Zhang Jiaxin and Yu Shan: Labor Relations Theory of the French Regulation School and a Perspective on the "Yellow Vest" Movement
I. Introduction
Labor relations constitute a critically important field in socialist economic construction; the more the market economy develops, the more vital the harmony of labor relations becomes. This article intends to study the French Regulation School of foreign Marxism, summarizing its core doctrine—namely, its theory of labor relations—tracing its latest achievements in this field and applying them to analyze the "Yellow Vest" movement that recently emerged in France and other European countries.
In the context of the "stagflation" crisis that gripped developed capitalist countries in the 1970s, young left-wing French scholars utilized Marxian economics to analyze social reality, forming the French Regulation School. Drawing on Marx’s method of historical materialism, this school summarized the economic operational mode of developed capitalist countries at the time as a Rousselian regime of accumulation [1] and revealed the inevitability of its failure. Following the outbreak of the global financial crisis in 2008, the Regulation School utilized the finance-led regime of accumulation to explain the economic morphology of developed capitalist countries. They pointed out that it was precisely the excessive expansion of the financial sector in developed countries since the 1990s that led to the distortion of capital accumulation and allocation, thereby triggering the economic crisis. These two summaries of regimes come from the Regulation School’s so-called "mode of regulation" analytical method. This is a significant feature of the school: starting from a meso-level to bridge the traditional divide between micro and macro research. They point out that conflicts exist between individuals, between social subjects, and between individuals and social subjects; the continuous functioning of society requires the constant resolution of these conflicts, thus giving rise to the mode of regulation. The mode of regulation comprises five aspects: monetary and credit relations, capital-labor relations, forms of competition, the role of the state, and the international system. Among these, labor relations are the core proposition within the mode of regulation, forming the French Regulation School’s theory of labor relations.
Currently, domestic academic research on the Regulation School’s labor relations theory can be divided into three categories: first, comparative analyses of the Regulation School and Marxian economics regarding issues of labor relations (Tang Zhengdong, 2010; Zhang Jiaxin, 2011). Second, the subdivision of the Regulation School's modes of regulation, focusing specifically on labor relations content (Hu Haifeng, 2005; Xia Ming, 2006; Yang Hutao, 2009). Third, the classification of the Regulation School's labor relations theory—namely, labor relation issues under two regimes of accumulation (Lü Shoujun, 2015; Zhang Jiaxin, 2018). It is evident that the domestic academic community has not yet produced a specialized monograph on the Regulation School's labor relations theory. In particular, the "Yellow Vest" movement [2] that recently occurred in France has brought labor relations issues into sharp focus; therefore, it is necessary to systematically organize this theory.
II. The Logical Composition of the Regulation School’s Labor Relations Theory
Marxism and various socialist intellectual trends have a broad social foundation in France. The struggles of young students and the working class during the "May Tempest" [3] of 1968 promoted the revival of Marxism. The French Regulation School was founded against this backdrop. It is deeply influenced by Marxian economics and directly inherits core propositions of Marxist doctrine: productive forces and relations of production, the laws of social reproduction, surplus value, the law of the average rate of profit, and class analysis. For example: productive forces correspond to the technological paradigm, while relations of production correspond to the modes of regulation and accumulation. From the school's inception, these thinkers launched research around the issue of labor relations. As capitalism developed, they began from the meso-level—the mode of regulation—and, drawing on the materialist conception of history, divided the evolution of capitalist labor relations into the following four forms: competitive labor relations, Taylorist labor relations, Fordist labor relations, and finance-led labor relations.
(1) Competitive Labor Relations Beginning with the European Renaissance in the 14th century, factory owners began to employ skilled artisans, and the sprouts of capitalism [4] emerged. After a period of initial slow development, by the 1760s, machine production began to replace manual labor, and the first Industrial Revolution occurred in France. The Regulation School points out that in an era when mechanized production was not yet sufficient or universal, capitalist production primarily relied on manual labor. The complete production process was dominated by the worker; the worker possessed autonomy and controlled the rhythm of production. Tools were merely "appendages" to the worker's toil and the production process. Workers possessed different labor skills, and in different tasks, each worker played a distinct role; at this time, the capitalist's degree of dependence on the worker was substantial. At the same time, workers possessed strong capacity and consciousness for class struggle; workers had a high degree of self-awareness and a strong spirit of resistance. This is the so-called competitive labor relations. In this state, capital and labor restricted each other, and the overall posture of both sides was balanced. Capitalists and workers shared a common goal: to carry out production smoothly so as to obtain profits and wages respectively. Subsequently, along with the development of science and technology, a large number of machines were applied to production, and competitive labor relations gradually disintegrated, replaced by new types of labor relations.
(2) Taylorist Labor Relations The Second Industrial Revolution in the capitalist world rose at the end of the 1860s. By the end of the 19th century, the capitalist mode of production had undergone earth-shaking changes. Large-scale mechanized production replaced manual labor. The worker was no longer the master using tools as in the manufactory model, but an appendage to the large machine factory—even a mere "screw." The content of the worker's task lost its autonomy; they were placed under close supervision and control, repeating labor within a predetermined scheme. Under this trend, the large-scale mechanized mode of production integrated the worker collective, thereby forming a complete assembly line operation model and a new capitalist labor relation: the Taylorist labor relations model.
The Taylorist labor model presented itself in the organizational form of work teams. To reduce the wear and tear caused by starting and stopping machines, capitalists stipulated that production would only stop on weekends. Management set detailed labor hours, and workers occupied a subordinate position within large-scale mechanized production. The fundamental purpose of this labor model was to serve the rapid capital accumulation of the bourgeoisie—namely, to drive the operation of mass production without increasing workers' wages. This ultimately led to the contradiction between insufficient total social consumption and absolute overproduction. In short, under the Taylorist form of labor relations, the income and living standards of the working class did not improve; relative to the skyrocketing wealth of the bourgeoisie, workers were moving toward "general poverty." The imbalance between total social supply and demand led to a severe economic crisis. After the end of World War I, Taylorist labor relations increasingly decayed, eventually being replaced by Fordist labor relations. This was primarily manifested in the bourgeoisie’s attempt to achieve long-term stability in profit acquisition by initiating comprehensive control over production and wages, while the working class united to resist, which gave rise to the system of collective bargaining between labor and capital.
(3) Fordist Labor Relations After World War II, capitalism entered its "Golden Age." Industrial output capacity further increased, and capitalist labor relations underwent new changes. After studying this, the Regulation School summarized it as Fordist labor relations. This new labor relations model exhibited the following characteristics: the right to determine production and distribution became separated. This was because the strength of trade unions increased, enabling them to speak for laborers during labor-capital negotiations. To maintain stable large-scale production and obtain high profits, employers also chose to accept the collective bargaining system, thereby increasing worker income and promoting social consumption. The Regulation School calls this state the "mass production, mass consumption" model. Against this backdrop, the proportion of long-term employment contracts across society rose, which helped mitigate labor-capital contradictions and promote the stability of labor relations. Simultaneously, the trends of international cooperation and division of labor in the capitalist world became more pronounced.
Although the situation for workers in the sphere of distribution improved, their situation in the sphere of production further deteriorated. The labor process under the Fordist labor relations model was embodied in assembly line operations, first appearing in the production of consumer goods and later extending to all manufacturing and even specific machine part production. Large-scale mechanized production increased labor intensity and promoted the separation of mental and physical labor. The individuality of workers was further suppressed or even abstracted away; all production operations followed established rules, also known in management science as Taylorism or the principles of scientific management. Workers were "nailed" to specific posts, and labor power was strictly allocated and controlled by the principles of scientific management; individual workers lost control over their own work rhythm. Autonomy in work completely vanished, and workers were unable to resist the employers' constantly escalating production regulations. When Fordism or Taylorism developed to the extreme, actual work became increasingly arduous and boring. Many hired workers no longer had the opportunity to obtain long-term contracts; instead, they were put to work immediately after training, receiving piece-rate wages. This widened the income gap between labor and capital. Meanwhile, the cycles of mechanized production were long and difficult to adjust, leading to products becoming increasingly fixed and uniform, unable to satisfy the differentiated demands increasingly sought by consumers. This led to a decline in total demand, triggering economic crises. Work slowdowns, strikes, and antagonistic movements rose, and labor-capital contradictions became difficult to reconcile. Fordist labor relations collapsed in the "stagflation" crisis of the 1970s.
(4) Finance-led Labor Relations Starting in the 1980s, to cope with the "stagflation" crisis and pursue an increased rate of capital accumulation, the capitalist mode of regulation changed. Because stocks and bonds generated great returns, the role and status of shareholders rose; the operation of the capitalist economy shifted from a Fordist regime of accumulation to a finance-led regime of accumulation. Under the new regime of accumulation, the social economy became increasingly hijacked by financial markets. Competitive pressure on enterprises from financial markets intensified, and financial globalization led to frequent occurrences of inflation or deflation, with the United States becoming the financial center of the world economy. The Regulation School calls the state of labor and capital under this regime of accumulation "finance-led labor relations." Its main characteristics are: long-term stable employment contracts decreased; enterprises preferred more flexible, elastic, and fragmented forms of employment such as contract workers, short-term temporary workers, and part-time workers. While workers' "freedom" increased, they naturally lost the many welfare guarantees provided by the long-term contract system. In the context of economic globalization, enterprises began to abandon compromises with domestic markets in favor of international markets. "Walmartism" rose—meaning employers opposed the formation of or contact with trade unions and no longer chose labor-capital negotiations. At the same time, the excessive development of financial markets also impacted trade union organizations; many workers chose to increase their income levels by holding stocks and real estate and were no longer keen on participating in collective labor-capital bargaining.
Developed capitalist countries not only harbored huge crises in the field of labor relations but also faced numerous contradictions in social-economic operations. With the excessive expansion of the financial sector, real estate prices became artificially high, and while workers held stocks, their actual monetary volume decreased. This caused finance to decouple from the real economy, and the economic bubble grew larger and larger. In 2008, the ratio of total US stock trading to GDP reached 320.99%, the highest in history. Simultaneously, financial market rules were unsound, lacking effective regulatory mechanisms. The subprime mortgage crisis that occurred in the US in 2007 quickly evolved into a global capitalist financial crisis, leading to the collapse of the finance-led regime of accumulation.
In short, along with changes in the capitalist mode of regulation, labor relations in capitalist society have undergone corresponding changes. Labor-capital contradictions have also evolved from simple wage issues at the beginning to complex, overlapping contradictions in employment systems, modes of production, labor processes, trade union organizations, and product demand. According to the Regulation School's logic, the evolution of capitalist social formations produces different conflicts and contradictions, requiring corresponding labor relations to regulate and improve social operations. This produced in succession competitive labor relations, Taylorist labor relations, Fordist labor relations, and finance-led labor relations. Due to new changes in capitalism and the deepening of social contradictions, the speed at which specific labor relations regulation modes are replaced has also accelerated.
III. Comparison of Labor Relations Theory Between the Regulation School and Marxian Economics
Since its inception, the French Regulation School has been deeply influenced by Marxist doctrine and has drawn on the research methods of Marxian economics. Representative figures such as Michel Aglietta and Alain Lipietz have explicitly stated that their theoretical foundations stem from Marxian economics, and their theory of labor relations is closely linked to Marx's theory of labor relations.
(1) Labor Relations as the Most Fundamental Social and Production Relation
Both the French Regulation School and Marx consider labor relations to be a critical component of the relations of production and one of the most important social relations. Both take the interests of the working class as their starting point, focusing on workers as the primary subjects in their research on the operation and evolution of capitalist society. By analyzing the struggles and contradictions between labor and capital, both schools propose theoretical doctrines regarding the laws of capitalist development. It is a consensus within the Regulation School that their theory of labor relations originates from Marxian economics. However, some scholars within the school argue that Marx’s theory of reproduction is too abstract. Building upon Marx’s discourses on capitalist relations of production and modes of production, they proposed the concepts of "modes of regulation" and "wage relations." Their aim was to deepen the study of the contemporary capitalist employment system and the antagonism between labor and capital, identifying distinct forms of capitalist labor relations across different periods.
(2) Differences in the Understanding of the Essence of Capitalist Labor Relations
Marx explicitly pointed out that the relationship between labor and capital in capitalist society is fundamentally antagonistic, and its conflicts and contradictions are ultimately irreconcilable. This is because once labor becomes a commodity, the competition between capitalists and workers—as well as competition among workers themselves—inevitably drives down the price of labor power. No matter how the capitalist mode of production is adjusted, it cannot escape its destiny of eventual demise. Marx systematically expounded upon the fact that in the evolution of capitalist labor relations, labor remains perpetually subordinate to capital. In early capitalism, labor’s subordination to capital was formal; as capitalism matured, it increasingly manifested as the real subordination of labor to capital. This demonstrates that the more capitalism develops, the more strained the interest-based relationship between labor and capital becomes. Conflicts originating in the workplace eventually expand to the entire socio-economic system, triggering workers' movements and even proletarian revolutions.
The Regulation School, by contrast, argues that the labor-capital contradiction in capitalist society is merely an empirical, objective reality—a goal-oriented, simple political struggle in which the working class seeks power to obtain higher wages and other welfare benefits. Consequently, they believe the root of capitalist labor-capital contradictions does not lie in the private ownership of the means of production, and thus see no need for a concentrated analysis of ownership. This stance leads the Regulation School toward historical empiricism. They argue that worker interests and social production behavior occur within the broader social structure, and that capitalist labor contradictions can be mitigated through different modes of labor relation regulation, thereby easing class antagonism and ensuring the smooth progress of production. In short, the Regulation School’s theory of labor relations fails to reveal the essential nature of capitalist labor relations. Nevertheless, they have provided extensive discussions on specific regulatory methods regarding trade union organization, tripartite coordination, and labor rights protection to address the coordination of modern capitalist labor relations.
IV. The "Yellow Vest" Movement from the Perspective of the Regulation School's Theory of Labor Relations
As an established capitalist nation, France is not only home to important schools of Western Marxism [5] like the Regulation School, but is also a frequent flashpoint for real-world labor-capital relations. For instance, the "Yellow Vest" (Gilets Jaunes) movement, which recently emerged in France and swept across Europe, has drawn significant attention. In recent years, social problems triggered by the imbalance of interests in labor relations have become common in developed countries, casting a shadow over economic recovery. In Europe, the "Yellow Vest" movement, which began in France on November 17, 2018, and rapidly spread, has become the largest and most far-reaching social upheaval in France and Western Europe in the half-century since the "May 1968" [6] events. The Macron government's announcement of an increase in fuel taxes for 2019 immediately provoked public dissatisfaction, leading large numbers of people to protest on the streets of Paris wearing yellow vests. The authorities' response was cold or even dismissive, causing the protests to spread rapidly across France. Faced with this grim reality, the authorities announced the cancellation of the policy on December 5. However, the public did not seem satisfied; instead, more social groups joined the fray. They protested the continuous decline of income levels and social security in recent years, putting forward various demands for reform. By the third week of the protests, the laboring masses directed the focus of their struggle toward the Macron government, which they characterized as representing financier elitism. Their goal was no longer just a tax policy, but a demand for the transformation of social labor relations. To date, this movement has lasted more than 30 weeks, characterized by a rare level of participation and duration.
As early as 1981, after the Left-wing Union [7] won the general election, the Regulation School published articles expressing hope that the government would adopt their economic theories and use active state intervention to promote collective bargaining and labor-capital reconciliation. However, the authorities chose neoliberal laissez-faire policies, leading to problems in the national economy. From 1981 to 2018, France’s average annual GDP growth rate was almost consistently lower than the global average, and in recent years, France's Gini index reached 0.33. After Macron took office, he strongly advocated for reforms to labor laws to alleviate the increasingly sharp antagonism between labor and capital. However, the deteriorating national economy led to a further decline in the welfare of the laboring people. A key measure of the labor law reform was the merger of three representative bodies for workers—the Works Council (CE), Staff Representatives (DP), and the Health, Safety, and Working Conditions Committee (CHSCT)—aiming to improve communication efficiency through streamlining. Trade unions, however, argued that this actually restricted their power and room for maneuver. The new labor law granted enterprises more power, such as strengthening the right to dismiss employees and legally extending working hours in certain scopes. Furthermore, the new law placed a cap on economic compensation awarded by "Labor Courts" (Conseils de prud'hommes), allowing enterprises to dismiss veteran employees with fewer concerns. Compensation is now calculated based on years of service, with those employed for over 20 years receiving a maximum of 15 months' pay. The implementation of this bill led to a "wave of dismissals" in many enterprises, severely damaging the vital interests of workers. The outbreak of the "Yellow Vest" movement is a concentrated manifestation of France's current severe labor-capital contradictions. According to 2015 data from the French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE), the poorest 10% of the population had an annual income of less than 7,319 euros (average monthly income of 601 euros), while the wealthiest 10% had an annual income of at least 45,223 euros (average monthly income of 3,768 euros). Seven percent of the nation's total income is concentrated in the hands of the top 1% of the wealthy, and 28% is concentrated in the top 10%.
The Regulation School points out that the neoliberal labor market liberalization policies pursued by the authorities in the 1980s subjected the French working class to direct competition from cheap foreign labor. Simultaneously, the manufacturing industry was hit by the process of global integration. Manufacturing accounted for 18% of France's GDP in 1981, but currently accounts for only 10%. The compounding effects of the 2008 financial crisis in developed countries caused a sharp rise in France's unemployment rate. As the Regulation School argues, the global nature of capital brought a false prosperity; while the gap between rich and poor in developed countries widened further, financial capital obtained unprecedented freedom. However, France did not become a global financial center like the United States, profiting by attracting international capital. Instead, the French working class became the victim. In third- and fourth-tier cities and rural areas, it was impossible to effectively develop the service sector, while manufacturing jobs continued to shrink, leading to socio-economic decay. The initial mainstay of the "Yellow Vest" movement came precisely from these regions, where public transportation is underdeveloped and travel depends primarily on cars. Raising fuel taxes inevitably increased living costs directly, making an already precarious existence even harder.
In short, as various social groups joined the "Yellow Vest" movement, it escalated from a protest march into a mass political movement. The imbalance of labor relations is the fundamental cause. Workers across various industries generally felt a lack of security and unfair treatment. For example, on December 18, 2018, the police force demanded compensation for past overtime; on March 9, 2019, demonstrators called for the protection of women workers' rights. The Regulation School points out that, first, under the finance-led accumulation regime of modern capitalism, wage labor has undergone profound changes. The working class has further become a dependency of finance capitalism. Flexible and volatile forms of work lead to unrestrained wage elasticity, and income instability leaves the working class without security. Any new policy that increases living costs can trigger public panic. Second, the "Yellow Vest" movement reflects the inadequate coordination mechanisms of finance-led labor relations. As the movement has progressed, the number of participating groups has increased, and their demands have become complex and even lacked focus, while the French government lacks effective measures for communicating and resolving labor-capital contradictions. The subsequent large-scale demonstrations and strikes have increasingly shown characteristics of being unorganized and undisciplined, leaving the government at a loss and triggering widespread social problems. Recently, the number of laboring groups participating in the "Yellow Vest" movement has tended to decrease, and the movement has become more frequently associated with violent terms such as "smashing and looting" and "arson." According to a report by Le Figaro on February 14, 2019, a poll showed that 56% of respondents wanted the "Yellow Vest" movement to stop, an 11-percentage-point increase over the previous period; meanwhile, support fell by 5 percentage points. This has caused the "Yellow Vest" movement, which aimed to change conditions and reverse the imbalance of labor-capital interests, to mutate, making it difficult to achieve its original aspirations.
In summary, according to the logical system of the Regulation School, once severe conflicts arise in social labor relations, a new mode of labor regulation must be introduced to alleviate the contradiction and maintain capitalist production. The "Yellow Vest" movement reflects the fact that labor-capital antagonism in France has spread to all aspects of society, leading to social unrest where participants have even bypassed employer groups to direct their anger at the ruling authorities. This illustrates the predicament of the current labor relations regulation mode under the finance-led accumulation regime, which may trigger even more severe socio-economic crises.
V. Conclusion
The French Regulation School utilizes historical research methods to explain capitalist crises in specific periods, countries, and regions. Using different modes of capital accumulation as an entry point, they analyze the evolution of capitalism by looking at the labor conditions and living situations of ordinary workers. The Regulation School has expanded the temporal horizons of Marx’s theory of labor relations, enriching and developing Western Marxist theory. Of course, the school’s theory primarily focuses on the regulatory functions at the meso-level of capitalist society. Their specific labor relations coordination is adapted to different capital accumulation regimes; once the two fail to match, an economic crisis is triggered. Therefore, the mode of labor relations coordination must be constantly adjusted to stabilize the operation of capitalist society. Compared with Marx, the Regulation School's understanding of the relationship between labor and capital fails to grasp the essence of the matter. Their proposal focuses on how the working class might compromise with the bourgeoisie to continue maintaining the latter’s mode of capital accumulation, failing to recognize the substance of capitalist exploitation of workers. With the passage of time, technological development, and financial expansion, the inherent contradictions of capitalism have become more severe, causing labor-capital conflicts to occur more frequently and with greater intensity. As the finance-led labor relations lost their efficacy in regulating contradictions following the 2008 financial crisis, strikes, marches, and even violent activities have become frequent in the capitalist world; the "Yellow Vest" movement is merely a concentrated microcosm of these general contradictions.
As an active school of Western Marxism, the French Regulation School's theory of labor relations is worthy of study. Analyzing the French "Yellow Vest" movement from the perspective of Western Marxism helps broaden our research horizons and provides useful insights. At the same time, we must use comparative research to recognize the defects and shortcomings of the school’s theory. We must consider how to construct a labor relations coordination mode that matches current socio-economic conditions and elevates the working class’s status as masters of the country. This will facilitate the promotion of harmonious labor relations, thereby providing a stable social foundation and guarantee for high-quality development in the New Era.