Moments of massive social change, almost by definition, open new social and political arenas to individuals and groups previously prevented from participating in them. Whether because of the sense of possibility that revolutionary moments tend to offer, the collapse of existing mechanisms of social control, or the effects of broad-based mobilization, those previously subordinated often use such moments to take their places on the historical stage. Women, in particular, frequently appear as political actors in such contexts. But just as surely as revolutions tend to open opportunities for participation in the political and social life of a community, the consolidation of power often tends to narrow them, once again—albeit with a new “cast” of political actors. And, if women have tended to benefit from revolutionary moments, they have also suffered the consequences of consolidation: no matter what the ostensible goals of the revolution, as the exercise of power is “regularized,” opportunities for women contract.

Between 1934 and 1938, several million workers took part in the elections, strikes, and protests that made the popular front a pivotal moment in the recent history of France. Giant street demonstrations, the General Strike of November 1938, and above all the massive sit-down strikes of June 1936 made most workers at least momentary actors in the drama of national political life. Yet, for all that has been written about these events, little is known about how labor conflict during the popular front actually affected workers' views. The problem has been in large part one of sources: the speeches, newspapers, leaflets, and memoirs of the period reveal more about trade union leaders and local militants than about the ordinary men and women who made popular protest possible but whose opinions rarely found their way into print. As a result, a number of questions remain largely unanswered: How much of the ethos of the popular front, and how much of the ideology of the Socialist and Communist parties, did rank-and-file workers come to embrace? Which slogans spoke most poignantly to lathe operators at Renault, textile workers in Lille, or sales clerks at the Galeries Lafayette? Were the euphoria of June 1936 and the crushing defeat of the General Strike in November 1938 as important in the lives of these people as they were for labor leaders? How popular, in short, was the political experience of the popular front?

The popular front strategy, by which the French Communist party (PCF) came to mean a tactical alliance of the left including the Socialists and the left-leaning elements of the petty bourgeoisie represented by the Radical party, was pursued only briefly by the PCF in the 1930s, from 1934 to 1936. This is ironic, since it is by the slogan of the Front Populaire that the period of the 1930s in French history was to be subsequently known and remembered. The popular front was actually a transitional strategy between the famous (or infamous) “Third Period” of Comintern history from 1928–34, characterized in France by the class-against-class policy, and the policy of Front National, in which the PCF pursued a policy of alliance with anyone, including the right, against fascism at home and abroad. The PCF launched the national front in August 1936, and although the slogan did not catch on and was withdrawn, the party pursued that strategy for the remainder of the period until the war. But it was the popular front that would be remembered as having resulted in a wave of social legislation following the Blum government's assumption of power in June 1936 and which has ever since become a point of reference for the PCF. The wage increases, rights to unionize, paid vacations, forty hour week and nationalizations remain accomplishments for the party, to be built upon in each successive experience of participating in, or supporting the French government.

When I started organizing the CIO I was called a Communist anyhow, and one thing I noticed was that the Communists were the most dedicated union supporters. In 1939, I wasn't a Communist, just a militant young guy caught up in the class struggle … But I became acquainted with the Communists and I found myself defending them because they were the best organizers. I got caught up in the struggle, and at that time the big issue was black and white unity. I could see from experience that there was no way to achieve union organization without unity between black and white. It was a question of self interest on the part of whites, and the other white workers saw that too.

Recent discussions of the history of American communism have generated a good deal of controversy. A youthful generation of “new social historians” has combined with veterans of the Communist party to produce a portrait of the Communist experience in the United States which posits a tension between the Byzantine pursuit of the “correct line” at the top and the impulses and needs of members at the base trying to cope with a complex reality. In the words of one of its most skillful practitioners, “the new Communist history begins with the assumption that … everyone brought to the movement expectations, traditions, patterns of behavior and thought that had little to do with the decisions made in the Kremlin or on the 9th floor of the Communist Party headquarters in New York.” The “new” historians have focused mainly on the lives of individuals, the relationship between communism and ethnic and racial subcultures, and the effort to build the party's influence within particular unions and working-class constituencies. Overall, the portrait has been critical but sympathetic and has served to highlight the party's “human face” and the integrity of its members.

The quest for an eight-hour day was the central issue of the struggles leading to the Haymarket massacre of 1886. It also was at the heart of a widening scope of labor activity in the 1880s. The AFL's call for national eight-hour demonstrations on May 1, 1890 encouraged admiring European labor movements to join the Americans in an international strike for eight hours, the event which partially inspired the organizing of the Second International. Given these often-noted facts, it is ironic that the history of the hours issue after 1890, and especially between World War I and the popular front, when the major reductions in worktime occurred, has been largely neglected by American and European labor historians. In the half-century between Haymarket and the popular front worktime particularly dominated the attention of international labor and produced the forty-hour week standard and the ideal of the annual vacation.