republic. Stalemate society or cradle of fascism’, French History, VII, No. 4 (1993), 417–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
116 Le Volontaire, 36, 6 May 1938; Syndicat professionnel français des ouvriers et employés de soieries, 7 Nov. 1936.
117 Dupraz, J., Regards sur le fascisme (Lyon, 1935)Google Scholar. The effective leader of AICA, Aymé Bernard, is said by Richard, Vinen (The politics of French business, 1936–1945 (CUP, 1989), pp. 56–7))Google Scholar to have been an opponent of corporatism. In fact he believed that business should be regulated by a kind of conseil d'ordre similar to that in the legal profession (AICA Bulletins et documents, 1 May 1939).
118 Passmore, , ‘The right and the extreme right’, pp. 128–30, 248–52, 324–30.Google Scholar
119 Kuisel, , Capitalism and the state, pp. 102–4Google Scholar. Kuisel's definition of corporatism is very close to that used in this article.
120 PVCCL, 14 Feb. 1935, Morel-Journel reported that in a meeting of the Association of Presidents of Chambers of Commerce, Paris, Lyon and Rouen had favoured the idea of ententes, but representatives of port towns had opposed them.
121 This is to agree with Vinen, R., The politics of French business, pp. 55–60Google Scholar, that corporatism was not an expression of the interests of any particular faction of big business.
122 This is the view of Hoffman, and, with certain qualifications, of Kuisel, R.Capitalism and the state, conclusion.Google Scholar
123 My conclusions should be diffentiated from those of K-J, Müller, ‘French fascism and modernization’, Journal of Contemporary History (1976)Google Scholar, who argues that the hostility of certain modernising businessmen to the stalemate society caused them to turn to the leagues. The fixed social alliances described by Müller simply did not exist. My view is that authoritarianism issued from an acute crisis in a society where social, economic and ideological alliances had always been exceptionally unstable.