Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clash of Visions: The Belgian Labour Plan in France

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Hendrik de Man and Social Democracy

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements ((PSHSM))

  • 138 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter charts the reception of the Belgian Labour Plan in France. It focuses on three competing groups—the neo-socialists, the SFIO planists, and the CGT planists—and how their separate calls for a French Labour Plan failed to win over the SFIO leadership, as Léon Blum managed to fend off this challenge through pragmatism, limited concessions, and his ability to exploit divisions among planist fringes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Paul Faure, “Qui n’a pas son plan?,” Le Populaire, January 17, 1934. See also Albert Rivière, “Il pleut des plans,” Le Populaire, May 15, 1934. According to Julian Jackson, 1934 was marked by “planomania” as at least eleven different plans were launched in France alone [Jackson, The Politics of Depression, 150]. For a contemporary overview, see Henri Noyelle, Les Plans de reconstruction économique et sociale à l’étranger et en France (Paris: Sirey, 1935); Charles Pomaret, “Catalogue de Plans,” L’Etat moderne 8, no. 4 (1935): 364–367.

  2. 2.

    There will be no discussion, therefore, of the plans set out by figures who made reference to de Man (e.g. the Radical journalist Emile Roche) or opposed the Belgian Labour Plan (e.g. the publisher Georges Valois).

  3. 3.

    See Serge Berstein, La France des années 30 (Paris: Colin, 1988), 25–51.

  4. 4.

    See, for example, André Tardieu, Devant l’obstacle: l’Amérique et nous (Paris: Emile-Paul Frères, 1927); André Tardieu, Paroles réalistes (Paris: Figuière, 1928), “Des rapports de l’invention avec la production, la sécurité et la prospérité nationale,” manuscript dated 5 July 1930, FAT/AN/324AP/50. Like Hoover, Tardieu had been an admirer of scientific management and championed its adoption in France. On Tardieu’s socio-economic vision in the late 1920s–early 1930s, see Monique Clague, “Vision and Myopia in the New Politics of André Tardieu,” French Historical Studies 8, no. 1 (1973): 105–129; François Monnet, Refaire la République: André Tardieu, une dérive réactionnaire (1876–1945) (Paris: Fayard, 1993), 137–174.

  5. 5.

    For an overview, see Paul Ramadier, Les socialistes et l’exercice du pouvoir (Paris: Laffont, 1961), 21–27; Alain Bergounioux and Gérard Grunberg, Le long remords du pouvoir: le Parti Socialiste français 1905–1992 (Paris: Fayard, 1992), 134–147.

  6. 6.

    See George Lichtheim, Marxism in Modern France (New York-London: Columbia University Press, 1966), 30–33; Tony Judt, La reconstruction du Parti Socialiste, 1921–1926 (Paris: Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, 1976), 71–97.

  7. 7.

    According to Judt, Blum did not see participation either as “doctrinally repugnant” or “an advantage per se”; however, because of his “belief in the desirable and inevitable collapse of a system founded upon unjust exploitation,” he desired “to avoid contamination by excessive contact with the superstructure of that system” [Tony Judt, “The Socialist Party 1920–1936,” in Marxism and the French Left: Studies in Labour and Politics in France, 1830–1981 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), 149]. See Léon Blum, “Le parti socialiste et la participation ministérielle,” in Léon Blum and Paul Faure, Le parti socialiste et la participation ministérielle (Paris: Éditions de la nouvelle revue socialiste, 1926), 3–23. See also “Le Parti Socialiste et la participation ministérielle,” La Bataille socialiste, no. 27 (1929), featuring articles by Faure, Bracke, Zyromski, and other opponents of participation. A copy of this issue can be found in Blum’s papers: see FLB/AN/570AP/7.

  8. 8.

    See Michel Margairaz, L’Etat, les finances et l’économie: histoire d’une conversion, 1932–1952. Vol. I (Paris: Comité pour l’histoire économique de la France, 1991), 106–107; David Frapet, Le socialisme selon Léon Blum (Nonette: Créer, 2003), 69–70.

  9. 9.

    In his memoirs, the French liberal philosopher Raymond Aron admitted that, in his youth, he had been “carried away” by Déat’s eloquence [Raymond Aron, Mémoires: 50 ans de réflexion politique (Paris: Julliard, 1983), 69]. According to Marjolin, Déat was “an excellent orator, endowed with a fertile mind always in motion” and “his personality stood out from mediocrity of most of the socialist leaders. He could be compared with Léon Blum for the quality of the written and spoken word” [Robert Marjolin, Le travail d’une vie: mémoires 1911–1986 (Paris: Robert Laffont, 1986), 65].

  10. 10.

    In 1931, Déat publicly quoted a letter from Thomas in which the latter stated that Déat’s ideas were to be “at the roots of our modern socialist action” [see XXVIe Congrès national tenu à Tours le 24, 25, 26 et 27 mai 1931—compte rendu sténographique (Paris: Libraire Populaire, 1932), 22].

  11. 11.

    See Marcel Déat, Perspectives socialistes (Paris: Valois, 1930), 41, 63, 137.

  12. 12.

    See ibid., 117–118, 169–170. The Young Turks included, among others, Bertrand de Jouvenel, Gaston Bergery, Jean Zay, Pierre Cot, Jacques Kayser, and Jean Luchaire. On the prospects of further cooperation between the SFIO and Radicals, see, for example, Bertrand de Jouvenel, “Pour la gauche unitaire. Socialistes et radicaux. Une conversation avec M. Marcel Déat,” La voix, 9 June 1929.

  13. 13.

    See Jules Moch, Rencontres avec … Léon Blum (Paris, Plon 1970), 65–67; Jules Moch, Une si longue vie (Paris: Laffont, 1976), 72–73; Georges Lefranc, “Rétrospectives. Vol. II: militant socialiste et syndicaliste,” Cahiers et Revue de l’Ours, no. 118 (1981): 63–66. Serge Berstein, Blum (Paris: Fayard, 2006), contains insightful remarks on the relationship between Blum and Déat. The term “neosocialism” first appeared in Jean Lebas, Le socialisme, but et moyen: suivi de la réfutation d’un néo-socialisme (Lille: Imprimeur ouvrière, 1931).

  14. 14.

    “Discours de Marcel Déat, député de Paris,” in Barthélemy Montagnon, Adrien Marquet and Marcel Déat, Néo-socialisme? Ordre, autorité, nation, ed. Max Bonnafous (Paris: Grasset 1933), 83.

  15. 15.

    Ibid., 101. As a former associate of Déat who later remained in the SFIO wrote about the neo-socialist doctrine: “[T]he socialism that has been presented to me has no soul. I cannot feel the thrill of joyful emotion, the warm flame of high experience” [Ludovic-Oscar Frossard, “L’Ancien Testament et le Nouveau,” Marianne 1, no. 46 (1933): 2].

  16. 16.

    See, for example, Léon Blum, “Parti de classe et non pas parti de déclassés,” Le Populaire, July 19, 1933; Léon Blum, “La leçon de l’histoire,” Le Populaire, July 25, 1933.

  17. 17.

    “It has become common to treat neosocialism as a neo-fascist movement” [Marc Vivier, “Néo-Socialisme (Bernard Grasset Éditeur),” Masses, no. 14 (1934): 7]. This mirrored the theory of social fascism elaborated by Grigory Zinoviev within the Comintern. It is no accident that the main architect of Déat’s expulsion from the SFIO was the pro-communist Marceau Pivert, who went on to break with the Popular Front in 1937 for being too moderate and launched his own Socialist Revolutionary Party one year later [see memorandum GB/3 A6712, FP/AN/F/7/15991/2, “De Versailles à Compiègne … où va la France?,” unpublished manuscript, FAMP/AN/22AS/1]. Nevertheless the neo-socialists won the sympathies of some Italian anti-fascists, including Salvemini and Rosselli [see letter from Salvemini to Rosselli, 5 August 1933, in Fra le righe: carteggio fra Carlo Rosselli e Gaetano Salvemini, ed. Elisa Signori (Milan: Franco Angeli, 2010), 167–168; Carlo Rosselli, “Il neosocialismo francese,” La Libertà, 17 August 1933; Carlo Rosselli, “Lo spirito e i fini del neosocialismo francese,” La Libertà, 24 August 1933; “Il neosocialismo francese nel quadro internazionale,” La Libertà, 31 August 1933, all reprinted in Carlo Rosselli, Scritti dall’esilio. Vol. I: Giustizia e Libertà e la concentrazione antifascista (1929–1934) (Turin: Einaudi, 1989), 226–243]. For a critical but not totally negative assessment of neosocialism, see Gaëtan Pirou, Néo-libéralisme, néo-corporatisme, néo-socialisme (Paris: Gallimard, 1939).

  18. 18.

    See “Le Conseil National de scission: Paris, 4 et 5 novembre 1933,” La Vie socialiste 11, no. 349–350 (1933): 4–27. The estimated membership was 20,000.

  19. 19.

    See letter from Déat to de Man, 28 December 1933, ABSO/AMSAB/82.

  20. 20.

    R.B. [Robert Bobin], “Ce que dit Henri de Man: pour un socialisme renouvelé,” La Vie socialiste 11, no. 348 (1933): 6.

  21. 21.

    Robert Bobin, “Une très importante session du Conseil Général du Parti Ouvrier Belge,” La Vie socialiste 11, no. 351 (1933): 10.

  22. 22.

    “Le Plan belge et nous,” La Vie socialiste 12, no. 357 (1934): 3.

  23. 23.

    Paul Renaudel, “Le ‘renouvellement’ socialiste est une réalité en Suisse comme en Belge,” La Vie socialiste, no. 359 (1934): 12. In 1928, Renaudel had invited de Man to speak in Paris: see Henri de Man, “Socialisme et Marxisme,” La Vie socialiste 6, no. 92 (1928): 8–18.

  24. 24.

    “Chronique du Parti Socialiste de France—Union Jean Jaurès,” La Vie socialiste 12, no. 357 (1934): 15. The use of the term réaliste is also noteworthy. Since the late 1920s, it had gained wide currency among the abovementioned Young Turks to qualify their own understanding of economics and society: see, for example, Jean Luchaire, Une génération réaliste (Paris: Valois, 1929). The neo-socialist Montagnon had also made a forceful case for réalisme: see Barthélemy Montagnon, Grandeur et servitude socialistes (Paris: Valois, 1929), 179–180.

  25. 25.

    See, for example, Marcel Déat, “Réflexions sur le fascisme,” Le Mouvement syndical belge, no. 9 (1933): 255–256. In 1934, de Man’s views on foreign policy and national defence were also well received: see Henri de Man, “A propos de la Défense Nationale,” La Vie socialiste 12, no. 368 (1934): 4–9 and La Vie socialiste 12, no. 369 (1934): 5–13. The centrality of the nation in the neo-socialist discourse was stressed by Paul Marion, another ideologue of the movement: see Paul Marion, Socialisme et nation (Paris: Imprimerie du Centaure, 1933).

  26. 26.

    Emile Vandervelde, “Henri de Man et Marcel Déat,” Le Peuple, January 7, 1934, reprinted in L’étudiant socialiste 9, no. 5 (1934): 1–2. See also Frédéric Lefèvre, “Une heure avec Emile Vandervelde, écrivain politique,” Les Nouvelles littéraires, artistiques et scientifiques 12, no. 581 (1933): 4, and the neo-socialist reply by J.T., “A propos d’une interview d’Emile Vandervelde,” La Vie socialiste 11, no. 354 (1933): 3. Vandervelde reiterated the point in Emile Vandervelde, “Planisme, néo-socialisme ou néo-réformisme?” Le Peuple, January 6, 1935; Emile Vandervelde, “Le marxisme et le planisme,” Le Peuple, February 3, 1935. Faure too turned de Man’s ideas against the neo-socialists: see, for example, Paul Faure, “Deuxième épître à des sénateurs,” Le Populaire, November 12, 1933; Paul Faure, “Les taches de demain,” La Bataille socialiste 6, no. 73 (1933): 1–2.

  27. 27.

    Evidence suggests that Blum gave the Labour Plan careful consideration. In mid-January, Germaine Fouchère, the secretary of the Chamber’s SFIO group, contacted de Man to organise a public rally entirely devoted to the Belgian Labour Plan “in accordance with the socialist party” [see letter from Fouchère to de Man, 17 January 1934, ABSO/AMSAB/82]. Due to de Man’s commitments in Belgium the event never took place. Blum also attended at least one private meeting with a group of socialist parliamentarians—Vincent Auriol, Jules Moch, Charles Spinasse, Georges Monnet, and Robert Jardillier—to discuss the Plan in detail [see letter from Jardillier to de Man, 3 February 1934, ABSO/AMSAB/82].

  28. 28.

    Léon Blum, “Au-delà du réformisme,” Le Populaire, January 4, 1934.

  29. 29.

    Léon Blum, “Appel à une bataille de classe,” Le Populaire, January 5, 1934.

  30. 30.

    Léon Blum, “Le Plan du Travail et le Parti Français,” Le Populaire, January 6, 1934.

  31. 31.

    Léon Blum, “Les grands lignes du Plan du Travail,” Le Populaire, January 18, 1934.

  32. 32.

    Léon Blum, “Le sens véritable du Plan du Travail,” Le Populaire, January 21, 1934.

  33. 33.

    Léon Blum, “La socialisation par étapes,” Le Populaire, January 22, 1934.

  34. 34.

    Léon Blum, “Plan et Programme,” Le Populaire, January 17, 1934.

  35. 35.

    Léon Blum, “Appel à une bataille de classe,” Le Populaire, January 5, 1934; L. Blum, “Le Plan du Travail et le Parti Français,” Le Populaire, January 6, 1934. Blum referred to Auriol’s most recent policy proposal: see Jean Brissaud and Vincent Auriol, La nationalisation des assurances (Paris: Librairie Populaire, 1933). Auriol’s full proposals can be found in FVA/AN/552/AP/12.

  36. 36.

    Le Combat Marxiste, “Notre But,” Le Combat marxiste 1, no. 1 (1933): 1. Many prominent planists—including Georges Albertini, René Belin, Pierre Brossolette, Jacques Itard, Jules and François Moch, and André Philip—were subscribers of Le Combat marxiste: see Marcelle Pommera’s notebook in FLL/IHS/4.

  37. 37.

    “Belgique: un plan de socialisation du Parti Ouvrier Belge,” Le Combat marxiste 1, no. 3 (1933): 16–17. See Lucien Laurat, Economie planée contre économie enchaînée (Paris: Librairie Populaire, 1933) and Lucien Laurat, Le socialisme à l’ordre du jour: problèmes et taches du marxisme contemporain (Paris: Librairie Populaire, 1933).

  38. 38.

    See letter from Laurat to Zyromski, 12 April 1934, FJZ/CHS/J1-Z-3EA4. On Bataille Socialiste, see Eric Nadaud, “Les socialistes de la S.F.I.O. et l’idée de plan dans les années 1930: le cas de Jean Zyromski et de la tendance ‘Bataille socialiste’,” Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine 43, no. 1 (1996): 5–34.

  39. 39.

    Jean Zyromski, “De la brochure de Laurat au programme d’action,” La Bataille socialiste 6, no. 73 (1933): 2.

  40. 40.

    Ibidem.

  41. 41.

    Ibidem.

  42. 42.

    In late summer 1932, Raymonde Vaysset warned the authors of Révolution Constructive that “a series of partial transformations” of the state “would never be able to achieve the radical transformation which is necessary,” not even under the pressure of the working class [Raymonde Vaysset, “Révolution Constructive,” La Bataille socialiste 5, no. 60 (1932): 11]. Marcelle Pommera was even more trenchant: “This ‘constructive revolution’ does not revolutionise very much and does not construct anything” [Marcelle Pommera, “Revue des Livres,” La Critique sociale, no. 8 (1933): 85].

  43. 43.

    See letter from de Man to Lefranc, 10 November 1933, ABSO/AMSAB/82. The correspondence between Lefranc and de Man in fall 1933 is extremely rich.

  44. 44.

    See J.R. [Jules Robert], “Dans le parti: Une déclaration de la ‘Révolution Constructive’,” Le Combat marxiste 1, no. 3 (1933): 8–9; Jef Rens “Le Plan du Travail,” L’étudiant socialiste 9, no. 5 (1934): 3–6; A. Delmarche and G. Hercot, “Adhésion totale au Plan du Travail,” L’étudiant socialiste 9, no. 9–10 (1934): 10–11. De Man’s articles, originally published in Le Peuple, appeared as Henri de Man, Pour un plan d’action (Asnières: Cahiers de Révolution Constructive, 1934), with an introduction signed “Le Groupe de Révolution Constructive,” claiming that “the French socialist thought, so proud of its vitality, seems to have been largely surpassed by our neighbours in the United Kingdom, Poland, and Belgium” [Ibid., 1].

  45. 45.

    Reproduced in “Une politique nouvelle et réaliste,” Le Combat marxiste 2, no. 5 (1934): 4–6. Laurat too seconded the motion: see “Le Congrès extraordinaire de la fédération socialiste de la Seine s’est tenu hier, salle des Fêtes de la mairie du Pré-Saint Gervais,” Le Populaire, January 29, 1934. On that month, Lefranc wrote an extensive appreciation of the Belgian Labour Plan, calling de Man’s ideas “the indispensable starting point for a new impetus” [Georges Lefranc, “Le plan d’action d’Henri de Man,” L’Homme réel, no. 1 (1934): 20].

  46. 46.

    See Jean Itard and Georges Lefranc, “Pour l’offensive socialiste,” Le Populaire, January 31, 1934. See also Jean Itard and Georges Lefranc, “Pour un plan de construction socialiste,” Le Populaire, January 17, 1934. In April, Révolution Constructive released a forty-page book, Eléments d’un Plan français, as a contribution for the upcoming SFIO Congress which, Itard predicted, “will mark an important date for French socialism, as the Christmas congress marked one for the Belgian party” [Jean Itard, “Il y a Plan et Plan,” Le Populaire, April 18, 1934].

  47. 47.

    See André Philip, “Autour du Plan Henri de Man: le socialisme et les classes sociales,” Esprit 2, no. 17 (1934): 788–804. In the same issue, the co-founder of Esprit Jean Lacroix and André Ulman commented extensively on the Plan. Philip’s article was published in August by L’Eglantine as a pamphlet.

  48. 48.

    “Sur le Plan d’Action du Parti: une seule motion Moch-Cartier,” La volonté socialiste, no. 211 (1934): unpaged. However, Moch’s candid admission that he was unaware of the motion presented before the Seine Congress when drawing up his own is revealing about the lack of coordination among planists: see XXXIème Congrès national tenu à Toulouse les 20, 21, 22 et 23 mai 1934—compte redu sténographique (Paris: Librairie Populaire, 1934), 184.

  49. 49.

    “Les Congrès fédéraux,” Le Populaire, February 7, 1934; “Les Congrès fédéraux,” Le Populaire, February 8, 1934.

  50. 50.

    See Jean Zyromski, “Amical reproche à Vincent Auriol,” Le Populaire, December 27, 1933; Jean Zyromski, “Pour une politique de socialisation,” Le Populaire, January 4, 1934; Jean Zyromski “Crise–Pouvoir–Socialisation,” Le Populaire, February 1, 1934.

  51. 51.

    See “Le Congrès confédéral—Paris, 15 au 18 septembre,” La voix du peuple, no. 133 (1931): 608–611.

  52. 52.

    See René Belin, Du secrétariat de la C.G.T. au Gouvernement de Vichy (Mémoires 1933–1942) (Paris: Albatros. 1978), 46–48. See also “L’action de la C.G.T. pour conjurer la crise économique,” La voix du peuple, no. 160 (1934): 5; “La Confédération Générale du Travail demande l’application de mesures immédiates contre la crise économique,” Le Populaire, 16 January 1934. The January issue of La voix du peuple featured both the Plan du Travail (pp. 10–13) and Belin’s draft (pp. 38–40).

  53. 53.

    See Robert Lacoste, “A Bruxelles, avec Henri de Man,” La Tribune des fonctionnaires et des rétriates 27, no. 583 (1934): 1, 4. Lacoste developed an early interest in the notion of économie dirigée and was probably the first periodical to introduce the Labour Plan to the French public, even before the final version was released [see “Le Plan Henri de Man pour lutter contre la crise,” La tribune des fonctionnaires et des retraités 26, no. 577 (1933): 3]. In February 1934, Lacoste’s views on the nationalisation of the banking system were cited alongside those of de Man, G.D.H. Cole, and Christian Cornelissen as the French expression of a wider planist orientation [see “Nationalisations des banques et du crédit,” L’Homme réel, no. 2 (1934): 67–77]. In autumn 1934, both Lacoste and Belin attended the Pontigny conference.

  54. 54.

    “La réaction fasciste ne passera pas!,” Le Populaire, February 7, 1934. See also Moch, Rencontres, 91–92. For a chronicle of February 6, see Pierre Pellissier, 6 février: la République en flamme (Paris: Perrin, 2000).

  55. 55.

    The decision was taken on February 7. At the Toulouse Congress, Blum contended that the postponement prevented an even deeper “trouble of ideas” that might have endangered party unity: see “Les évènements du 6 février,” in XXXI Congrès national, 32–33, 350. In March, the SFIO National Council decided to set up a commission to prepare “a plan of propaganda and mass-gathering” as well as “a programme for immediate action by the party in power,” but the task was not accomplished [“Le Congrès national fixé au 20–25 mai se tiendra à Toulouse,” Le Populaire, 12 March 1934].

  56. 56.

    “Magnifique riposte prolétarienne au fascisme” and “Une grève générale sans précédents,” L’Humanité, February 13, 1934.

  57. 57.

    See, for example, Jean-Baptiste Séverac, “Après la dernière victoire du fascisme,” La Bataille socialiste, no. 76 (1934): 2; Boris Souvarine, “Les journées de février,” La Critique sociale, no. 11 (1934): 201–205. On February 16, a massive rally was organised in solidarity with Austrian workers [see “Paris ouvrière vengera la Commune de Vienne,” Le Populaire, February 17, 1934; “Révolution et contre-révolution en Autriche,” La Vie du Parti, no. 52 (1934)].

  58. 58.

    Marcel Déat, “Sanglante confirmation,” La Vie socialiste 12, no. 362 (1934): 2. The piece was allegedly written on February 6.

  59. 59.

    Marcel Déat, “Fin des vieux partis,” Notre temps, February 14, 1934. See also “Un manifeste du Parti Socialiste de France,” La Vie socialiste 12, no. 363 (1934): 3–4.

  60. 60.

    See VV.AA., Plan du 9 Juillet: Réforme de la France proposée par le groupe du 9 Juillet (Paris: Gallimard, 1934). A young Radical deputy from Eure, Pierre Mendès-France, endorsed the Plan in September [see Louis Vallon, “I. Le Plan du 9 Juillet,” L’Homme nouveau 2, no. 9 (1935): unpaged]. Déat hoped the Plan du 9 Juillet would also win the approval of those “socialists in the SFIO who […] claim at the same time to be faithful to Jaurès and won over by the ‘planism’ of their Belgian comrades” [Marcel Déat, “Tâtonnements,” Paris-Demain 2, no. 57 (1934): 2]. Coutrot, an engineer from the circle X-Crise, was also an admirer of de Man: see letter from Coutrot to unknown member of X-Crise, 25 February 1934, FJC/AN/468/AP/7; copies of internal documents of the BES, FJC/AN/AP468/AP/11; the original manuscript of Coutrot’s book Quoi vivre, in which de Man is cited, FJC/AN/AP468/12.

  61. 61.

    Barthélemy Montagnon, Essai de synthèse néo-socialiste (Paris: Parti Socialiste de France, 1935), 13–14. Traditionally, the reform of the state had been a favourite theme of the Right, including Tardieu: see André Tardieu, L’heure de la décision (Paris: Flammarion, 1934). For an overview, see Nicolas Roussellier, “La contestation du modèle républicain dans les années 30: la réforme de l’Etat,” in Le modèle républicain, eds. Serge Berstein and Odile Rudelle (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1992): 319–335.

  62. 62.

    See, for example, Marcel Déat, Jeunesses d’Europe (Paris: SEI, n.d.), 11–14. After having attended a conference on corporatism sponsored by the Italian Ministry of Culture in May 1935, Roditi displayed an increasingly sympathetic attitude towards Italian fascism and, like Déat, sided with Vichy in the 1940s. For an overview on his evolving views, see Georges Roditi, Ecrits d’avant-guerre: ‘L’Homme Nouveau’, ‘Tribune de France’, ‘Idées et Peuples’, 1931–1939 (Clermont-Ferrand: Sorlot, 1941). Evidence suggests that Roditi knew de Man personally: see letter from Roditi to de Man, 10 November 1933, ABSO/AMSAB/82; letter from Roditi to de Man, 3 August 1937, AHDM/IISG/227.

  63. 63.

    “Au groupe néo-socialiste,” Le Temps, February 9, 1934. To make matters worse, in a declaration issued on February 10, Marquet presented his appointment as a bilateral bargain between him and Doumergue [see “Une déclaration de M. Marquet,” Le Temps, February 11, 1934]. For a detailed account, see Ernest Lafont, “Le rapport du groupe parlementaire,” La Vie socialiste, 12, no. 376 (1934): 6–8.

  64. 64.

    Six out of seven SFIO deputies from Gironde joined the PSdF in 1933, half of the militants followed them, and the first local Congress in Bordeaux, in January 1934, hosted 600 delegates and 8000 attendees [see Pierre Brana and Joëlle Dusseau, Adrien Marquet maire de Bordeaux: du socialisme à la collaboration (Anglet: Atlantica, 2001), 123; Pierre Rambaut, “Le Congrès fédéral constitutive de la Fédération de la Gironde du Parti Socialiste de France,” La Vie socialiste 12, no. 360 (1934): 13–14].

  65. 65.

    See “Pierre Renaudel condamne l’Union Nationale et l’entrée de Marquet dans le ministère Doumergue,” Le Populaire, February 11, 1934; Pierre Renaudel, “Pour la République, contre la dictature et le fascisme,” La Vie socialiste 12, no. 363 (1934): 1–2.

  66. 66.

    See “Les néo-socialises divisés,” L’homme Libre, February 10, 1934; “Chez les néo-socialistes,” Le Temps, February 16, 1934.

  67. 67.

    See “Auguste Reynaud, député du Var, démissionne du parti ‘néo’. La fédération varoise s’était d’ailleurs opposée au maintien de Marquet dans le cabinet Doumergue,” Le Populaire, February 14, 1934; “Maxence Roldes abandonne les ‘néo-socialistes,’” Le Populaire, February 15, 1934; “La présentation du cabinet Doumergue,” La Vie socialiste 12, no. 363 (1934): 9–10.

  68. 68.

    Marcel Déat, Mémoires politiques (Paris: Denoël, 1989), 301. Neo-socialist efforts to keep distance from the majority were often convoluted and inconsequential. For instance, in February 1934, the neo-socialist parliamentary group voted in the favour of the Doumergue budget but against the full powers to balance it [see “Vote du budget 1934—La Chambre autorise la procédure des décrets lois,” Le Temps, February 24, 1934].

  69. 69.

    See, for example, Robert Bonin, “Pour la liquidation du chômage et de la crise économique,” La Vie socialiste 12, no. 369 (1934): 1–3.

  70. 70.

    In May 1934, Déat still claimed “an exact parallelism” existed between the neo-socialist analysis and de Man’s as the Marquet Plan had already proved “in contradiction” with the government’s fiscal policy: see Marcel Déat, Problèmes d’hier et de demain (Paris: Parti Socialiste de France, 1934), 15, 26.

  71. 71.

    Léon Blum, “Le Plan démarqué,” Le Populaire, May 17, 1934; Léon Blum, “Naïveté o bluff?,” Le Populaire, May 22, 1934; Marcel Bidoux, “Le Congrès de Nantes a accordé aux ministres radicaux un mandat large,” Le Populaire, October 28, 1934; Marcel Bidoux, “Le Congrès radical a terminé ses travaux hier,” Le Populaire, October 29, 1934.

  72. 72.

    See “La rentrée politique de Renaudel: son discours de la Seine,” La Vie socialiste 12, no. 375 (1934): 17; “Le Congrès de la fédération de la région parisienne,” La Vie socialiste 12, no. 376 (1934): 11–14, during which Marquet was accused of capitulation; “Le Congrès fédéral du Var,” La vie socialiste 12, no. 376 (1934): 14–15. Publicly, Déat described Marquet’s position as “delicate” and hardly tenable in the long run [Marcel Déat, “Axis de marche,” La Vie socialiste, 12, no. 375 (1934): 3]. See also Marcel Déat, “Rapport moral,” La Vie socialiste 12, no. 374 (1934): 1–10.

  73. 73.

    Déat unsuccessfully tried to trigger the resignation of the Minister of Pensions to provoke a government crisis [see Georges Suarez, “Marcel Déat révolutionnaire de juillet ou vers un ministère Paul Boncour,” Le Gringoire 7, no. 291 (1934): 7; Roger Parant, “Grandeur et décadence,” L’Express du Midi, July 11, 1934]. See also Déat, Mémoires, 303–304.

  74. 74.

    Robert Bobin, “Le Conseil central du Parti Socialiste de France—8 Juillet 1934,” La Vie socialiste 12, no. 384 (1934): 7–12.

  75. 75.

    See “Le Congrès du Parti Socialiste de France: M. Marquet ne veut pas être un boulet pour le parti. Il le quitterait plutôt,” La Petite Gironde, July 9, 1934. Tellingly, Marquet’s threat was omitted from Bobin’s official account of the meeting.

  76. 76.

    See “Aux urnes pour la démocratie et le travail! Votez pour la liste Adrien Marquet,” Le Cri populaire, April 28, 1935; Jean Cavignac, “Les néo-socialistes dans les élections locales (1934–1939),” in VV.AA., Les néo-socialistes girondins (Bordeaux: Institut aquitaine de sciences sociales, 1988), 191–230.

  77. 77.

    See Marcel Déat, “Notre adhésion au Plan de la C.G.T.,” Paris-Demain 3, no. 81 (1935): 1–2; Marcel Déat, “Préface,” in Comité du Plan, Le Plan français: doctrine et plan d’action (Paris: Fasquelle, 1935), 9–23. The Comité rallied minor left-wing parties, a few independent radicals, and various associations of former combatants: see “Contre la misère, la faillite et le chômage—Comité du Plan,” La Vie socialiste 13, no. 409 (1935): 3–4; “Présentation du Plan,” Le Front: socialiste, républicain, français 1, no. 4 (1935): 4; Marcel Déat, “Vers l’expérience française,” Le Front: socialiste, républicain, français 1, no. 8 (1935): 1–2.

  78. 78.

    See “Au Congrès du Parti Socialiste de France,” Le Front: socialiste, républicain, français 1, no. 2 (1935): 1, 4. The main architect of the merger was Joseph Paul-Boncour, a moderate centre-left deputy and former prime minister who was deeply suspicious of the neo-socialists’ lurching towards extra-parliamentary forces: see Joseph Paul-Boncour, Entre deux guerres: souvenirs sur la IIIe République. Vol. II (Paris: Plon, 1945), 322–323.

  79. 79.

    Bertrand de Jouvenel, who campaigned as a neo-socialist, was among those who unsuccessfully ran for Parliament: see Bertrand de Jouvenel, “Pourquoi j’ai été battu,” Vu, special issue (1936): 44–46.

  80. 80.

    The contradiction was evident from the very beginning of the neo-socialist insurgence: see, for example, Aldo Rossi [Angelo Tasca], “La scission socialiste au Congrès du Paris,” Monde: hebdomadaire international 6, no. 268 (1933): 4–5. Anti-parliamentary elements within the PSdF were the most upset by the new alliance: see, for example, Georges Roditi, “Mort ou naissance du néo-socialisme?,” L’Homme nouveau, special issue (1935): unpaged. A similar disappointment subsequently led Marion and de Jouvenel to switch to Jacques Doriot’s Parti Populaire Français.

  81. 81.

    XXXIe Congrès, 22.

  82. 82.

    Ibid., 176. See also Jean-Baptiste Séverac, “A propos de ‘Plans,’” Révolte 4, no. 21 (1934): 5–12.

  83. 83.

    XXXIe Congrès, 226.

  84. 84.

    Ibid., 161–162, 253–254. The speech was later included in Pierre Boivin, Choix d’écrits (Paris: Centre confédéral d’éducation ouvrière, 1938), 227–234.

  85. 85.

    XXXIe Congrès, 350.

  86. 86.

    Ibid., 351–352.

  87. 87.

    Ibid., 354.

  88. 88.

    See ibid., 177–192.

  89. 89.

    See ibid., 359, 360–361.

  90. 90.

    Ibid., 397–398.

  91. 91.

    Ibid., 366–367, 402. The “great desire for unity of action” was noticed also by foreign observers [see, e.g., “Après le Congrès de Toulouse,” Le Peuple, May 26, 1934]. According to Itard, Révolution Constructive supported the motion “without believing it is perfect, without even finding many virtues in it. The point is we felt a desire for unanimity at that Congress […] so we were afraid, by countering it, to appear to our comrades as agents of a new split” [Jean Itard, “L’unanimité de Toulouse,” Le Populaire, June 27, 1934]. Not all planists were satisfied, as some had warned in advance about the danger of accepting a vague unanimity motion: see, for example, letter from Lefranc to Deixonne, 18 May 1934, FMD/OURS/1APO5/1; Marcelle. Pommera, “La plus belle motion du monde …,” Le Combat marxiste 2, no. 9 (1934): 15–17. Zyromski gave a more positive assessment of the Congress, although he admitted that “a resistance has been opposed to some of our requests” [Jean Zyromski, “Notre effort au Congrès de Toulouse,” La Bataille socialiste 6, no. 79 (1934): 1–2].

  92. 92.

    Among the anti-planists, see Jean-Baptiste Séverac, Le Parti Socialiste: ses principes et ses tâches. Lettres à Brigitte (Paris: Éditions de la Bataille Socialiste, 1933), 96–97; Jean-Baptiste Séverac, De l’unité d’action à l’unité organique (Paris: Nouveau Prométhée, 1934). On Zyromski’s attitude, see Georges Lefranc, “La tentative de réunification entre le parti socialiste et le parti communiste de 1935 à 1937,” L’information historique 29, no. 1 (1967): 19–27.

  93. 93.

    Déat sarcastically commented, “The young launched the offensive, not without ardour, not without reputational success, not without jostling a few pots of flowers, not without irreverently pulling some old beards. Obviously, they have been barred and, once again, the ‘elderly’ prevailed. It could not have been otherwise” [Marcel Déat, “La motion de Toulouse,” La vie socialiste 12, no. 378 (1934): 3].

  94. 94.

    Some of them, like Laurat, were well aware of the role played by the CS in persuading the POB to accept the Labour Plan. In May 1935, writing for the Belgian public, he claimed that the CGT Plan was “inspired to principles that are identical to those of the Labour Plan” [Lucien Laurat, “La situation en France et le Plan de la CGT,” Le Mouvement syndical belge, no. 3 (1935): 54].

  95. 95.

    See Georges Lefranc, “Le courant planiste dans le mouvement ouvrier français de 1933 à 1936,” Le mouvement social, no. 54 (1966): 80; Georges Bernard, Denise Tintant and Marie-Anne Renauld, Léon Jouhaux dans le mouvement syndical français (Paris: Presses Universitaire de France, 1979), 97–98.

  96. 96.

    See “Une heure avec Henri de Man au Bureau d’Études Sociales (12 juillet 1934),” in VV.AA., Les problèmes d’ensemble du fascisme: Semaine d’études d’Uccle-Bruxelles (10–15 juillet 1934) (Paris: Centre confédéral d’éducation ouvrière, 1939), 22–25.

  97. 97.

    See VV.AA., Les principes et la vie du centre confédéral (Paris: Centre confédéral d’éducation ouvrière, 1935); Emile and Georges Lefranc, La CGT et l’éducation ouvrière en France (Geneva: Bureau International du Travail, 1938). In April 1938, Lefranc invited de Man to speak at a CGT one-week seminar on workers’ education at Pontigny but de Man’s political commitments prevented him from going [see letter from Lefranc to de Man, 1 April 1938, letter from de Man’s personal secretary to Lefranc, 2 May 1938, AHDM/IISG/227]. De Man kept a copy of the proceedings in his private papers [see AHDM/AMSAB/348].

  98. 98.

    See Georges Lefranc and Raoul Lenoir, La révolution russe (Paris: Centre confédéral d’éducation ouvrière, 1935); Georges Lefranc, Roosevelt contre la crise (Paris: Centre confédéral d’éducation ouvrière, 1936); Lucien Laurat, La crise mondiale (Paris: Centre confédéral d’éducation ouvrière, 1935); Lucien Laurat, Histoire des doctrines économiques (Paris: Collège du Travail, 1937). In 1936–1937, Laurat taught a module at the ISO on “social and economic aspects of planism”: see the notes in FLL/HIS/1.

  99. 99.

    The CGT plan first appeared on Le Populaire and subsequently circulated as a leaflet: see “La C.G.T. présente un plan de rénovation économique,” Le Populaire, October 29, 1934; Le Plan de Rénovation économique et sociale (Paris: Éditions de la Confédération Générale du Travail, 1935). The conferences were held at the ISO on a weekly basis and later published as VV.AA., Crise et Plan (Quinze conférences et études sur le Plan de la C.G.T.) (Paris: Centre confédéral d’éducation ouvrière, 1935). The first issue of L’Atelier pour le Plan appeared in May 1935.

  100. 100.

    Some SFIO planists realised this very quickly. “The economic plan of the CGT lacks a political plan, the absence of which could be interpreted as the acceptance of the present regime” [Henri and René Modiano, “Le ‘plan de rénovation économique,’” La Bataille socialiste 6, 82 (1934): 4]; “The ‘plan’ can be excellent but it lacks consideration for political and social realities. Who will implement it? Under which conditions? One can go through the texts from the first to the last line, and find no semblance of an answer” [Robert Marjolin, “Pour une conception révolutionnaire du plan,” Révolution constructive 1, no. 4 (1934): 2].

  101. 101.

    De Man, Le socialisme devant la crise, 15–16.

  102. 102.

    See Congrès confédéral de Paris 1935—Compte rendu sténographique de débats (Paris: Éditions de la Confédération Générale du Travail, 1935), 56–73. Speaking before the CGT Congress on September 27, 1935, Jouhaux argued that the CGT Plan consisted of a combination of temporary measures against the crisis and structural reforms, and the two were inextricably linked. However, he also claimed that the origins of the CGT’s policy proposals could be traced back to 1919 for “the ideas contained in the Plan had been issued by the confederal movement long before the Plan was worked out” [ibid., 236]. The CGT Plan was amended after a public meeting with various organisation involved in the creation of the Popular Front: see “Une réunion à la C.G.T.,” Le Populaire, August 6, 1935.

  103. 103.

    According to Harmel, the Popular Front “interrupted, buried, broke or perverted” a number of different initiatives, including the CGT Plan, which would have thoroughly renewed French society [Claude Harmel, “Le Front Populaire contre le planisme,” Les Etudes sociales et syndicales 11, no. 120 (1965): 2]. Harmel’s comment is way too drastic, but there is no doubt that the Popular Front and the launching of a French Labour Plan proved to be mutually exclusive strategies.

  104. 104.

    Blum observed, “It is not the Plan that is in power. It is the Party that has gone into it […]. The experience in which the Belgian Workers’ Party is engaged is therefore much closer to the normal types of ministerial collaboration than to the grandiose operation envisaged by the Christmas Congress” [Léon Blum, “En Belgique,” Le Populaire, March 27, 1935].

  105. 105.

    See Marcel Déat, “De Bruxelles à Paris,” La Vie socialiste 13, no. 409 (1935): 1–3; Louis Vallon, “Le Plan du 9 Juillet et l’expérience belge,” L’Homme nouveau 2, no. 16 (1935): unpaged; Jean Zyromski, “De Belgique … en France,” Le Populaire, April 17, 1935.

  106. 106.

    See Jean Lebas, “Où va le Parti Socialiste?,” Le Populaire, June 24, 1935. Even Blum appeared more pragmatic: see Léon Blum, “Les nationalisations et la crise,” Le Populaire, August 6, 1935.

  107. 107.

    See XXXIIe Congrès national tenu à Mulhouse le 9, 10, 11 et 12 juin 1935—compte rendu sténographique (Paris: Libraire Populaire, 1936), 569–577.

  108. 108.

    Lucien Constant (Georges Kagan), “La Crise du Parti Socialiste—I. A la veille du Congrès de Toulouse,” Cahiers du bolchévisme 11, no. 10 (1934): 592–593. See also Lucien Constant (Georges Kagan), “Les réformistes et la crise—III. L’ ‘économie dirigée’ et la C.G.T.” Cahiers du bolchévisme 11, no. 7 (1934): 412–422, for a critique of the early steps towards the CGT Plan. For L’Humanité, both de Man and his French followers could be qualified as social fascists: see, for example, “Le plan social-fasciste d’Henri de Man—Tous d’accord!” L’Humanité, January 8, 1934. Bilan, a review linked to Italian communist exiles published in French, was among the first to denounce the Plan as a crypto-fascist scheme: see “Le Plan de Man,” Bilan, no. 4 (1934): 122–132 and “Le Plan de Man: suite et fine,” Bilan, no. 5 (1934): 166–179.

  109. 109.

    Maurice Thorez, “L’organisation du front populaire du travail, de la paix et de la liberté,” Cahiers du bolchévisme 12, no. 1 (1935): 28. The speech was given in Paris on December 20, 1934.

  110. 110.

    Jean-François Biard, Le socialisme devant ses choix: la naissance de l’idée de plan (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1985), 265. For a detailed account of the drafting of the programme, see Jackson, The Politics of Depression, 112–133, Julian Jackson, The Popular Front in France: Defending Democracy, 1934–38 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 159–167.

  111. 111.

    See “Le programme du Rassemblement populaire,” Le Peuple: Quotidien du syndicalisme, January 12, 1936; “Les revendications du Rassemblement Populaire,” La voix du peuple 18, no. 183 (1936): 5–6; Georges Lefranc, “Le Plan de la C.G.T. et le programme de revendications du Rassemblement Populaire,” L’Atelier pour le Plan 2, no. 9 (1936): 141–144; Gaston Vaillant, “Le programme du Front Populaire et le Plan de la CGT,” Le Front: socialiste, républicain, français 2, no. 11 (1936): 2; Louis Vallon, “Le programme du Front Populaire,” L’Homme nouveau 3, no. 25 (1936): unpaged. See also the unpublished manuscript by René Belin, “L’insuffisance du programme du Front Populaire,” FRB/IHS/2. In June 1936 Vallon published a book which may be regarded a last-ditch effort to convert the Popular Front to economic planning, if not planism: see Louis Vallon, Socialisme expérimental (Paris: Centre d’Études Polytechniques, 1936).

  112. 112.

    See, for example, Marcel Déat, Le Front Populaire au tournant (Paris: Éditions du Journal “La Concorde,” 1937), 12–16, 36–37, 45–47. Already in March 1936, Lacoste had pointed to “the fragility” of coalition programmes, urging the SFIO to pass the CGT Plan as soon as possible [Congrès confédéral d’unité à Toulouse du 2 au 5 mars 1936—Compte rendu sténographique des débats. Paris: Éditions de la Confédération Générale du Travail 1936, 133]. Later on, Lefranc argued that the Achilles’ heel of the Popular Front was “an excessive confidence in capitalism” [Georges Lefranc, Histoire du Front Populaire (1934–1938) (Paris: Payot, 1965), 427].

  113. 113.

    As understood by Gaëtan Pirou, La crise du capitalisme (Paris: Sirey, 1936), 121–124. The Radical leader Édouard Herriot was fiscally conservative and successfully fended off the attacks of the Young Turks: see Serge Berstein, Histoire du Parti Radical. Vol. II (Paris: Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, 1982), 122–124, 184–188. On the ideological incongruities of the Radicals, see Jacques Kayser, “Le radicalisme et les radicaux,” in Tendances politiques dans la vie française depuis 1789, ed. Guy Michaud (Paris: Hachette, 1960), 65–88.

  114. 114.

    See Georges Lefranc, “Histoire d’un groupe du Parti Socialiste SFIO: Révolution Constructive (1930–1938),” in Essais sur les problèmes socialistes et syndicaux (Paris: Payot, 1970), 185–186. According to another planist, Georges Soules, the mobilisation of late 1933–early 1934 accounted a real “revolutionary opportunity” comparable to the strikes of May–June 1936 [Raymond Abellio (Georges Soules), Les militants: 1927–1939 (Paris: Gallimard, 1975), 228].

  115. 115.

    See Georges Lefranc, “Une scission malencontreuse: la scission ‘néo-socialiste’ de 1933,” in Visages du mouvement ouvrier français: jadis, naguère, aujourd’hui (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1982), 131.

  116. 116.

    In January 1934, Lefranc and Itard described Révolution Constructive as a “small group […] that has never wanted to become a wing (une tendance)” [Jean Itard and Georges Lefranc, “Pour un plan de construction socialiste,” Le Populaire, January 17, 1934]. Itard reiterated the claim at the Toulouse Congress [see XXXIème Congrès National, 215].

  117. 117.

    La Bataille socialiste reported, perhaps disingenuously, that younger militants in Paris were galvanised by the break with the neo-socialists as they viewed the latter as a dead weight [see Emile Farinet, “Dans la Seine, après le départ des néos,” Bataille socialiste 6, no. 73 (1933): 10].

  118. 118.

    See Horn, European Socialists Respond to Fascism, 87–88.

  119. 119.

    See Léon Jouhaux, “Des réformes de structure sont indispensables: Le Front Populaire doit s’en convaincre,” L’Atelier pour le Plan 3, no. 29–30 (1937): 115–117; Léon Jouhaux, Le Plan de rénovation économique et sociale (Paris: Confédération Générale du Travail, 1937); Actualité du Plan (Paris: Éditions du Centre Confédéral d’Education Ouvrière, 1937); Léon Jouhaux, La C.G.T.: ce qu’elle est, ce qu’elle veut (Paris: Gallimard, 1937), 11–19, 169–187.

  120. 120.

    This applies especially to neo-socialists and SFIO planists as CGT planists tended to be more ecumenical: see, for example, Marcel Déat, “La nouvelle épouvante de Léon Blum,” La Vie socialiste 12, no. 360 (1934): 4–6; Marcel Déat, “Le planisme au Parlement,” Le Petit provençal, January 31, 1935; Pierre Boivin, “Le malaise du Parti Socialiste,” in Choix d’écrits, 221–226; “Préface par le Groupe du Révolution Constructive,” in de Man, Le socialisme devant la crise, 1–4.

  121. 121.

    See, for example, Stéphane Sirot, “SFIO, syndicalisme et luttes ouvrières (1905–1914): des relations problématiques et volontiers distendues,” Cahiers Jaurès 1–2, no. 187–188 (2008): 87–96. Jouhaux was keen to stress the CGT’s refusal to meddle with party politics: see, for example, Léon Jouhaux, Le syndicalisme: ce qu’il est, ce qu’il doit être (Paris: Flammarion, 1937), 33–35.

  122. 122.

    Even a sympathetic biographer of Blum acknowledged that his writings on this topic were a “dogmatic schematisation, without connection to reality” [Gilbert Ziebura, Léon Blum et le Parti Socialiste (Paris: Colin, 1967), 358]. According to Biard, Blum made up his mind on the mixed economy after his first governmental experience, in 1937–1938, but even then struggled with the distinction between redistributive and structural reforms: see Biard, Le socialisme devant ses choix, 277–288.

  123. 123.

    Among them, there were neo-socialists (Déat, Marquet, Montagnon, Marion, and Roditi), SFIO planists (Lefranc, Zoretti, Soules, and Albertini), and CGT planists (Belin and Delaisi).

  124. 124.

    Marcel Déat, “Il y a dix ans, Place de la Concorde …,” undated manuscript, FP/AN/F/7/15945. See also Déat, Mémoires, 542. See also the classic account by Philippe Burrin, La derive fasciste: Doriot, Déat, Bergery, 1933–1945 (Paris: Seuil, 1986).

  125. 125.

    Planists and future collaborators Georges and Emile Lefranc, Albertini, Soules, and Zoretti set up a radically pacifist tendency within the SFIO, Redressement pour la construction du socialisme et de la paix, in late 1938. Occasionally, they exploited their connections with planists, including de Man, to have greater impact on public opinion: see letter from Zoretti to Oprecht, 13 September 1939, FLZ/IHS/2. Outside the SFIO, Déat was one of the staunchest advocates of appeasement. On political marginalisation, see Burrin, La derive fasciste, 275, 447–448; Nimorad Amzalak, Fascists and Honourable Men: Contingency and Choice in French Politics, 1918–1945 (New York-Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 170–177.

  126. 126.

    See Marc Sadoun, “Les facteurs de la conversion au socialisme collaborateur,” Revue française de science politique 28, no. 3 (1978): 459–487.

  127. 127.

    For a critical assessment of advocates and detractors of planning, see Lichtheim, Marxism in Modern France, 41–43.

  128. 128.

    See Philip Nord, France’s New Deal: From the Thirties to the Postwar Era (Princeton-Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2010), 360–383; Herrick Chapman, France’s Long Reconstruction: In Search of the Modern Republic (Cambridge-London: Harvard University Press, 2018), 299–312.

  129. 129.

    Marcel Déat, “Le planisme et la tradition française,” L’Homme nouveau 2, no. 12 (1935): unpaged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oxford, UK

    Tommaso Milani

Authors
  1. Tommaso Milani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tommaso Milani .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Milani, T. (2020). Clash of Visions: The Belgian Labour Plan in France. In: Hendrik de Man and Social Democracy. Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42534-0_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42534-0_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-42533-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-42534-0

  • eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation