Cooperative Movement in France 1. Introduction France has been the torch-bearer for other countries of the world in the field of ‘producers’ cooperatives’. The French cooperative movement has been essentially a workers’ movement. In no other country of the world, workers’ societies have attained those heights of success which they have attained in France. The seed of the cooperative movement was sown as early as the beginning of the 19th century by Charles Fourier, a great Utopian socialist, the world has ever known. The cooperative movement in its present form could only be started after the Revolution of 1848 and it gained momentum after the passage of the Act of 1863. Although the cooperative movement has diversified its activities, like its counterpart in other countries, the workers’ cooperatives still occupy a dominant position. 2. Pioneers of the French Cooperative Movement Among the pioneers of the French cooperative movement mention may be made of Charles Fourier, Louis Blanc, Buchez, Andragodin, and Leclaire. Charles Fourier conceived of a unique scheme of establishing communistic colonies, known as “Phalanstere” through which he desired to establish a new economic and social order. He detailed out his scheme in his book, The New Industrial and Social World, which was published in 1829. Louis Blanc and Buchez made efforts to start a movement for the establishment of ‘social workshops’. There was a difference between the schemes of Blanc and Buchez. Buchez wanted to establish cooperative societies for the organisation of small industries whereas Blanc was in favour of organising large scale industries on a collective basis. Andragodin established a Hamilistire in 1879 on the guidelines provided by Charles Fourier. Leclaire started a “Mutual Aid Society” in 1838. The experiments of Andragodin and Leclaire proved that the industrial concerns could be successfully operated and managed by the w corkers having neither education nor experience of business organisation. In the following Pages we shall give in a little more detail, the ideas and outlines of the schemes ofthese pioneers. Thereafter we shall deal with the important aspects of the modem ‘cooperative movement in France. 21. Charles Fourier (1772-1837) and the Phalanstere Charles Fourier was born in 1772 at Besancon. He was the son ofa coffee merchant At the time of his father’s death Fourier was quite young. He inherited a good fortune which he invested in trade. After an unsuccessful career as a businessman he devoted himself to thinking and writing and acquired fame for his schemes of social reform. He felt very much distressed by the prevailing social and economic conditions of France. He wanted to re-build the social system which “forces children to lie and men to allow food needed by hungry people to rot.” ‘According to Fourier, the existing social system did not allow a free play of the twelve major passions of mankind, viz., seeing, hearing, smelling, fecling tasting, enmity, love, fraternity, ambition, desire for intrigue, love of change and desire for union. When these twelve passions are combined together, the result is brotherly love. He calculated that these passions could be combined in diflere individuals in 820 ways. It was, therefore, necessary that in an ideal social syste all these combinations should be possible and there should be sufficient number ‘of persons to ensure the result. His estimate was that in one combine there should not be less than 500 and not more than 2,000 persons, roughly speaking, about 400 families. He, therefore, suggested that people should form themselves into voluntary associations which, he called ‘Phalanxes’ or ‘Phalansteries’. Each Phalanstery was to be organised like a modern hotel, containing a large and magnificent building, divided into apartments of all kinds to suit the tastes of different people with common dining hall, theatre and concert room, and library and all other accessories of a comfortable life. Each Phalanstery was to be sub-divided into units. Larger units were to be called as groups while smaller units as series Individuals were free to join any series or groups. For the production of food and raw materials required, each Phalanstery would have land of 400 acres all around it Coots nae pee metbes were to be produced and manufactured by them join any i i a aia ee yates Pee air ae Phalanstery was, thus a was to be organised on a joint stock basis, Each a : i ied Tete ees ich person could own as many shares i among the members on the principle: capital 1/3, labour 5/12 and management 3/12. These Phalanxes were to be organised on a purely democratic basis. All officers and directors were to be clected. The organisation was to be like this: Each phalanx was to be managed by a director known as “Unareh”, Groups of Phalanxes comprising three ae four were to be managed by an officer known as “Duarch”. There could be even bigger federations having their own chiefs. His aim was to organise the enti id i to Phalanxes and the highest officer would be known as “Omniarch”. The capital of the world would be located a CARA as “Omniarch”, The capital of the world ; intinople. He believed that these reforms would enhance the productivity of the people owing to the economies of associated efforts and the increased efficiency of labour. Another great advantage of such an organisatio”n of superficial classes and the disappearance of hatred n. He declared: “In the new society, there would be no ‘no policemen, agents of discordant social regime, no criminals products of civilisation of disharmony, finally no metaphysician "s scheme, Phalanxes were to be connected with each other by 4 fion system, and the goods produced by one Phalanx were to the goods produced by other Phalanxes, Thus, Phalanxes according to the principle of “social attraction.” The work was ‘on a cooperative basis and there was to be complete harmony. no place in his scheme. Cooking, heating, lighting and living were Such an arrangement would enable the people to enjoy maximum ‘minimum of cost. People would have brotherly feelings and lead a ed on mutual sympathy, harmony, affection and love. was, thus, an ideal arrangement of things based on integrated Consumers’ cooperation, producer’s cooperation, cooperative 0 ive living, were all integrated in his scheme and the entire life in the Phalanxes was to be organised on a cooperative basis. Under ‘was to be done with pleasure and every one was free to choose he liked. He wanted to establish Phalanxes without introducing hange in the existing framework of the society. Further, with a view ‘all possibilities of clash of interest between capital and labour, he Jabourers would not only be the wage-earners but also, cooperative ‘cooperative production societies. Thus, the workers were to get their ts. The members of a Phalanx were to be the members of the producers” ers’ cooperatives. In this way, he wanted to bring the consumers ers together. and his disciples made efforts to establish Phalanxes but owing to the they ended into failure. Members did not take much interest and ine as well. He could not realise his dream in his life-time and even the efforts made to organise Phalanxes in France, Holland, and ot succeed. Despite his failure, Fourier has been regarded as the ‘of modern profit-sharing schemes since he wanted to transform into a cooperative owner. Ny (1813-1882) and his “Social Workshops” ~ ‘born in Madrid on October 28, 1813. His father lost all his property Revolution. Pressed by the financial stringency Blanc had to join the paper as an editor at an early age. At the age of 26 he founded the Revue Tt was in this paper that his most well known book, Organisation De red in 1840. This book was very well received by all, especially by sses. In this book Blanc gave a plan for social reform. Blanc’s social based on the idea that every human being had the right to happinessand to develop his powers and all those institutions which do not Provide condit, for the enjoyment of these rights are useless. He declared that competition , responsible for the prevalent poverty, crime, prostitution, depressions, and al] ot}, social evils. He, therefore, wanted to exterminate it root and branch and to estab), a new social order on the foundation of association. With a view to achieving | aim he proposed the establishment of social workshops — voluntary organisatic of producers. In these workshops the instruments of production were to be furnisiy by the state and labour. The capital was thus, eliminated. The government was supply interest-free capital. For the first few years the managers would be selected the basis of their ability and as the workers became gacietly ses, they wor h managers among themselves. The state would collect the neces: ai these oo through taxation and profits from state enterpri, The profits of the workshops were to be divided into three parts: (/) for the of labour; (i) for creating a fund for paying the advance made by the govern for the supply of capital for future enterprises; and (iii) for profits to be distribu Jabourers in addition to their wages. The work, wages and profits ibuted according to the principle, from each according to his capac each according to his needs. He believed that competition would elim the organisation of these workshops would be so much super and efficient that the private workshops would not be able to stand in competit’ with them. “The arm of competition”, he wrote, “must be strengthened in orde get rid of competition.” Thus, it is obvious that state intervention would be jus passing phase. It was required only to provide incentive. The idea of the organisation of social workshops was, however, not new bee: Buchez had suggested a similar arrangement in 1831. The only difference the scheme of Buchez and that of Blanc was that the former was in favour organising small industries on cooperative basis while the latter wished to organise industries on a large scale. Blanc considered a workshop as the sole conditio which the complete collectivistic society would grow. During the Revolutiv’ of 1848 he found an opportunity for putting some of the ideas into practice. \s ° member of the provincial government, Blanc advocated the theory of the “righ! labour”, according to which government was required to give guarantee of work to every body. He saw the establishment of certain institutions which ultimate! failed, because they were neither in conformity with his ideas, nor were they PU! into the charge of the people who were sympathetic to labour. Despite the failure of social workshops, so fondly advocated and establis)*\ by Blane, he occupies a unique position in the history of the French Coopetat!'® Movement. He was the first to put a Utopian plan into operation with govern" help. His failure was not because of any inherent defect in the scheme but becat** of the government. These workshops were established in such a way thal were bound to fail. At some places the workshops even attained success, bw ("© government keptit secret and did not bring it to the notice of Blanc and his followrm Movement ourier and Blane producers’ cooperatives were started in 1 was only after the Revolution of 1848 that the goverment workmen to join together for sharing the profits and the Most of these Societies failed by 1851 owing to lack ibers, careless selection of members, lack of experience too much of state assistance. It was only after 1863 when ; the government, that the movement made some headway. ‘was passed in France to encourage the development of these try. The number of such societies was 60 in 1884. Although getting financial assistance from the government, the necessity supplying the credit needs of the society was felt from the very 93, a bank was founded in Paris to supply the societies with the jired. Various types of workers’ societies were organised in France ke bakers’ societies, brewers’ societies, printers’ societies, producers of chemicals’ ‘ et s, paper-makers’ societies, shoe-makers’ societies, carpenters’, painters’, »-drivers’, builders’ societies, etc. Most of these societies came into existence through state help. Some individuals also organised independently certain societies, Cte ace Leclaire’s Mutual Aid Society, and Lunetier’s Society. ‘started the Familistire at Guise in 1879. This society was set up on the principle of partnership of capital, labour and skill. The workers with families started living in the Familistires and all amenities, like stores, schools, nurseries, __ theatres, and study groups were provided. Godin made all possible efforts to make Familistire an ideal town. The process of workers’ management and ownership of the factory was gradual. In the first stage, the workers were like employees with acilities of pension and insurance against illness and accidents. In the second stage, they started getting share in the profits, according to the length of their service. In the third stage, they received 50% more profit and in the final stage, they became full members. Profits were paid in the form of savings certificates which carried an interest of 5%, payable in cash. The Committee of Management consisted of the heads of the chief departments and three members clected by the general body. The pee, after deducting the working expenses, educational and insurance funds and interest @ 5% on capital, were divided between capital, and labour and skill in the ratio of 75:25. This society has been working satisfactorily. _ Leclaire’s Mutual Aid Society was established in 1838. It was an experiment as that of Familistire. Ne ‘society was sel up in 1848 by 13 persons, who were humble workers Itisavery ee The members are of two types, full members and casual members are allowed a share in the profits. This society has also been working satisfactorily. \ ‘Then, there are cab-drivers” societies. Only cab-drivers can be the members of the society. horses, carriages, harnesses and stables are the common propertyCooperation: Principles, Problems and P;, ‘ofthe members. “The Union de Cochers” in Paris is the biggest Society. It has be p sing horses, carriages, stables, etc. and letting them out on hire to cab-dri\ ‘amount collected by way of hiring charges is distributed at the end of the in ‘shares, after deducting the working expenses. Similar societies have also been set up by hair-dressers, electricians, ar oo workers. In 1957 there were 750 societies with 32000 membe “Most of the producers’ societies are members of regional federations wh 12 in number, These federations are affiliated to the ‘general federatior [The wo have also established a cooperative productive bank which provid for accommodation to these societies. The General Confederation is a natic ‘organisation. Its objects are: (i) to fulfil the requirements of its member so (ii) to encourage the organisation of new societies; (ii?) to improve the condit of workers; (iv) to settle disputes between societies and members. The day-to-c working of the General Confederation is governed by council of 36 members The members of the council are elected by the Congress on the nomination of the regional federations. One of the conditions of eligibility for the membership the council is that a candidate must have served for atleast 5 years in the capacity of aworker, as member of a society. There is also an Executive Committee consisting of president, two vice presidents, and four members elected by the council The council has also nominated an arbitration Commission. An auditing committe of three persons is elected by the Congress. The confederation makes grants t regional federations for social work to the extent of 6,000 Francs. The funds are raised through members’ subscriptions dependin; i r ig On business t ver. The rai is 2 Franes per every 1,000 Francs of turnover. — 3.2 The Cooperative Bank of French Workers’ Productive Societies The May ein aan 1955, 708 workers’ societies were i's : ee i Seine Aa ae AiaeGae normal banking facilities to the societies i aie federatic ities Finks CR ae short-term loans to societies for of equipment, Its affairs are managed b peo five years for the purchas Itis supervised by the Riariieics Bribie, @ committee consisting of nine membe's eee Stood at 2.5 million Francs, ae ooo ia. Sie of the producers’ societie: stance. government has been givin, S in France may be attributed to stl ee. e i.