French participation/ intérèssement: a practice worth sharing?

“The desire of privilege and the taste of equality are the dominant and contradictory passions of the French of all times.” Charles de Gaulle

The social reform based on profit sharing (French: participation/ inérèssement) constituted the big social idea which general de Gaulle emphasized within his actions during thirty years of his active political life. Charles de Gaulle had constantly tried to establish a "third option ", because he did not believe in either the capitalist dream, or in the communist miracle.

In the speech in front of the professional Committees on the occasion of the “Gathering of the French People” on August 31st, 1948, he says: ?capitalism does not foresee to compensate those who produce, it does neither compensate the motivation nor the passion needed to produce and to create, what is essential. We consider that communism is bad and we consider that it is bad for us. We do not consider that employment, meaning one man is employed by another, represents a definitive fundament to French economy, nor to French society; although, we do not admit it".

Heir of a socialistic and French Christian way of thinking, General de Gaulle is constantly searching for means to fight capitalism which is considered responsible for spreading hostile nationalism and weakening disputes to obtain stability between classes. For him, " (…) One day, the machine appeared and capitalism got married to it. The couple took possession of the world. Since, many people, especially blue-collar worker, became dependent on machines to complete their work and on their boss in order to get remunerated they feel morally reduced and materially threatened. It’s nourishing the struggle between classes: It spoils human relationships, terrifies States, breaks nations and stirs up wars ".

The objective to resolve the problem of struggle between different classes within society, has accompanied Charles de Gaulle during the length of his political career. All his life he tries to resolve the dilemma, to find a new system, a "third way” between the capitalism and the communism. 

One century later, the labor conditions have considerably improved and industrial workers benefit from important material concessions, but the nature of the relationship which connects them to their bosses has only changed a little. Contrary to the medieval evolution, which foresaw European farmers passing from the status of serfs to the status of landowners, the workers in industrialized companies stay in subordinate positions. They still do not possess any right on their tool, and the fruit of their labor does not represent any right to propriety. 

Frédéric Bastiat, author of the book ‘Harmonies Economique’ wrote in 1848, an article in the journal of economics entitled "property and law ": " … The property is a providential fact, as is a person. ...  man is born owner, because he is born with needs to satisfy, with organs and faculties to exercise which are essential to the satisfaction of his needs. The faculties are just the continuation of the person; the property is only the continuation of the faculties. To separate the man of his faculties, would make him die; to separate the man of the product of the faculties, would make him die as well ".  Bastiat, Frédéric, 1848, Journal de économistes “propriété et loi”

In consequence, private property can be considered as a natural attribute to human condition; a person’s property implies human labor, thus the fruits of his/her work, as well as the grounds absorbing his/her labor.

If property, as perceived, would have remained in the West and only a restricted privileged class would have been allowed access, severe doubts on the validity of above theory could have been expressed. In the Middle Age a movement of the serfs started resulting in the abolishment of the status of the serfs. By the beginning of the XIVth century the serfdom had almost disappeared from Ile-de-France and Normandy, which have been the most developed regions in the West at that time.

Individualization of exploitations and abolition of the status of feudal lords continued during numerous centuries, but the part of society which profited most of these movements were farmers. In 1780, 90 % of the farmers, who represented a majority of the French population, were landowners and the status of feudal lords did not exist any longer. 

The communists, referring to Karl Marx's analyses, denounced with emphasize the dispossession from which workers of the industrial companies suffered. But their big error consisted in wanting to dispossess the owners of factories without distributing a part of the good to the workers who have produced them with their own efforts. Instead of making property accessible to a large number of people, communists preferred to deprive everybody of it. On the paper, production was seized from the capitalists and returned to the workers by the state under the title of dictatorship of the proletariat. However, this was about collective and purely abstracted property and experience proved that it was not at all perceived as a restoration for the population concerned. 

By monopolizing the criticism against the individualistic and liberal capitalism during more than a century, Marxist socialists acted as an obstacle against the necessary evolution of the status of blue-collar workers and deprived them from new forms of property.

Slowly but surely the not Marxist past of the socialists was erased by the collective memory, among them the numerous approaches which had been made within the last century into the direction of profit sharing.

Only few French people know that significant forms of profit sharing existed already in the middle of the XIXth century in France. Certain companies had set up a sharing system of division for the expansion of fruits. In 1842 a company specialized in renovation, interior design and painting, whose owner was called Mr. Leclaire, decided to share profits with the staff, issuing to the employee’s contractual rules of distribution. Mr. Leclaire applied contractual profit sharing for the reason of "limiting conflicts between bosses and employees and to prevent strikes."

This was the time when the idea of profit sharing has been born. It was a revolutionary and generous idea which was supposed to reconcile work with capital, communists with capitalists. This idea, to which all conservatives were opposed at that time, seemed to be difficult to theorize, and even more still to implement.

In 1946 during the period of the Gathering of the French People (Rassemblement de Peuple fran?ais RPF) General de Gaulle explains the principles which constitute his political ideal in which the economic Gaullist thought is strongly coupled with a visionary social thought:

Speech of Charles de Gaulle at Saint - Etienne on January 4th, 1948:

?What does association mean? First of all, it’s within one company, it includes all those who are member of it, leaders, executives, workers come together as equals. Organized arbitration determines the conditions of their work, in particular the remunerations. Everybody, from the director to the blue-collar worker receives, according to the law and his/ her hierarchical positioning, remuneration in proportion to the overall success of the company.”

These are the elements of moral order which honor an employment: authority for those who manage recognition of good work for the workers, appreciation for everybody. Underestimating the importance will take away all motivation and self-esteem. It would reduce efficiency which represents profit. At this point a new psychology was born by exploiting the different professional fields. 

Marcel Loichot has developed the Gaullist thought further:

Marcel Lochot specifies his vision in a book which was published in the year 1966 under the title "The reformation of pan-capitalist”. He analyzes the defects inherent to the capitalistic system as it’s known since the industrial revolution: " the greed of the first factory owners in a anarchical private economy allowed for free exploitation of men by men: children, not even eight years old worked in the grounds of the mines; a quarter of the population was unemployed and living in misery; workers were deprived from support and any corporation, disarmed and defenseless in front of the law, isolated from supply and demand, at a time when the need for industrialization turned into an all overpowering capitalism.”

Even if the defects of capitalism have eased since the first stages of the industrial revolution, it is not always easy to obtain a desirable socio-economic structure humanity is wishing for. Loichot writes that in a capitalistic society "only a small number of the population detains the means of production whereas the great majority of people live in alienation and disassociation ". Those who do not possess, see themselves deprived from their dignity as a human being, not so much because they HAVE nothing, because they ARE nothing. They do not have the means for self-fulfillment and to realize their projects with their own means.

Karl Marx and the main theorists of socialism built a doctrine which they presented as a science of conduct for human societies in order to end the characteristic alienation within capitalistic societies. This doctrine suggests making an end to men's exploitation to men by generalized expropriation. They suggest a collectivization of properties, goods and production which translates into the State turning into an institution of mono capitalism.

Loichot underlines that the experience which was made within the Eastern countries proves that the implementation of such a system is far from reaching the objective of desalination. On the contrary it leads to an even further alienation compared to the capitalistic system. In a socialist system, the worker has not found the desalination for which he always hoped. His/her superiors are still chosen by others than him/herself. Marxist Russia claims to have put in place a ?government for people ", but in reality, it only succeeded in establishing a ?government of the State ". 

Compared to communism, old fashioned liberalism, "a civilized shape of economic anarchy? did not represent an alternative either. It tried to mitigate its own defects by a hasty restoration, adding instruments and mechanisms which we have inherited today: unions, the right to strike, employment protection, social security, work councils, profit-sharing, imposed prices, nationalizations.

Coming from a centralized and authoritarian system the objective is to prevent anarchy of which the French suffered during history. 

Deeply embedded cultural believes and convictions as “intérèssement and participation” have to be reviewed in order to make France more competitive and to solve internal issues. ( As a consequence some companies offer their employees to convert “intérèssement and participation” into compnany shares.) 

This is the challenge the French have to face: Learning how to overcome obstacles to make a commitment and to learn how to combine individual and community values which are part of their culture in order to gain overall acceptance.