International Conference
Sciences Po Paris — 16-17 October 2025
At the turn of 19th and 20th centuries, European working-class movements combined their contesting industrial and capitalist order to a radical political critic towards democracy’s limits. Specifically, socialism asserted that its essential ambition of political modernity, tending to autonomy, was nothing but an illusion if disconnected from the tangible social and productive relationships that determined the political capacity of social classes in last instance. This denunciation fuelled the concept of industrial democracy, understood as an ideal according to which formal as well as real political and economic equality would be achieved, and political freedom would be guaranteed by the very socialisation of material production (Charbonnier: 2019). Such an ideal implies a definition of progress based on a concrete organisation of labour, that would ultimately subvert the very foundations of capitalism by the transformations and social consequences it would generate for the sake of an alternative and emancipatory modernity. Considering the history of “industrial democracy”, as thought and experienced by working-class movements, comes down to questioning connection between productivism and social progress, and prompts to think the possibilities of a reflexive modernity.
For those who issued and used it the concept “industrial democracy” implied bringing in democracy in the working place as well as breaking in the industrial world and social relationships in the heart of representative assemblies. In a nutshell, this ambition was tantamount to the absorption of economy by politics in order to rejuvenate democratic modernity, and conversely the absorption of politics by economy in a new organisation of producers. Issued at first around 1848 by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Charles Laboulaye (Samuel Hayat: 2011), the expression was used by Jean Jaurès in France, in Britain by Beatrice Potter and Sydney Webb who linked older aspiration of Guild Socialism and recent ambitions of the Fabian Society together, in the United States by John Dewey under the influence of the Fabian economist and historian G.D.H. Cole (Renault: 2020). Besides, the concept was shaped by socialists as a keystone for a coherent thought on State and its forthcoming changes, as a starting point for a radical rejection of capitalism, that would be amended or abolished. Such a democratic ideal also spread among reformist and revolutionary trade-union organisations in the 1890s and 1910, as they claimed the right for labour representation in corporations as well as working-class control on production (Le Crom: 2003). In France as in the United Kingdom, the First World War gave rise to genuine forms of consultation for production, of “worker’s control” under the supervision of State (Sirianni: 1980). Finally, associationism rising among labourers during the first half of 19th century (Christen, Fayolle, Hayat: 2021), as well as cooperative movements in Western Europe and Northern America (Dreyfus: 2017; Blin, Jarrige, Gacon, Vigna: 2020) or in Russia (Safronova: 2023), embodied different paths of this ideal before 1914.
After the First World War, council communism in Central and Eastern Europe (Germany, Hungary) and factory occupations in Italy were crucial in experiencing the ideal of industrial democracy in a revolutionary context. Its very formulation was carried on with the
Soviet experience (as stated by the decree on workers’ control of November 14th, 1917), and clarified by theoretical productions of Karl Korsch (Korsch: 1968) and Antonio Gramsci (Schecter: 1991). But after 1920, this juncture was followed by a decline of democratic experiences at work or, to say the less, a rethinking as shown by the conceptual shift from “industrial democracy” toward “economic democracy” (Müller-Jentsch: 2008). Thus, whereas industrial democracy was initially connected to social economy and decentralisation, its defenders oriented it towards “planisme” and interventionism, and even corporatism. Symptomatic of this intellectual shift was the career of the CGT militant Hyacinthe Dubreuil, who published in 1924 La République industrielle, appeared as a specialist of cooperative organisation within the International Labour Bureau from 1931 to 1938, and defined a project of “Chevalerie du Travail” under the Vichy government (Le Van-Lemesle: 2004).
In 1953, the famous sociologist Georges Gurvitch wrote an article for Esprit centred on industrial democracy, writing that “all experiences of industrial democracy attempted so far turned out to failures and defeats” (Gurvitch: 1953, p. 965). Paradoxically, this criticism was stated at the very opening of an era that would recognise, legitimate and reproduce in Western Europe and elsewhere (Yougoslavia, Israel, Australia, etc.) forms of consultation and “cogestion” for production. In fact, 1960s and 1970s social crises would encourage trades unions, employers and governments to promote democratisation of labour relations as a way to overcome fundamental inconsistencies of the fordist productive model. During the 1970s and 1980s, these experiences have immediately caught the sociologists’ attention and gave rise to an abundant literature. Nowadays, historians work on this exceptionally rich period, as the recent international conference held at the Université d’Evry in September 2023 has shown. Last, in the continuity of reflections of Bruno Trentin or André Gorz, industrial democracy appears as one of the possible ways to come out the labour crisis that hit postfordist societies (Trentin: 2012).
Compared to the social sciences abundant literature centred on the history of industrial democracy in the second half of 20th century, the earlier period designated by Gurvitch’s criticisms seems less known in its concrete experiences, its political and social history, its connected transnational context. The aim of this conference is to investigate this first and long period of industrial democracy history, and to insert it in its global context, in Europe, Northern America, Soviet Union, and in other parts of the world were a vision of industrial progress was linked to a conceptualisation of democratic modernity. In order not to restrict to a history of political and economical ideas, the conference will particularly stress on exploring new methodologies and themes, based on recent historiographical developments, leading to a strong questioning about the place and value of industrial democracy in our contemporary societies. Thus, suggestions of contributions may answer to one of the following themes:
A transnational history of the concept of “industrial democracy”: in which political and intellectual networks, by which authors was it formalised? How was it translated and conveyed from a linguistic and intellectual context to another, and through what media (correspondence, newspapers and publications, meetings…)? In what extent does it imply difference in interpretations?
“Industrial democracy” and labour internationalisation. Did post-WWI international organisations play a role in the institutionalisation and normalisation of “industrial democracy”, and was it considered as a democratic objective? Did this institutionalising process helped to defined new measure and control instruments, a specific knowledge on labour political consequences? In local or regional context, how and who formalised this knowledge (professional organisations? Institutions? Associations?)
“Industrial democracy” defined by experiences. Was “industrial democracy” experienced in other contexts than the already known British Workers’ Control? How did the perspective of “industrial democracy” supported a productivist understanding of economic and political modernisation? What was the role devoted to consumption and consumers?
“Industrial democracy” as a challenge to capitalism and State. In what extent and how did “industrial democracy” renewed approaches and criticisms of representative democracy and capitalism? Did it imply a redefinition of political and social understanding of citizenship? Did it imply a redefinition of the role of State?
“Industrial democracy against property”. In what extend did “industrial democracy” imply a criticism against property? Did common ownership of the means of production lead to a thought on “commons” (railways, mines, land, etc.). What were the material consequences (the role of cooperative societies on defining legislation)?
Industrial democracy and control of work risks. What role did representation and consultation of workers play in controlling accident, professional diseases, industrial débordement? Did “industrial democracy” produce alternative forms of regulation, different from technology or administrative control? How did they anticipate issues of technical democracy in the ecological era?
Information:
The conference will be held on October 16-17 2025 in Sciences Po, Paris. Proposals from early career researchers in history and other social sciences are particularly welcome.
Submissions (title, 2000 characters abstract, short CV) should be sent to Emmanuel Jousse (Emmanuel.jousse@sciencespo-lyon.fr) and Bastien Cabot (bastien.cabot@sciencespo.fr) by March 1st, 2025. A reply will be given by April 1st, 2025.
Please note that communications will be published in the French historical review Cahiers Jaurès in June 2026, after going through an evaluation and review process. Papers should thus be submitted by March 1st, 2026.
Welcoming structure
The Sciences Po Centre for History was founded in 1984 and brings together all research and teaching in history at Sciences Po, doctoral studies included. The CHSP is primarily concerned with political history, understood in the broadest sense and approached from a transnational and comparative perspective.
Partnerships
Recognized as a public interest organization since its creation in 1992, the Jean-Jaurès Foundation is the first of France’s political foundations. It is chaired by Jean-Marc Ayrault. Independent, European and social-democratic, the Jean-Jaurès Foundation has been a forum for reflection, dialogue and anticipation for over thirty years. The partnerships it supports are designed to give rise to relevant analyses and bold proposals, to place them in historical perspective, and to put this intellectual and political production at the service of all.
The French Society for Political History aims to promote and develop research in the field of « politics », across all eras and territories.
Organizers
Emmanuel JOUSSE (Associate professor, Sciences Po Lyon / LARHRA)
Bastien CABOT (Post-doctoral researcher, Sciences Po Paris / Sciences Po Centre for History)
Bibliographie / Bibliography :
François Bédarida, Éric Giully, Gérard Rameix, chapitre « Vers la démocratie industrielle ? » in : Syndicats et patrons en Grande-Bretagne, Paris, Les Éditions ouvrières, 1980, p. 157-173
Alexia Blin, François Jarrige, Stéphane Gacon, Xavier Vigna (dir.), L’utopie au jour le jour. Une histoire des expériences coopératives (XIXe-XXIe siècles), Nancy, L’Arbre bleu, 2020
Célestin Bouglé, Socialismes français. Du socialisme utopique à la démocratie industrielle, Paris, Armand Colin, 1932
J. Bourdeau, « La démocratie industrielle. Les grèves et les syndicats », Revue des deux mondes, 4e période, t. 156, 1899, p. 833-865
Pierre Charbonnier, chapitre « Démocratie industrielle », in : Abondance et liberté. Une histoire environnementale des idées politiques, Paris, La Découverte, 2019, p. 163-200
Hervé Charmettan, « Chester Barnard et la démocratie industrielle. Une autre voie du progressisme américain en déshérence », in : Virgile Chassagnon, Véronique Durraive (dir.), Économie politique institutionnaliste de l’entreprise. Travail, démocratie et gouvernement, Paris, Classiques Garnier, coll. « Bibliothèque de l’économiste », 2020, p. 183-229
Carole Christen, Caroline Fayolle, Samuel Hayat (dir.), S’unir, travailler, résister. Les associations ouvrières au XIXe siècle, Villeneuve d’Ascq, Presses Universitaires de Septentrion, coll. « Histoire », 2021
Alexis Cukier, Le travail démocratique, Paris, PUF, coll. « Actuel Marx Confrontation », 2018
Michel Dreyfus, Histoire de l’économie sociale. De la Grande Guerre à nos jours, Rennes, Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2017
Hyacinthe Dubreuil, La République industrielle, Paris, Éditions de la bibliothèque d’éducation, 1923
Georges Gurvitch, « Les voies de la démocratisation industrielle », Esprit, n°203, vol. 6, 1953, p. 964-972
Samuel Hayat, « Démocratie industrielle (Démocratie ouvrière) », in : Chantal Gaillard, Georges Navet (dir.), Dictionnaire Proudhon, Bruxelles, Aden, 2011, p. 138-153
Karl Korsch, Politische Texte : Arbeitsrecht für Betriebsräte, Hambourg, Europäische Verlaganstalt, 1968 {1922}
Charles Laboulaye, Organisation du travail. De la démocratie industrielle, Paris, Librairie scientifique-industrielle de L. Mathias, 1848
Jean-Pierre Le Crom, L’introuvable démocratie salariale. Le droit de la représentation du personnel dans l’entreprise (1890-2002), Paris, Syllepses, 2003
Charles Léger, La démocratie industrielle et les comités d’entreprise en Suède, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po, coll. « Académique », 1950
Lucette Le Van-Lemesle, « La ‘république industrielle’ de Hyacinthe Dubreuil (1883-1971), ou la dérive corporatiste », in : Steven L. Kaplan, Philippe Minard (dir.), La France, maladie du corporatisme ? XVIIIe-XXe siècles, Paris, Belin, coll. « Socio-histoires », 2004, p. 387-401
Wenzel Matiaske, Florian Schramm (eds.), “Industrial Democracy”, numéro special Management Revue, vol. 19, n°4, 2008
Walther Müller-Jentsch, « Industrial Democracy : Historical Development and Current Challenges », Management Revue, vol. 19, n°4, 2008, p. 260-273
André Philip, La démocratie industrielle, Paris, PUF, 1955
Emmanuel Renault, « Dewey et la démocratie industrielle », Pragmata, n°3, 2020, p. 176-215
Anna Safronova, Histoire des coopératives russes et soviétiques (1860-1930). Moderniser le peuple, Paris, Classiques Garnier, coll. « Bibliothèque de l’économiste », 2023
Darrow Schecter, Gramsci and the Theory of Industrial Democracy, Aldershot, Avebury / Brookfield (Vermont), Gower Publishing Company, 1991
Carmen J. Sirianni, “Worker’s Control in the Era of World War I: A Comparative Analysis of the European Experience”, Theory and Society, vol. 9, n°1, 1980, p. 29-88
Sydney Webb, Beatrice Potter-Webb, Industrial Democracy, Londres, Longmans, Green & Co., 1897