You wrote on the history of a neglected character of social economy, Jules Lechevallier, can you say to us in what he was one of the forerunners of the social economie for a just animated period of the history of capitalism?

To tell the truth, I did not think to make a priori of Jules Lechevalier a pioneer of social economy. At first, I wanted to study the utopian said socialisms to find there personally theoretical models which oppose to capitalism and except Marxism. The character of Jules Lechevalier allowed me to treat at the same time the common saint - simonien, the school member of Charles Fourier and of the aspects of the thought of Proudhon. Indeed, my subject crossed, between others, all these topics. Besides, Jules Lechevalier had the merit, not only to popularise these thoughts without popularising them, but also to try to put them into practice, notably across the realisation of the phalanst re, a plan of abrogation of slavery in Guyana or else the bank of the people. At first, I wanted to make a neglected father of the French socialism. But this social reformer, "socialist of the front watches" as he qualified himself in 1848, turned out to be hostile to the socialism at the end of life. I thought to make then a forerunner of social sciences. But after his failure in 1833 in the pulpit of political economy of the Secondary school of France, Jules Lechevalier more dedicated himself to practical achievements. My character being very unpredictable, it seemed to me difficult to find a coherence in its work. However, that were his political positions in the course of his life (orl aniste, socialist republican, then bonapartiste!) he showed itself any time a fervent defender of the association. From 1848, he realised that workers' meetings within associations were not enough to improve their fate. Since then, he thinks about the installation of societies of mutual helps and especially he advocated the development of cooperatives of consumption and of production. He began by draw up plans as part of the bank of the people before setting it up with the "Christian socialists" in Great Britain in 1850s, when he had taken refuge in banishment. Association-Mutualisme-Coop ration, the life of Jules Lechevalier, even if she knew many trials, comes down really in this triptych which is that of social economy. De plus, Jules Lechevalier a eu le m rite, non seulement de populariser ces pens es sans les vulgariser, mais aussi d essayer de les mettre en pratique, notamment travers la r alisation du phalanst re, un plan d abolition de l esclavage en Guyane ou encore la banque du peuple. Au d part, je voulais en faire un p re m connu du socialisme fran ais. Mais ce r formateur social, "socialiste de l avant veille" comme il se qualifia en 1848, s est r v l hostile au socialisme en fin de vie. Je pensais en faire alors un pr curseur des sciences sociales. Mais apr s son chec en 1833 la chaire d conomie politique du Coll ge de France, Jules Lechevalier s est davantage consacr des r alisations pratiques. Mon personnage tant tr s versatile, il me semblait difficile de trouver une coh rence dans son uvre. Pourtant, quelles que furent ses positions politiques au cours de sa vie (orl aniste, r publicain socialiste, puis bonapartiste !), il se r v la tout moment un fervent d fenseur de l association. A partir de 1848, il se rendit compte que les r unions de travailleurs au sein d associations ne suffisaient pas am liorer leur sort. D s lors, il r fl chit la mise en place de soci t s de secours mutuels et surtout il pr na le d veloppement de coop ratives de consommation et de production. Il commen a par en laborer des plans dans le cadre de la banque du peuple avant d en mettre en place avec les "socialistes chr tiens" en Grande-Bretagne dans les ann es 1850, o il s tait r fugi en exil. Association-Mutualisme-Coop ration, la vie de Jules Lechevalier, m me si elle connut de nombreux d boires, se r sume bien en ce triptyque qui est celui de l conomie sociale.

As historian and especially historian of social economy, how do you judge current situation and specific role of the sector?

Financial and social status of XIX me differs naturally from contemporary situation. It is necessary to be wary of anachronisms. Jules Lechevalier fought "Economisme". That's how was defined the classical economy of the epoch which advocated "laisser-faire". In this direction, Jules Lechevalier is well an anti-Liberal, as much as he wished a control of the different economic spheres (production, exchange, but also consumption). He does not disclaim the role of the capital and does not believe possible the abolition of capitalist's status. He advocates on the other hand the participation of the workers in the direction of firms, and in the descendants of thoughts saint - simoniennes and fouri ristes, the distribution of benefits according to capital, talent and job. France of the XIXth century was predominantly rural and craft. The main fear of the workers has already been unemployment, but especially that to lose its tool of production, to know its earth or its workshop, to the advantage of a capitalist concentration within which financial logic has already broken through. In the absence of democracy, the idea of an emancipation of the workers which is the work of the very workers had all its sense. Let us not forget the killed silk workers of Lyons by claiming right of "food by working" or the insurgents of 1848, who for lack of getting the "right to job" shouted "some bread or some lead". Certainly if, contemporary France is not any more in this situation, let us not forget that the majority humanity still lived of agriculture or trade, most often within authoritarian regimes. The necessity to live on an earth or on a workshop is undoubtedly shared by the half of the assets of our world. In this direction, reflexion on the capitalism of the XIXth century is still of actuality. For my part, I do not think that we are dealing with a true liberal capitalism, but rather with a feudal capitalism. Transmission on several generations of big destiny or else example of China would be enough to show this thesis. It is there that the role of social economy intervenes. More than an overhaul of capitalism, it is of a true liberalism which we need. It can seem provocative and hardly comprehensible so much both terms are linked, but in my opinion in an erroneous way. We need a true social democracy. The workers have to have a more important role in political and economic life. Is it really possible to speak about liberalism when capitals circulate freely but not the men, when one unaware by most of major economic information or when most public interventions support most developed agriculture or already predominant firms on markets? They well are far from alleged freedom to undertake or to exchange. The equality of chances, foundation of political liberalism, is far from being guaranteed in the economic world. To come back on the case of the developed countries there, I note that the periods of growth to the technical and industrial systems set up are too often linked. Thirty Glorious are based on the general implementation of tayloro-fordistes methods in parallel with the development of the use of oil and of nuclear technology. The growth of Belle Epoque (fine XIXE-1914) by the development of gas and of electricity as part of new industries is explained. Industrial revolutions of the XIXth century are linked to the train, to the coal and to the steam as part of the passage of the craft systems in factories. In all these models, which I do not call into question of course, the role of the workers is however neglected. Let us not forget however that the growth of the years 1850-1860 comes true at the same time as workers' associations begin being admitted and at the same time as the first societies of mutual helps are formed. Belle Epoque knew a considerable development of cooperatives of production and of consumption in agriculture, but also in trade and industry. They stress generally the role of the State-providence in the growth of Thirty Glorious. Let us not forget that the cases of social security and of health insurances, old age or unemployment were only federating ancient solidarities coming from social economy. That they discuss the role of NTIC and of renewable energy sources in the role of a growth to be found at present am legitimate. But I think that it is also necessary to mobilise the workers or that the workers get organised, as already the forerunners of social economy called to make it.oniennes et fouri ristes, le partage des profits selon le capital, le talent et le travail. La France du XIX me tait majoritairement rurale et artisanale. La principale crainte des travailleurs tait d j le ch mage, mais surtout celle de perdre son outil de production, savoir sa terre ou son atelier, au profit d une concentration capitaliste au sein de laquelle la logique financi re per ait d j . En l absence de d mocratie, l id e d une mancipation des travailleurs qui soit l oeuvre des travailleurs eux-m mes avait tout son sens. N oublions pas les canuts lyonnais tu s en r clamant le droit de "vivre en travaillant" ou les insurg s de 1848, qui faute d obtenir le "droit au travail" criaient "du pain ou du plomb". Si bien s r, la France contemporaine n est plus dans cette situation, n oublions pas que la majorit de l humanit vit encore de l agriculture ou de l artisanat, le plus souvent au sein de r gimes autoritaires. La n cessit de vivre d une terre ou d un atelier est sans doute partag e par la moiti des actifs de notre monde. En ce sens, les r flexions sur le capitalisme du XIX me sont encore d actualit . Pour ma part, je ne crois pas que nous ayons affaire un v ritable capitalisme lib ral, mais plut t un capitalisme f odal. La transmission sur plusieurs g n rations des grandes fortunes ou encore l exemple de la Chine suffiraient d montrer cette th se. C est l qu intervient le r le de l conomie sociale. Plus qu une refonte du capitalisme, c est d un v ritable lib ralisme dont nous avons besoin. Cela peut sembler provocateur et difficilement compr hensible tant les deux termes sont associ s, mais mes yeux de mani re erron e. Nous avons besoin d une v ritable d mocratie sociale. Les travailleurs doivent avoir un r le plus important dans la vie politique et conomique. Peut-on vraiment parler de lib ralisme quand les capitaux circulent librement mais non les hommes, quand les informations conomiques majeures sont ignor es par la plupart ou quand la plupart des interventions publiques soutiennent les agricultures les plus d velopp es ou des entreprises d j dominantes sur les march s ? On est bien loin de la pr tendue libert d entreprendre ou d changer. L galit des chances, fondement du lib ralisme politique, est loin d tre garantie dans le monde conomique. Pour en revenir sur le cas des pays d velopp s, je constate que l on associe trop souvent les p riodes de croissance aux syst mes techniques et industriels mis en place. Les Trente Glorieuses reposent sur la g n ralisation des m thodes tayloro-fordistes en parall le avec le d veloppement de l utilisation du p trole et du nucl aire. On explique la croissance de la Belle Epoque (fin XIXe-1914) par le d veloppement du gaz et de l lectricit dans le cadre de nouvelles industries. Les r volutions industrielles du XIX me sont associ es au train, au charbon et la vapeur dans le cadre du passage des syst mes artisanaux aux manufactures. Dans tous ces mod les, que je ne remets videmment pas en cause, on n glige cependant le r le des travailleurs. N oublions pas cependant que la croissance des ann es 1850-1860 se r alise en m me temps que les associations de travailleurs commencent tre reconnues et que se constituent les premi res soci t s de secours mutuels. La Belle Epoque a connu un d veloppement consid rable de coop ratives de production et de consommation dans l agriculture, mais aussi dans le commerce et l industrie. On insiste g n ralement sur le r le de l Etat-Providence dans la croissance des Trente Glorieuses. N oublions pas que les caisses de s curit sociale et d assurances maladies, vieillesse ou ch mage n ont fait que f d rer des solidarit s anciennes issues de l conomie sociale. Qu on discute sur le r le des NTIC et des nergies renouvelables dans le r le d une croissance retrouver de nos jours est l gitime. Mais je pense qu il faut aussi mobiliser les travailleurs ou que les travailleurs s organisent, comme d j les pr curseurs de l conomie sociale appelaient le faire.

JULES LECHEVALIER PIONNER OF The SOCIAL ECONOMY (1806-1862) Of The "utopian" socialisms in the co-operative models OLIVIER CHA BI COLLECTION: " Historical Logic " ISBN: 978-2-296-07552-8 43 510 pages