What do you think?
Rate this book
الأصول الاجتماعية للدكتاتورية والديمقراطية
في هذا العمل الكلاسيكي من التاريخ المقارن ونظم الحكم، يستكشف بارينجتون مور الإبن أسباب تطور بعض البلدان في العصر الحديث كديمقراطيات، بينما تطور البعض الآخر كدكتاتوريات فاشية أو شيوعية. وهو يبحث في الأدوار السياسية التي قامت بها الطبقات العليا المالكة للأراضي وطبقة الفلاحين باعتبارها مجتمعات زراعية تطورت إلى مجتمعات صناعية حديثة.
"يفعل مور ما يحلم الكثير من المؤرخين بعمله؛ فهو يرى الحقائق العامة في المواقف التاريخية الفريدة. وقد كتب عملاً يتسم بالمعرفة التراكمية العميقة بالقوى التي تصنع عصرنا المضطرب".
نيو ريببليك (New Republic)
"يأخذ بارينجتون مور على عاتقه في هذا الكتاب الكبير رسم خريطة للمسارات التاريخية التي سارت فيها دول الغرب والشرق الرئيسيّة كي تصل إلى مرحلة المجتمع الصناعي الحديث... وكتابه علامة بارزة في التاريخ المقارن وتحدٍ للباحثين من كلّ البلدان الذين يحاولون معرفة كيف وصلنا إلى ما نحن عليه الآن".
سي فان وودورد، يل ريفيو (Yale Review)
"خلال أجزاء الكتاب المختلفة هناك عمل مستمر لعقل علمي وأصيل يتسم بأندر موهبة، وهي الإحساس العميق بالواقع البشري... وسوف يؤثر هذا الكتاب في جيل كامل من المؤرخين الأمريكيين الشبان ويضع أيديهم على أعظم المشكلات أهمية."
"يفعل مور ما يحلم الكثير من المؤرخين بعمله؛ فهو يرى الحقائق العامة في المواقف التاريخية الفريدة. وقد كتب عملاً يتسم بالمعرفة التراكمية العميقة بالقوى التي تصنع عصرنا المضطرب".
نيو ريببليك (New Republic)
"يأخذ بارينجتون مور على عاتقه في هذا الكتاب الكبير رسم خريطة للمسارات التاريخية التي سارت فيها دول الغرب والشرق الرئيسيّة كي تصل إلى مرحلة المجتمع الصناعي الحديث... وكتابه علامة بارزة في التاريخ المقارن وتحدٍ للباحثين من كلّ البلدان الذين يحاولون معرفة كيف وصلنا إلى ما نحن عليه الآن".
سي فان وودورد، يل ريفيو (Yale Review)
"خلال أجزاء الكتاب المختلفة هناك عمل مستمر لعقل علمي وأصيل يتسم بأندر موهبة، وهي الإحساس العميق بالواقع البشري... وسوف يؤثر هذا الكتاب في جيل كامل من المؤرخين الأمريكيين الشبان ويضع أيديهم على أعظم المشكلات أهمية."
652 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1966
154 people are currently reading
7081 people want to read
About the author
Barrington Moore Jr.
13 books43 followersBarrington Moore Jr. (12 May 1913 – 16 October 2005) was an American political sociologist, and the son of forester Barrington Moore. He is famous for his ''Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World'' (1966), a comparative study of [[modernization]] in Britain, France, the United States, China, Japan, Russia, Germany, and India. His many other works include ''Reflections on the Causes of Human Misery'' (1972) and an analysis of rebellion, ''Injustice: the Social Basis of Obedience and Revolt'' (1978).
He graduated from Williams College, Massachusetts, where he received a thorough education in Latin and Greek and in history. He also became interested in political science, and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. In 1941, Moore obtained his Ph.D. in sociology from Υale University. He worked as a policy analyst for the government, in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and at the Department of Justice. He met Herbert Marcuse, a lifelong friend, and also his future wife, Elizabeth Ito, at the OSS. His wife died in 1992. They had no children.
His academic career began in 1945 at the University of Chicago, in 1948 he went to Harvard University, joining the ''Russian Research Center'' in 1951. He was emerited in 1979. Moore published his first book, ''Soviet Politics'' in 1950 and ''Terror and Progress, USSR'' in 1954. In 1958 his book of six essays on methodology and theory, ''Political Power and Social Theory'', attacked the methodological outlook of 1950s social science. His students at Harvard included comparative social scientists Theda Skocpol, and Charles Tilly.
He graduated from Williams College, Massachusetts, where he received a thorough education in Latin and Greek and in history. He also became interested in political science, and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. In 1941, Moore obtained his Ph.D. in sociology from Υale University. He worked as a policy analyst for the government, in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and at the Department of Justice. He met Herbert Marcuse, a lifelong friend, and also his future wife, Elizabeth Ito, at the OSS. His wife died in 1992. They had no children.
His academic career began in 1945 at the University of Chicago, in 1948 he went to Harvard University, joining the ''Russian Research Center'' in 1951. He was emerited in 1979. Moore published his first book, ''Soviet Politics'' in 1950 and ''Terror and Progress, USSR'' in 1954. In 1958 his book of six essays on methodology and theory, ''Political Power and Social Theory'', attacked the methodological outlook of 1950s social science. His students at Harvard included comparative social scientists Theda Skocpol, and Charles Tilly.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews
June 5, 2016
To quote a professor of mine, the one-sentence version of this book is "Kill your peasants." Kill them early? You'll be a liberal democracy in the 20th century like England. Kill them late? You'll be a communist basket case.
On a more serious note, this book is a masterpiece of comparative politics/comparative historical analysis. It's a kind of book that couldn't be written today ("This can't be falsified!" some annoying reviewer would say), but it's still an impressive and plausible theory of political and economic development.
Moore argues for a class-based account of modernization. Against Marxist accounts that emphasize the bourgeoisie or the industrial proletariat, Moore argues (to use the subtitle) for the importance of "lord" and "peasant" in determining the effect of modernization on political development. A lot of reviewers here complain about the meandering character of the argument, but Moore actually does a great job of summarizing his arguments at the beginning and ends of chapters, and he gives you a summary of the whole argument in Part III of the book... gotta look for these little clues.
The basic version of the argument is that the structure of agricultural production in a country determines how it modernizes. If the aristocracy turns to commercial agriculture, as in Britain and France, and peasant society disappears, you will have a revolution that leads to the emergence of democracy. If the aristocracy turns to commercial agriculture but fails to destroy peasant society, such as in Eastern Europe, Germany, and Japan, you get fascism. If there is no turn to commercial agriculture at all, you get this huge peasant mass that lingers into the 20th century and becomes a reservoir for peasant revolution as in Russia and China.
The turn to commercial agriculture requires both the opportunity and desire to commercialize. The opportunity comes from the relative rigidity of feudal law--the weaker feudalism is, the easier it is to commercialize. The desire comes from the growth of towns and royal taxation, both of which increase the desire of the aristocracy for cash. The /structure/ of commercial agriculture matters too. For example, commercialization happened in England through the enclosure movement because aristocrats wanted land to raise sheep for wool and kicked the peasants off the land. But in France and Germany, the two dominant agricultural products--wine and grain--were both labor-intensive to grow requiring the aristocrats to keep peasants on the land.
The status of peasants also matters, not just the aristocrats. Peasants were generally freer in France and England than in Eastern Europe and had relatively more power over feudal lords. This made labor-repressive agriculture more difficult in England and France. In Germany, feudal elites were able to crushed multiple peasant revolts including in the famous Bauernkrieg of 1524-5. Peasants were especially weak in Prussia, which allowed the Prussian Junkers to re-enserf the peasants.
As for the urban elite, or the bourgeoisie, what matters for Moore is whether this class is an antagonist toward peasants/urban workers. Even though the aristocracy and peasantry are decisively important, the emergence of a strong bourgeoisie is a necessary condition for the emergence of democracy ("no bourgeoisie, no democracy"). In the case of England, the aristocracy was sufficiently integrated with the bourgeoisie and shared a common enemy in the monarchy rather than the peasantry/urban workers. In the French case, no alliance between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy emerged that was sufficiently strong to repress the peasantry before the Revolution, and the French Revolution successfully destroyed enough of the ancien regime to prevent a bourgeois-aristocratic coalition from emerging. However, in the case of Prussia, Bismarck's infamous "iron and rye" coalition held together through labor and agricultural repression as well as militant nationalism. The German bourgeoisie was not strong enough to pursue an alliance with the peasantry or workers against the aristocracy and allied instead with the Junkers. In the cases of China and Russia, no significant bourgeois class emerged before their revolutions.
To summarize, Moore argues for two necessary conditions for democracy's emergence: a balance between a landed aristocracy and a monarch, and the absence of an aristocratic-bourgeois alliance against the peasants and workers. Failure of either of these conditions prevents democracy from emerging. Excessive power in either the aristocracy or the monarchy leads to static and unresponsive political institutions in the modern period that are replaced through peasant revolutions. Moore anticipates much future work with this point such as the "reversal of fortune" hypothesis of Acemoglu and others--regimes that are very successful in one historical period or under one set of economic institutions tend to be unsuccessful at adapting to new economic conditions. This is because, again to anticipate a lot of future work on institutional development, institutions are path-dependent and tend to resist internal reform. Concerning the other condition, an aristocratic-bourgeois alliance against peasants and workers prevents a revolution from below and the expansion of political participation.
Moore's class-based explanation of comparative pathways to modernization is apt to be criticized for its equivocation between class interests and individual interests. As Olson famously pointed out, if some policy is in the interest of some group, it does not follow that it is in the interest of each and every member of that group to support the policy. Moore's focus on class interests is a feature of structural explanations as well as the scope of the outcome to be explained.
Even if Moore's class-based explanation relying on the structure of agricultural production seems simplistic, it is worth observing that efforts to put the theory of democratization a sounder analytical foundation (e.g. Acemoglu & Robinson) don't substantively disagree with Moore that much.
On a more serious note, this book is a masterpiece of comparative politics/comparative historical analysis. It's a kind of book that couldn't be written today ("This can't be falsified!" some annoying reviewer would say), but it's still an impressive and plausible theory of political and economic development.
Moore argues for a class-based account of modernization. Against Marxist accounts that emphasize the bourgeoisie or the industrial proletariat, Moore argues (to use the subtitle) for the importance of "lord" and "peasant" in determining the effect of modernization on political development. A lot of reviewers here complain about the meandering character of the argument, but Moore actually does a great job of summarizing his arguments at the beginning and ends of chapters, and he gives you a summary of the whole argument in Part III of the book... gotta look for these little clues.
The basic version of the argument is that the structure of agricultural production in a country determines how it modernizes. If the aristocracy turns to commercial agriculture, as in Britain and France, and peasant society disappears, you will have a revolution that leads to the emergence of democracy. If the aristocracy turns to commercial agriculture but fails to destroy peasant society, such as in Eastern Europe, Germany, and Japan, you get fascism. If there is no turn to commercial agriculture at all, you get this huge peasant mass that lingers into the 20th century and becomes a reservoir for peasant revolution as in Russia and China.
The turn to commercial agriculture requires both the opportunity and desire to commercialize. The opportunity comes from the relative rigidity of feudal law--the weaker feudalism is, the easier it is to commercialize. The desire comes from the growth of towns and royal taxation, both of which increase the desire of the aristocracy for cash. The /structure/ of commercial agriculture matters too. For example, commercialization happened in England through the enclosure movement because aristocrats wanted land to raise sheep for wool and kicked the peasants off the land. But in France and Germany, the two dominant agricultural products--wine and grain--were both labor-intensive to grow requiring the aristocrats to keep peasants on the land.
The status of peasants also matters, not just the aristocrats. Peasants were generally freer in France and England than in Eastern Europe and had relatively more power over feudal lords. This made labor-repressive agriculture more difficult in England and France. In Germany, feudal elites were able to crushed multiple peasant revolts including in the famous Bauernkrieg of 1524-5. Peasants were especially weak in Prussia, which allowed the Prussian Junkers to re-enserf the peasants.
As for the urban elite, or the bourgeoisie, what matters for Moore is whether this class is an antagonist toward peasants/urban workers. Even though the aristocracy and peasantry are decisively important, the emergence of a strong bourgeoisie is a necessary condition for the emergence of democracy ("no bourgeoisie, no democracy"). In the case of England, the aristocracy was sufficiently integrated with the bourgeoisie and shared a common enemy in the monarchy rather than the peasantry/urban workers. In the French case, no alliance between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy emerged that was sufficiently strong to repress the peasantry before the Revolution, and the French Revolution successfully destroyed enough of the ancien regime to prevent a bourgeois-aristocratic coalition from emerging. However, in the case of Prussia, Bismarck's infamous "iron and rye" coalition held together through labor and agricultural repression as well as militant nationalism. The German bourgeoisie was not strong enough to pursue an alliance with the peasantry or workers against the aristocracy and allied instead with the Junkers. In the cases of China and Russia, no significant bourgeois class emerged before their revolutions.
To summarize, Moore argues for two necessary conditions for democracy's emergence: a balance between a landed aristocracy and a monarch, and the absence of an aristocratic-bourgeois alliance against the peasants and workers. Failure of either of these conditions prevents democracy from emerging. Excessive power in either the aristocracy or the monarchy leads to static and unresponsive political institutions in the modern period that are replaced through peasant revolutions. Moore anticipates much future work with this point such as the "reversal of fortune" hypothesis of Acemoglu and others--regimes that are very successful in one historical period or under one set of economic institutions tend to be unsuccessful at adapting to new economic conditions. This is because, again to anticipate a lot of future work on institutional development, institutions are path-dependent and tend to resist internal reform. Concerning the other condition, an aristocratic-bourgeois alliance against peasants and workers prevents a revolution from below and the expansion of political participation.
Moore's class-based explanation of comparative pathways to modernization is apt to be criticized for its equivocation between class interests and individual interests. As Olson famously pointed out, if some policy is in the interest of some group, it does not follow that it is in the interest of each and every member of that group to support the policy. Moore's focus on class interests is a feature of structural explanations as well as the scope of the outcome to be explained.
Even if Moore's class-based explanation relying on the structure of agricultural production seems simplistic, it is worth observing that efforts to put the theory of democratization a sounder analytical foundation (e.g. Acemoglu & Robinson) don't substantively disagree with Moore that much.
November 8, 2023
If you gave Perry Anderson more wittiness and eagerness to formulate findings in terms of Big Ideas — great mnemonic technique by the way — you might incidentally homebrew Barrington Moore Jr. There's a few great summaries of his book on goodreads already, so I'll limit myself to pointing out some trains of thought on a more meta level.
I can't speak for the lived experience of a historian in the 60s, but either marxism was dominant in academia, or Moore used to be a disciple of the Immortal Science. Whatever the case, his whole framework (social upheavals accompanying the transition towards an industrialized nation state) is a dialogue with the marxist tradition, which he apparently knew inside out. It speaks to its qualities that even used as a foil (a focus on the peasantry, conflicts between elites, an institutionalist bent and an anti-teleological persuasion that is reaffirmed with each argument) it provides for a productive matrix for understanding social change.
Moore's characteristic human warmth is transferred to his objects of study. Where a contemporary like EH Carr openly disdained the peasantry as backwards and existentially regressive holdouts, Moore digs beneath the label to arrive at concrete historical formations that react to similar challenges in a variety of ways, depending on contexts. In discussing the failure of the Nehruvian agricultural shift, he defends the peasantry's wariness towards new technologies and external meddling. In an existence hovering at the minimum threshold of biological survival, an inefficient but predictable produce strategy beats out newfangled centralized blueprints that were never tested in specific locales. If it fails, it's the tiller who's faced with social death, not the government planner or intellectual. Hence a tech fix cannot root if social relations within the village are not redrawn too to allow for it to become a rational choice to the peasant; 'idiocy' is here only an indictment of government's failure to take seriously the stakes traditional practices have for those within. Incidentally, Germaine Greer made the same argument for fertility control.
[Sleep first now zz]
I can't speak for the lived experience of a historian in the 60s, but either marxism was dominant in academia, or Moore used to be a disciple of the Immortal Science. Whatever the case, his whole framework (social upheavals accompanying the transition towards an industrialized nation state) is a dialogue with the marxist tradition, which he apparently knew inside out. It speaks to its qualities that even used as a foil (a focus on the peasantry, conflicts between elites, an institutionalist bent and an anti-teleological persuasion that is reaffirmed with each argument) it provides for a productive matrix for understanding social change.
Moore's characteristic human warmth is transferred to his objects of study. Where a contemporary like EH Carr openly disdained the peasantry as backwards and existentially regressive holdouts, Moore digs beneath the label to arrive at concrete historical formations that react to similar challenges in a variety of ways, depending on contexts. In discussing the failure of the Nehruvian agricultural shift, he defends the peasantry's wariness towards new technologies and external meddling. In an existence hovering at the minimum threshold of biological survival, an inefficient but predictable produce strategy beats out newfangled centralized blueprints that were never tested in specific locales. If it fails, it's the tiller who's faced with social death, not the government planner or intellectual. Hence a tech fix cannot root if social relations within the village are not redrawn too to allow for it to become a rational choice to the peasant; 'idiocy' is here only an indictment of government's failure to take seriously the stakes traditional practices have for those within. Incidentally, Germaine Greer made the same argument for fertility control.
[Sleep first now zz]
January 13, 2015
Bir burjuva tarihçisinin önemli bir çalışması. Karşılaştırmalı siyasetin temel taşlarından bir kitap. Özetle Fransız, Amerikan, Alman, Rus, Japonya, Çin ve Hindistan toplumlarında feodalizmden kapitalizme nasıl geçildiğini inceliyor. Bu geçişi anlamak için tek tek olaylara, şu ya da bu imparatorlara bakmak yerine toplumsal sınıflara, bunların üretim ilişkilerine bakıyor. Neden bazı ülkelerde bu dönüşüm devrimlerle gerçekleşti, neden bazılarında hiç devrim olmadı ya da neden devrim olan ülkelerin bazılarında kapitalist rejimler kuruldu da, bazıları sosyalist oldu gibi sorulara yapısalcılık çerçevesinden yanıt getirmeye çalışıyor. Sürekli Marksistlere laf çakmaya çalışmışsa da, Marksizm'in çözümlemelerinden çok şey öğrenmiş.
Kitaptan öğrenilecek önemli bilgiler olduğuna şüphe yok. Teorik çerçevesi yerli yerinde, günümüz akademisyenleri gibi laf salatası yapmayan, titiz bir araştırma. Ama Marksizm-Leninizm gözlüğüyle bakılınca, her burjuva, küçük-burjuva aydının yaptığı hatalar burada da görülüyor. Soğuk Savaş zamanı Harvard'da akademisyenlik yapmanın bir bedeli var elbet. Bu hataların en fahişi demokrasiyle diktatörlük arasına konulan metafizik ayrım. Bilimsel bilgiden çok, soğuk savaşta verilen ideolojik mücadeleye hizmet eden bir ayrım: ABD, İngiltere demokrasi, Sovyetler ve Çin diktatörlük. Bu ayrım da çok partili rejimin demokrasiyle bir tutulmasına dayanıyor.
Özetle okurken bunun Soğuk Savaş döneminde ideolojik mücadelenin kalelerinden biri olan Harvard Üniversitesi'nde yazılmış bir kitap olduğunu, okuru bilgilendirdiği kadar onu anti-komünist yörüngede tutmayı da önemsediğini unutmamak lazım. Fakat bu böyledir diye her yazdığını kulak arkası etmek, ondan öğrenmeyi reddetmek de anlamsız.
Kitaptan öğrenilecek önemli bilgiler olduğuna şüphe yok. Teorik çerçevesi yerli yerinde, günümüz akademisyenleri gibi laf salatası yapmayan, titiz bir araştırma. Ama Marksizm-Leninizm gözlüğüyle bakılınca, her burjuva, küçük-burjuva aydının yaptığı hatalar burada da görülüyor. Soğuk Savaş zamanı Harvard'da akademisyenlik yapmanın bir bedeli var elbet. Bu hataların en fahişi demokrasiyle diktatörlük arasına konulan metafizik ayrım. Bilimsel bilgiden çok, soğuk savaşta verilen ideolojik mücadeleye hizmet eden bir ayrım: ABD, İngiltere demokrasi, Sovyetler ve Çin diktatörlük. Bu ayrım da çok partili rejimin demokrasiyle bir tutulmasına dayanıyor.
Özetle okurken bunun Soğuk Savaş döneminde ideolojik mücadelenin kalelerinden biri olan Harvard Üniversitesi'nde yazılmış bir kitap olduğunu, okuru bilgilendirdiği kadar onu anti-komünist yörüngede tutmayı da önemsediğini unutmamak lazım. Fakat bu böyledir diye her yazdığını kulak arkası etmek, ondan öğrenmeyi reddetmek de anlamsız.
January 2, 2024
"On peut souligner que l’histoire confirme la thèse marxiste selon laquelle la démocratie parlementaire réclame pour se développer l’existence d’une classe urbaine puissante et indépendante. Pas de bourgeois, pas de démocratie."
October 24, 2008
This book made a really good doorstop. The pages were textured just right to grip the carpet, and it was thick enough to wedge under the door.
October 9, 2015
When reading this book, it is important to keep in mind the order in which it should be read. I believe the most likely primary goal of a reader is to read the theory formulated by Moore. This theory is the last three chapters of the book. Hence reading the prologue and the last three chapters first, and then reading relevant countries is probably the best way to go. If linearly read, the grouping of countries is obscure and so is their relevance to formulating the theory. For example India is grouped with other Asian countries but its relevance to Moore's theory comes forth when discussing the emergence of modern democracy (England, America, France). The case of India is well chosen as it helps to refute many existing theories of peasant revolution, as well as emergence of modern democracy.
August 10, 2011
Social Originis of Dictatorship and Democracy to me was one of the books that comes along that stands as the pinnacle of comparative history and discussions of the political economy. One of the top five most important books I have read in my life. One review does not due justice to the amount of research and theoretical comparisons Moore accomplished in this book. Those who reduce the book's thesis to merely, if a bourgeois class does not exist, than a democratic-capitalist country will not exist fail to see the complexities of Moore's thesis. Many will say this book is boring, I think it's genius.
June 4, 2025
أنا أعتقد بأن مخترع الكتابة الأول لم يكن يتخيّل بأن الكتابة ستكون بهذا القدر من الجمال، ومنذ مسك القلم لأول مرة وخطّ الخط الأول، لم يكن ليتوقّع بأن فعله هذا سيتطوّر لينتج عنه كتاب فاخر كهذا.
هذه هي الكتب التي تجعلك تعترف بقيمة الكتابة، وقيمة التفكير العقلاني، وقيمة الأكاديميا الغربية في أفضل صورها. هذا الكتاب رحلة ضخمة في تحليل البُنى الثقافية والاجتماعية التي أدّت إلى ظهور الديمقراطية أو الاستبداد في 6 حالات، في 6 دول مختلفة.
قدرة الكاتب على تتبّع التطوّرات الاجتماعية في هذه البلدان المختلفة، وقدرته على التوصّل إلى استنتاجات منطقية، والردّ على الآراء المتهافتة التي لا يتّفق معها، قدرة خارقة بحق.
استمتعتُ بهذا الكتاب، فكان رحلة ممتعة بحق، وتجربة لا تُعوّض في الغوص في الظروف الاجتماعية التي مرّت بها مختلف البلدان في طريقها إلى الديمقراطية أو الديكتاتورية. ولو كانت هناك خلاصة يمكن الوصول إليها بعد قراءتي لهذا الكتاب، وبناءً على فهمي المتواضع، فستكون: لا توجد خلطة سحرية للتقدّم، بل مدافعة مستمرة وظروف اجتماعية واقتصادية، يكون الحظ جزءًا واسعًا منها.
قد تكون بعض تفاصيل هذا الكتاب غير مشوّقة للقارئ العادي مقارنةً بالباحث أو الشخص المهتم، ومع ذلك، فهذا الكتاب ليس رائعًا فحسب، بل أسطوري.
هذه هي الكتب التي تجعلك تعترف بقيمة الكتابة، وقيمة التفكير العقلاني، وقيمة الأكاديميا الغربية في أفضل صورها. هذا الكتاب رحلة ضخمة في تحليل البُنى الثقافية والاجتماعية التي أدّت إلى ظهور الديمقراطية أو الاستبداد في 6 حالات، في 6 دول مختلفة.
قدرة الكاتب على تتبّع التطوّرات الاجتماعية في هذه البلدان المختلفة، وقدرته على التوصّل إلى استنتاجات منطقية، والردّ على الآراء المتهافتة التي لا يتّفق معها، قدرة خارقة بحق.
استمتعتُ بهذا الكتاب، فكان رحلة ممتعة بحق، وتجربة لا تُعوّض في الغوص في الظروف الاجتماعية التي مرّت بها مختلف البلدان في طريقها إلى الديمقراطية أو الديكتاتورية. ولو كانت هناك خلاصة يمكن الوصول إليها بعد قراءتي لهذا الكتاب، وبناءً على فهمي المتواضع، فستكون: لا توجد خلطة سحرية للتقدّم، بل مدافعة مستمرة وظروف اجتماعية واقتصادية، يكون الحظ جزءًا واسعًا منها.
قد تكون بعض تفاصيل هذا الكتاب غير مشوّقة للقارئ العادي مقارنةً بالباحث أو الشخص المهتم، ومع ذلك، فهذا الكتاب ليس رائعًا فحسب، بل أسطوري.
May 20, 2007
It's like you're getting twisted and pressed into Barrington Moore's densely packed brainfolds: so much knowledge, such a broad vision. I like these macrohistorians, they got balls. And it's harder to figure out their mistakes. Possibly the best course-assigned text I've ever read.
April 30, 2022
نادرة هى الكتب التى يمكنها تلخيص الكثير من الافكار المشتتة والمتناثرة فى فكرنا خصوصاً فيما يخص تاريخ النظم الاجتماعية وحركة تطورها ، وهذا امر بديهى فتنظيم وتلخيص القواعد الحاكمة لحركة هذه الافكار - سواءً فى الفكر او الواقع - يتطلب معرفة ودراية بهذا الشتات من المعارف الفلسفية والتاريخية والسياسية والاقتصادية والتى هى العناصر الرئيسية فى اى تفاعل اجتماعى . ثم تأتى محاولة التعرف على طبيعة العلاقات بين هذه المتفاعلات وطبيعة الناتج الاجتماعى .
واتفق مع مور تماماً فى كون هذه النظم الاجتماعية المختلفة فى الزمان والمكان هى نتاج لمتفاعلات معينة ذات كميات محددة فى شروط شديدة الحساسية لهذا التفاعل ، وقد اجتهد مور فى تقييم مدى ضرورة وحساسية كل عنصل من عناصر هذا التفاعل وهذب النظريات التى بالغت فى اساسية أحد العوامل او تلك التى همشت او قللت من أثر أحد العوامل الحاسمة . وكان نهجه تحليليا ونقديا فى الأساس عند مناقشة كل حالة تاريخية ( كالهند واليابان وبريطانيا والولايات المتحدة وغيرهم ) ثم يتحول لنهج مقارن فى مرحلة تالية بين النتائج التى تم التوصل اليها فى المرحلة التحليلية ثم الى نقد نتائج مقارناته من خلال تأييدها اذا كانت شاملة او حاسمة من حيث وجودها او غيابها او شدتها ، او من خلال الغائها اذا كانت مجرد ظاهرة عابرة او تصادف تزامنها مع فترات التحول الثورى الاجتماعى ولم تكن مكونا اساسيا لها .
ولا ينكر مور أساسية المرحلة الثورية فى تاريخ التحولات الاجتماعية وأن الثورات الاجتماعية هى الثمن الواجب دفعه عند إرادة التغير الاجتماعى والذى قد أصبح ضروريا .
ولكنه لا ينفى وجود طرق عقلانية للتطور التدريجى المعتدل ولكن بالتحليل يثبت أنها لا تكون أكثر من مرحلة فاصلة بين كل تحول اجتماعى حاسم والتحول الذى يليه .
وبذلك تكون الموضوعية البحثية قد اكتملت عند مور فهو يعرف ان التفاعلات الاجتماعية التى تعمل على مهل للتمهيد لتكوين تركيب اجتماعى جديد (ثورى) لا تتوقف عن الحركة فكل ثورة تتبعها فترة طويلة من محاولة الحفاظ على مكتسبات تلك الثورة وهى ما تعرف بالفترة المحافظة .
وبالتالى تتضح الايجابيات والسلبيات الخاصة بكل من المرحلة الثورية والمرحلة المحافظة كما تتضح العوامل المشتركة فى تكوين كل منهما وضرورة كل منهما للآخر .
وقد كانت هذه النقطة هى ذروة التحليل التاريخى المقارن لكل من الهند واليابان والصين والولايات المتحدة وبريطانيا والمانيا وروسيا بشكل اساسى خلال العصور الحديثة . ويبرز هذا التحليل لدى المقارنة النهائية بين روسيا الشيوعية من جانب وألمانيا أو اليابان الفاشية من جانب آخر .
وقد وضح مور بالعديد من الأمثلة التاريخية ملامح هذه النزعة المحافظة ومراحل تطورها وشموليتها حتى بعد نجاح الثورات وتولى الحكومات الثورية لزمام الامور ، فإن اول ما تسعى اليه هو استتباب النظام فى الداخل من خلال تمجيد العادات المحلية والروح الوطنية ونمذجة الفلاح المحلى وتصويره فى صورة مثالية او تشويه صورة الأجنبى وشيطنته وتفعيل نظرية المؤامرة .
كما يستنتج مور من ذلك ضعف الارتباط بين هدف الثورة ونتائجها . كما يستنتج أهمية العنصر الفلاحى فى نجاح الثورات ولو صوريا على الاقل .
ولا يغفل الكاتب عن أهمية العامل الاحصائى فى تكوين النظريات الاجتماعية الا ان تقديره لهذا العامل واستخدامه فى العديد من الحالات لم يجعله يغفل عن الشك فى استخدام ظاهر مضمون هذه الاحصاءات والمقارنة بين ذات نوعية الاحصاءات فى العديد من الحالات المتاشبهة والمختلفة او تحليل هذه النتيجة للنظر فيما اذا كانت تتفق مع الخط العام للتحليل الاجتماعى ونظرياته ومقولاته الاجتماعية الاكثر عمومية ووضوحا ، ثم محاولة تفسير هذا الخلط اذا كانت النتيجة سلبية .
ويؤكد مور كذلك على أحد أهم العوامل المساهمة فى حركة التطور الاجتماعى ( سواء فى فترات الاستقرار او الثورة ) وهو مدى تطور او جمود العامل الثقافى ومدى انتشاره او احتكاره ، وطبيعة محتكريه ، وكيفية استخدامهم لهذا العامل المحورى .
ولا يثق كاتبنا فى الكتابات التاريخية حتى تلك الاكثر اساسية وشهرة ويحاول الخروج بنظرية فى كيفية استخدام الباحث الاجتماعى للنظريات التاريخية وقرر الاعتماد بشكل رئيسى على تلك النظريات متعددة الجوانب والمنظورات واستبعاد او تهميش تلك أحادية الجانب ذات الطابع التحيزى .
كما يشك الكاتب فى مدى موضوعية بحثه وفى مدى جدوى الاعتماد على الموضوعية فى البحث الاجتماعى بشكل عام . فهو لا يُنَظِّر للفكر الثورى ولا للفكر المحافظ بل يحاول قدر الامكان النظر للحركة الجدلية بينهما من الخارج كعقل يحلل الاحداث الدائرة امامه على أرض الواقع ، او ككيميائى فى مختبره ينظر الى التجربة بتجرد من احكامه المسبقة للخروج بقانون عام يفسر تكون الناتج بفهم آلية التفاعل والالمام بشروط هذه الآلية . ولكن فى العلوم الانسانية لا يمكن للأمر ان يتوقف عند هذا الحد ولا بد أن تكون المثالية والنموذجية حاضرة فى المشهد الموضوعى فهى المعيار المستقر الذى تسعى اليه كل التكوينات الماضية والحاضرة نظرا لعدم استقرارها . فالعاقل هو ما يتنبأ بما سيقع من خلال فهمه لما قد كان ، ولكن شروط التفاعل لا تنفك تتغير كما وكيفا خلال مراحل التطور (بشكل فينومينولوجى) مما لا يساعد على التنبؤ بما لم يكن ابدا ولا يساعد على معرفة شروط ظهوره وبالضرورة زمن هذا الظهور . الا ان التركيبات الانسانية سواء الاجتماعية او الثقافية فى كل مستقبل لا يمكن ألا أن تتضمن وتشمل كل التركيبات الماضية كأجزاء من تكوينها النهائى . فلا يخلو فهم الواقع من خلال الماضى من فائدة ولو جزئية لفهم المستقبل .
واتفق مع مور تماماً فى كون هذه النظم الاجتماعية المختلفة فى الزمان والمكان هى نتاج لمتفاعلات معينة ذات كميات محددة فى شروط شديدة الحساسية لهذا التفاعل ، وقد اجتهد مور فى تقييم مدى ضرورة وحساسية كل عنصل من عناصر هذا التفاعل وهذب النظريات التى بالغت فى اساسية أحد العوامل او تلك التى همشت او قللت من أثر أحد العوامل الحاسمة . وكان نهجه تحليليا ونقديا فى الأساس عند مناقشة كل حالة تاريخية ( كالهند واليابان وبريطانيا والولايات المتحدة وغيرهم ) ثم يتحول لنهج مقارن فى مرحلة تالية بين النتائج التى تم التوصل اليها فى المرحلة التحليلية ثم الى نقد نتائج مقارناته من خلال تأييدها اذا كانت شاملة او حاسمة من حيث وجودها او غيابها او شدتها ، او من خلال الغائها اذا كانت مجرد ظاهرة عابرة او تصادف تزامنها مع فترات التحول الثورى الاجتماعى ولم تكن مكونا اساسيا لها .
ولا ينكر مور أساسية المرحلة الثورية فى تاريخ التحولات الاجتماعية وأن الثورات الاجتماعية هى الثمن الواجب دفعه عند إرادة التغير الاجتماعى والذى قد أصبح ضروريا .
ولكنه لا ينفى وجود طرق عقلانية للتطور التدريجى المعتدل ولكن بالتحليل يثبت أنها لا تكون أكثر من مرحلة فاصلة بين كل تحول اجتماعى حاسم والتحول الذى يليه .
وبذلك تكون الموضوعية البحثية قد اكتملت عند مور فهو يعرف ان التفاعلات الاجتماعية التى تعمل على مهل للتمهيد لتكوين تركيب اجتماعى جديد (ثورى) لا تتوقف عن الحركة فكل ثورة تتبعها فترة طويلة من محاولة الحفاظ على مكتسبات تلك الثورة وهى ما تعرف بالفترة المحافظة .
وبالتالى تتضح الايجابيات والسلبيات الخاصة بكل من المرحلة الثورية والمرحلة المحافظة كما تتضح العوامل المشتركة فى تكوين كل منهما وضرورة كل منهما للآخر .
وقد كانت هذه النقطة هى ذروة التحليل التاريخى المقارن لكل من الهند واليابان والصين والولايات المتحدة وبريطانيا والمانيا وروسيا بشكل اساسى خلال العصور الحديثة . ويبرز هذا التحليل لدى المقارنة النهائية بين روسيا الشيوعية من جانب وألمانيا أو اليابان الفاشية من جانب آخر .
وقد وضح مور بالعديد من الأمثلة التاريخية ملامح هذه النزعة المحافظة ومراحل تطورها وشموليتها حتى بعد نجاح الثورات وتولى الحكومات الثورية لزمام الامور ، فإن اول ما تسعى اليه هو استتباب النظام فى الداخل من خلال تمجيد العادات المحلية والروح الوطنية ونمذجة الفلاح المحلى وتصويره فى صورة مثالية او تشويه صورة الأجنبى وشيطنته وتفعيل نظرية المؤامرة .
كما يستنتج مور من ذلك ضعف الارتباط بين هدف الثورة ونتائجها . كما يستنتج أهمية العنصر الفلاحى فى نجاح الثورات ولو صوريا على الاقل .
ولا يغفل الكاتب عن أهمية العامل الاحصائى فى تكوين النظريات الاجتماعية الا ان تقديره لهذا العامل واستخدامه فى العديد من الحالات لم يجعله يغفل عن الشك فى استخدام ظاهر مضمون هذه الاحصاءات والمقارنة بين ذات نوعية الاحصاءات فى العديد من الحالات المتاشبهة والمختلفة او تحليل هذه النتيجة للنظر فيما اذا كانت تتفق مع الخط العام للتحليل الاجتماعى ونظرياته ومقولاته الاجتماعية الاكثر عمومية ووضوحا ، ثم محاولة تفسير هذا الخلط اذا كانت النتيجة سلبية .
ويؤكد مور كذلك على أحد أهم العوامل المساهمة فى حركة التطور الاجتماعى ( سواء فى فترات الاستقرار او الثورة ) وهو مدى تطور او جمود العامل الثقافى ومدى انتشاره او احتكاره ، وطبيعة محتكريه ، وكيفية استخدامهم لهذا العامل المحورى .
ولا يثق كاتبنا فى الكتابات التاريخية حتى تلك الاكثر اساسية وشهرة ويحاول الخروج بنظرية فى كيفية استخدام الباحث الاجتماعى للنظريات التاريخية وقرر الاعتماد بشكل رئيسى على تلك النظريات متعددة الجوانب والمنظورات واستبعاد او تهميش تلك أحادية الجانب ذات الطابع التحيزى .
كما يشك الكاتب فى مدى موضوعية بحثه وفى مدى جدوى الاعتماد على الموضوعية فى البحث الاجتماعى بشكل عام . فهو لا يُنَظِّر للفكر الثورى ولا للفكر المحافظ بل يحاول قدر الامكان النظر للحركة الجدلية بينهما من الخارج كعقل يحلل الاحداث الدائرة امامه على أرض الواقع ، او ككيميائى فى مختبره ينظر الى التجربة بتجرد من احكامه المسبقة للخروج بقانون عام يفسر تكون الناتج بفهم آلية التفاعل والالمام بشروط هذه الآلية . ولكن فى العلوم الانسانية لا يمكن للأمر ان يتوقف عند هذا الحد ولا بد أن تكون المثالية والنموذجية حاضرة فى المشهد الموضوعى فهى المعيار المستقر الذى تسعى اليه كل التكوينات الماضية والحاضرة نظرا لعدم استقرارها . فالعاقل هو ما يتنبأ بما سيقع من خلال فهمه لما قد كان ، ولكن شروط التفاعل لا تنفك تتغير كما وكيفا خلال مراحل التطور (بشكل فينومينولوجى) مما لا يساعد على التنبؤ بما لم يكن ابدا ولا يساعد على معرفة شروط ظهوره وبالضرورة زمن هذا الظهور . الا ان التركيبات الانسانية سواء الاجتماعية او الثقافية فى كل مستقبل لا يمكن ألا أن تتضمن وتشمل كل التركيبات الماضية كأجزاء من تكوينها النهائى . فلا يخلو فهم الواقع من خلال الماضى من فائدة ولو جزئية لفهم المستقبل .
November 16, 2023
The author ambitiously intends to compare (mostly) and contrast the transition from per-industrial agrarian economies to industrialized capitalist societies in Europe, Japan, China, Russia, and the USA. I am sure most any fan of history and or sociology could nitpick here, I chose to enjoy the ride and mouse or hurl abuse as the mood struck me. Mostly I was amused, entertained, educated, and enlightened. Personally, I feel the differences and variables are too great to summon up from these national histories axioms of civilization development out of it. Indeed, seeing these patterns in largely unrelated systems, is too me, a form of apophenia. This is a general term for the human tendency to seek patterns in random information. Everyone experiences it from time to time. Most of us cannot produce a coherent, impressive, educational and researched tome of nearly six hundred pages out of it.
Here is an example of axiomatic analysis of differing cultures in their industrialization:
Throughout there is a fascinating attempt to understand the conditions conducive to the growth of fascism and fascistic governments.
Then there is Catonism. This repressive social order that supports those in power and opposes reforms and development, particularly those that would benefit the peasantry I feel I can see reverberating in the most obstructionist and rightwing parts of my own society.
Finally, a succinct – possibly unfairly so – summary of the core argument here on the impetus of peasants in revolt:
Here is an example of axiomatic analysis of differing cultures in their industrialization:
In any preindustrial society, the attempt to scale bureaucracy soon runs into the difficulty that it is very hard to extract enough resources from the population to pay salaries and thereby make officials dependent on their superiors. The way in which the rulers try to get around this difficulty has a tremendous impact on the whole social structure. The French solution was the sale of offices, the Russian one, suitable to Russia's huge expanse of territory, was the granting of estates with serfs in return for service in tsarist officialdom. The Chinese solution was to permit more or less open corruption.
…
The adaptability of Japanese political and social institutions to capitalist principles enabled Japan to avoid the costs of a revolutionary entrance onto the stage of modern history. Partly because she escaped these early horrors, Japan succumbed in time to fascism and defeat. So did Germany for very broadly the same reason. The price for avoiding a revolutionary entrance has been a very high one. It has been high in India as well. There the play has not yet reached the culminating act; the plot and the characters are different. Still, lessons learned from all the cases studied so far may prove helpful in understanding what the play means.
Throughout there is a fascinating attempt to understand the conditions conducive to the growth of fascism and fascistic governments.
Here the Confucian theory of a benevolent élite has, under the pressure of circumstances, taken on a martial and "heroic" character. The combination is already familiar to the West in fascism. The resemblance becomes still stronger as we see the organizational form that this heroic élitism is supposed to take....
Three features stand out in this brief review of Kuomintang doctrine as formulated by Chiang Kai-shek. The first is the almost complete absence of any social and economic program to cope with China's problems, and indeed a very marked ritual avoidance of the realities of these problems. The talk about "political tutelage" and preparation for democracy was mainly rhetoric. Actual policy was to disturb existing social relationships as little as possible. Such a real attempt policy did not exclude blackmail and forced contributions from any sector of the population that provided a convenient target. Gangsters do the same thing in American cities, without any to upset the existing social order, upon which they actually depend. The second feature, one may call the concealment of the lack of specific political and social objectives through somewhat grotesque efforts to revive traditional ideals in a situation that had for a long time increasingly undermined the social basis of these ideals. Since Professor Mary C. Wright has argued this point cogently and with abundant concrete evidence in The Last Stand of Chinese Conservatism: The T'ung-Chih Restoration, 1862-1874, we need only remind ourselves here that this distorted patriotic idealization of the past is one of the main stigmata of Western fascism. The third and last feature is the Kuomintang's effort to resolve its problems through military force, again a major characteristic of European fascism.
Then there is Catonism. This repressive social order that supports those in power and opposes reforms and development, particularly those that would benefit the peasantry I feel I can see reverberating in the most obstructionist and rightwing parts of my own society.
…attributed to the peasants, but finds a response among the latter because it provides an explanation of sorts for their situation under the intrusion of the market. It is also quite clearly a body of notions that arises out of the life conditions of a landed aristocracy threatened by the same forces. If one glances at the major themes in the form of the aristocratic response that culminated in liberal democracy, one will notice that they also occur in Catonism transposed to a different key. The criticism of mass democracy, the notions of legitimate authority and the importance of custom, opposition to the power of wealth and to mere technical expertise all constitute major themes in the Catonist cacophony. Again, it is in the way they are combined, and even more important the ultimate purpose, that makes all the difference. In Catonism these notions serve the ends of strengthening repressive authority. In aristocratic liberalism they are brought together as intellectual weapons against irrational authority. Catonism, on the other hand, lacks any conception of pluralism or the desirability of checks on hierarchy.... it seems that the Catonist outlook on art merges with a general tendency noticeable in all regimes concerned with maintaining social cohesion, to promote traditional and academic art forms. There is, as has often been noted, a striking similarity between Nazi and Stalinist art. Both were equally strong in condemning Kunstbolsebewiewus and "rootless cosmopolitanism." Similar trends may be observed in Augustan Rome."
… In sketching what finds approval under Catonist notions, it has already been necessary to mention what Catonist theories Concretely they are hostile to traders, usurers, big money, cosmopolitanism, intellectuals. In America Catonism has taken the form of resentment against the city slicker and more generally any form of reasoning that goes beyond the most primitive folk wisdom. In Japan it manifested itself as violent antiplutocratic sentiment. The city appears as a cancerous sore full of invisible conspirators out to cheat and demoralize honest peasants. There is of course a realistic basis for these sentiments in the actual day-to-day experiences of peasants and small farmers who are at a serious disadvantage in a market economy.
As far as feelings (so far as we really know them) and the causes of hatred go, there is not a great deal to choose between the radical right and the radical left in the countryside. The main distinction depends on the amount of realistic analysis of the causes of suffering and on the images of a potential future. Catonism conceals the social causes and projects an image of continued submission. The radical tradition emphasizes the causes and projects an image of eventual liberation. The fact that the emotions and causes are similar does not mean that the emergence of one or the other as a politically significant force depends on skills in manipulating…
… a great deal of talk about the need for a thoroughgoing moral regeneration, talk that covers the absence of a realistic analysis of prevailing social conditions which would threaten the vested interests behind Catonism. Probably it is a good working rule to be suspicious about political and intellectual leaders who talk mainly about moral virtues; many poor devils are liable to be badly hurt. It is not quite correct to assert that the morality lacks content; Catonism seeks a specific kind of regeneration, though it is easier to specify what Catonism is against than what it is for. An aura of moral earnestness suffuses Catonist arguments. This morality is not instrumental; that is, policies are not advocated in order to make humanity happier (happiness and progress are contemptuously dismissed as decadent bourgeois illusions) and certainly not in order to make people richer. They are important because they are supposed to contribute to a way of life that has somehow proved its validity in the past. …Catonist views of the past are romantic distortions…
Finally, a succinct – possibly unfairly so – summary of the core argument here on the impetus of peasants in revolt:
THE PROCESS OF MODERNIZATION … culminates during the twentieth peasant revolutions century with revolutions that succeed. No longer is it possible to take seriously the view that the peasant is an "object of history," a form of social life over which historical changes pass but which contributes nothing to the impetus of these changes. For those who savor historical irony it is indeed curious that the peasant in the modern era has been as much an agent of revolution as the machine, that he has come into his own as an effective historical actor along with the conquests of
May 11, 2011
Though I was almost moved to give this 4 stars, I reconsidered upon reflecting that the only reason I would have done so is that this was the first book I'd read in months without regression tables or game theoretical models. All in all, it is an information-laden tome that presents a fairly simple theory of how democracies came to be (the use-value for explaining democratization in the contemporary context, I think, is sorely lacking). Moore obviously knows a lot about a lot, but the narrative often gets bogged down in minutiae such that the thesis is totally lost for tens of pages at a time.
September 23, 2015
I know this book is propped up and pedestalled (new word) as a genius comparative politics work. While it definitely covers a lot of ground (histories of some of the world's biggest "players") and describes how forms of government came to be, I found it wordy and rather difficult to digest. I kept asking, "So what's your point?" The writing just did not capture me and in fact confused me. I admit to skipping a few chapters and skimming a few others (as allowed by my professor, because 500 pages?!) Perhaps if I didn't have to cram it in four days and maybe if I reread it it would make more sense....
October 17, 2025
Moore is very ambitious. The book explores how different socio-economic structures gave rise to three distinct paths to modernity: the capitalist-democratic, the capitalist-fascist, and the communist.
At the heart of Moore’s framework lies the question of class coalitions: who sides with whom and why. For Moore, a country’s path to modernity is determined by the particular alliances that emerge among its key social groups. His analysis, however, remains confined within national boundaries. By focusing on domestic class relations and agrarian structures, he largely overlooks international factors (a limitation later highlighted by his student Theda Skocpol).
The second idea is simple but excellent: if you want modernity get rid of landed aristocracy and the peasantry, they are a political barrier. How and when this happens — whether gradually, through enclosures as in England, or violently, through state-led transformations like Stalinist collectivization — conditions the kind of modern state that emerges.
Given the large scope of the book, Moore has naturally faced plenty of criticism. Many scholars question the accuracy of his comparative cases, but for me, the bigger issue is the looseness of his theoretical framework. Compared to Skocpol, his concepts feel imprecise, and his process-tracing often lacks discipline. His definition of the bourgeoisie is so broad (from commercial gentry to industrialists) that it’s almost impossible to test his arguments clearly.
And then there’s his obsession with the word impulse (a red flag in social science literature). For example the idea of a “commercializing impulse” is central to Moore’s argument, especially in the case of England, where he claims that commercialization occurred largely because of this impulse. Yet, he never clearly defines what the term actually means, which makes it a red flag in political science writing. Moore does attempt to clarify it (around pp. 420–430), rejecting culturalist explanations such as the Protestant ethic and instead pointing to certain material conditions. He even talks about some “objective opportunities” like the presence of nearby markets or adequate transportation networks, particularly water routes for bulky goods. Despite being fundamental to his overall explanation, this analysis remains underdeveloped and poorly theorized.
Highly recommend reading the last three chapters first. Cross-read this book with Theda Skocpol's States and Social Revolutions; once you're done, revisit Acemoglu and Robinson's Why Nations Fail, as they are largely inspired by Moore and further develop his argument on the role of middle class for democracy.
At the heart of Moore’s framework lies the question of class coalitions: who sides with whom and why. For Moore, a country’s path to modernity is determined by the particular alliances that emerge among its key social groups. His analysis, however, remains confined within national boundaries. By focusing on domestic class relations and agrarian structures, he largely overlooks international factors (a limitation later highlighted by his student Theda Skocpol).
The second idea is simple but excellent: if you want modernity get rid of landed aristocracy and the peasantry, they are a political barrier. How and when this happens — whether gradually, through enclosures as in England, or violently, through state-led transformations like Stalinist collectivization — conditions the kind of modern state that emerges.
Given the large scope of the book, Moore has naturally faced plenty of criticism. Many scholars question the accuracy of his comparative cases, but for me, the bigger issue is the looseness of his theoretical framework. Compared to Skocpol, his concepts feel imprecise, and his process-tracing often lacks discipline. His definition of the bourgeoisie is so broad (from commercial gentry to industrialists) that it’s almost impossible to test his arguments clearly.
And then there’s his obsession with the word impulse (a red flag in social science literature). For example the idea of a “commercializing impulse” is central to Moore’s argument, especially in the case of England, where he claims that commercialization occurred largely because of this impulse. Yet, he never clearly defines what the term actually means, which makes it a red flag in political science writing. Moore does attempt to clarify it (around pp. 420–430), rejecting culturalist explanations such as the Protestant ethic and instead pointing to certain material conditions. He even talks about some “objective opportunities” like the presence of nearby markets or adequate transportation networks, particularly water routes for bulky goods. Despite being fundamental to his overall explanation, this analysis remains underdeveloped and poorly theorized.
Highly recommend reading the last three chapters first. Cross-read this book with Theda Skocpol's States and Social Revolutions; once you're done, revisit Acemoglu and Robinson's Why Nations Fail, as they are largely inspired by Moore and further develop his argument on the role of middle class for democracy.
March 28, 2023
The writing played jokes on my sanity. Holy moly, was this dense and unnecessary repetitive. This is the first book or paper that I actually fell asleep reading
January 23, 2021
If anything, this book analyzes different coalitions in the revolutionary transition from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy and the resulting political and economic structure. In a warped way, the revolutions spawned by these coalitions are somewhat like Goldilocks and the Three Bear, in which the porridge was too hot, too cold or just right. If the revolution was driven by a coalition of the urban and rural peasantry, the result tended to be a Marxist dictatorship, such as Soviet Russia or Communist China. If it was dominated the urban and rural elite, the result tended to be a Fascist dictatorship such as Nazi Germany. And, if the bourgeois were in the driver seat, such as in the English Civil War or even the French Revolution, the nation was on the road to parliamentary democracy.
A few points that intrigued me include:
• Regardless of the form of government, the burden of modernization has always been borne by the poor.
• Revolutionary change requires coalitions to sustain the pace of change. For example, the French Revolution featured a coalition between urban and rural groups and moved in fits and starts. The two groups would agree on something, and change would happen. However, sooner or later, the urban group would take things to an extreme that would alienate the rural group, which would then withdraw its support, causing the effort to fizzle out.
• The author considered the American Civil War to be a Revolution and the American Revolution not to be one. While the American Revolution caused radical changes in attitudes, it didn’t really change American society; I have heard it described as a conservative revolution because the founders were trying to preserve their lifestyle by resisting changes being implemented by the British government. On the other hand, the Civil War caused radical change by emancipating all slaves in the country and granting them citizenship and the vote. It also represented a crossroads in our nation’s development. Were the western territories to be settled by wealthy slave-owning planters or by yeoman farmers. The abolition of slavery settled that question in favor of the yeoman farmer. Interestingly enough, the author believed that the preservation of slavery might well have resulted in a coalition between the manufacturers of the North (urban elite) and the Southern planters (rural elite), leading to the development of a form of Fascism in the U.S. That may well the case, and I am glad we didn’t go down that path.
At any rate, these patterns apply to a transition into the modern world. Now that we are actually in the modern world, they may or may not be valid predictors of future change but are worth considering.
A few points that intrigued me include:
• Regardless of the form of government, the burden of modernization has always been borne by the poor.
• Revolutionary change requires coalitions to sustain the pace of change. For example, the French Revolution featured a coalition between urban and rural groups and moved in fits and starts. The two groups would agree on something, and change would happen. However, sooner or later, the urban group would take things to an extreme that would alienate the rural group, which would then withdraw its support, causing the effort to fizzle out.
• The author considered the American Civil War to be a Revolution and the American Revolution not to be one. While the American Revolution caused radical changes in attitudes, it didn’t really change American society; I have heard it described as a conservative revolution because the founders were trying to preserve their lifestyle by resisting changes being implemented by the British government. On the other hand, the Civil War caused radical change by emancipating all slaves in the country and granting them citizenship and the vote. It also represented a crossroads in our nation’s development. Were the western territories to be settled by wealthy slave-owning planters or by yeoman farmers. The abolition of slavery settled that question in favor of the yeoman farmer. Interestingly enough, the author believed that the preservation of slavery might well have resulted in a coalition between the manufacturers of the North (urban elite) and the Southern planters (rural elite), leading to the development of a form of Fascism in the U.S. That may well the case, and I am glad we didn’t go down that path.
At any rate, these patterns apply to a transition into the modern world. Now that we are actually in the modern world, they may or may not be valid predictors of future change but are worth considering.
February 5, 2019
For its content & legacy in the field of comparative politics alone, this book deserves 5 stars. Moore’s work (1966) is still being taught in graduate seminars to this day (hence why I read it). Moore posits that the ideological orientation of modernized nations rests on the social and economic origins in pre-modern times. If your bourgeoise worked against the state and the peasants were either killed or transferred to an entirely different class, you would become a liberal capitalist country. If your bourgeoise and peasants were married to the aristocracy, you would become a fascist country. If you had virtually no bourgeoise and almost entirely peasants, the process of modernization would lead you to become a communist country. It seems overly simple but Moore does a great job with his cases to illustrate this.
Biggest complaint is the format and some of the writing. You will be lost and not understand what each case is trying to get at if you read the book in chronological order. It’s best to read the last 3 chapters first and then read all the subsequent cases. The last 3 chapters provide Moore’s theory of the social origins of democracy, fascism & communism. Having this to guide you will help you understand what he’s trying to explain in his cases.
Lastly, I think Moore’s writing is elegant, it’s just unstructured. It seems like he’s just writing his thoughts down (well spoken thoughts) and, repeatedly goes off on tangents that, while they are related, completely distract the reader from the point Moore was initially trying to make. No doubt, this book can be confusing at times.
Overall though, it’s a historical work that is clearly a must read for any student of comparative politics and those interested in democratization or conditions that lead to dictatorship or democratic decay.
Biggest complaint is the format and some of the writing. You will be lost and not understand what each case is trying to get at if you read the book in chronological order. It’s best to read the last 3 chapters first and then read all the subsequent cases. The last 3 chapters provide Moore’s theory of the social origins of democracy, fascism & communism. Having this to guide you will help you understand what he’s trying to explain in his cases.
Lastly, I think Moore’s writing is elegant, it’s just unstructured. It seems like he’s just writing his thoughts down (well spoken thoughts) and, repeatedly goes off on tangents that, while they are related, completely distract the reader from the point Moore was initially trying to make. No doubt, this book can be confusing at times.
Overall though, it’s a historical work that is clearly a must read for any student of comparative politics and those interested in democratization or conditions that lead to dictatorship or democratic decay.
August 9, 2020
NOTE: I originally wrote a much lengthier review on this book, but Goodreads swallowed it to its bug-ridden stomach. I have a prior, unfinished version of this review stowed away, so I'll post it instead. Holy hell does this site need a crapload of bugfixes and UI/UX improvements
While this book agrees with the liberal and Marxist theses which hold the bourgeoisie as the principal actor of the transition from absolute monarchy to liberal democracy, this book rejects the Marxist evaluation of the peasantry as "sack of potatoes"[1] which acted only as a passive audience to the revolutionary change in the metropolitan.
For liberal democracy to arise within a state, it has to have
- A relatively strong bourgeoisie-capitalist class
- A clashing of economic interest between the old monarchy/aristocracy and the rising bourgeoise
The strength of the bourgeoisie was determined by the state of agricultural production. If the society was still primarily engaged in subsistence agriculture, then the bourgeoisie class will be small. This is because the city-dwellers had to have an abundant supply of grains from the countryside, which could only be made possible if there occurred a transition from subsistence to commercial(surplus-producing) agriculture. The accumulation of surplus-value in commercial agriculture itself was also the foundational part of a capitalist economy, which fuels the transfer of wealth to urban trade centers, thereby strengthening the bourgeoisie capitalist class.
The clash between the bourgeoisie and the old monarchy/nobility can only happen in states where there is no other greater threat to the capitalist project of accumulation.
[1] Marx's contempt towards the peasantry is well-documented in his Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis-Napoleon
While this book agrees with the liberal and Marxist theses which hold the bourgeoisie as the principal actor of the transition from absolute monarchy to liberal democracy, this book rejects the Marxist evaluation of the peasantry as "sack of potatoes"[1] which acted only as a passive audience to the revolutionary change in the metropolitan.
For liberal democracy to arise within a state, it has to have
- A relatively strong bourgeoisie-capitalist class
- A clashing of economic interest between the old monarchy/aristocracy and the rising bourgeoise
The strength of the bourgeoisie was determined by the state of agricultural production. If the society was still primarily engaged in subsistence agriculture, then the bourgeoisie class will be small. This is because the city-dwellers had to have an abundant supply of grains from the countryside, which could only be made possible if there occurred a transition from subsistence to commercial(surplus-producing) agriculture. The accumulation of surplus-value in commercial agriculture itself was also the foundational part of a capitalist economy, which fuels the transfer of wealth to urban trade centers, thereby strengthening the bourgeoisie capitalist class.
The clash between the bourgeoisie and the old monarchy/nobility can only happen in states where there is no other greater threat to the capitalist project of accumulation.
[1] Marx's contempt towards the peasantry is well-documented in his Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis-Napoleon
July 14, 2009
a long, excruciating survey of the historical and sociological origins of parliamentary democracy, fascism, and communism in britain, germany, france, russia, china, india, and japan. i frequently have trouble separating my opinions of the content of a book from the author's ability to express that content clearly. this is a turgid, meandering tome that never seems to specify a main thesis or process clearly. small N analyses often resort to massaging the theory in order to show that the empirical data fits it well. usually, this is not obvious enough to be egregious. in this case, it is so obtrusive that the book is a pain to read.
September 9, 2010
I only got through the first half of this before other, more pressing books forced it back to the library, but I will definitely return to it. I wouldn't recommend sitting down with it and reading cover to cover, but if you ever want some questions answered about why different countries end up with different systems of government, this is great. How did England and France both end up with democracy, when their approaches to it were so different? Why did China and Russia end up communist, while India did not? Where does fascism come from, and why didn't the USA or France or Britain go down that road, while Japan and Germany did? Really interesting ideas to ponder here.
July 24, 2021
یکی از بهترین کتاب هایی که تو زمینه علوم اجتماعی و سیاسی خوندم.
کتاب به بررسی 8 کشور انگلیس، فرانسه، آمریکا، چین، ژاپن، هند، آلمان و روسیه می پردازه و سعی می کنه توضیح بده که چطور طبقات اجتماعی روی هم و البته سرنوشت کشور تاثیر گذاشتن. کتاب انقلاب ها و تغییرات جامعه رو تو این سه کشور به سه دسته دموکراسی(انقلاب بورژوازی)، فاشیم(انقلاب از بالا) و کمونیسم(انقلاب از پایین) تقسیم می کنه و شرح می ده چطور شرایط تاریخی، اجتماعی و البته جغرافیایی منجر به وضع فعلی این کشورها شده اند.
تنها عیب کتاب این هست که در دهه 60 میلادی نوشته شده و وضعیت کشورهای آلمان و ژاپن به عنوان کشورهای دموکراسی، و چین و روسیه به عنوان کشورهای کمونیسیتی و البته هند در حال توسعه بررسی نشده اند.
کتاب به بررسی 8 کشور انگلیس، فرانسه، آمریکا، چین، ژاپن، هند، آلمان و روسیه می پردازه و سعی می کنه توضیح بده که چطور طبقات اجتماعی روی هم و البته سرنوشت کشور تاثیر گذاشتن. کتاب انقلاب ها و تغییرات جامعه رو تو این سه کشور به سه دسته دموکراسی(انقلاب بورژوازی)، فاشیم(انقلاب از بالا) و کمونیسم(انقلاب از پایین) تقسیم می کنه و شرح می ده چطور شرایط تاریخی، اجتماعی و البته جغرافیایی منجر به وضع فعلی این کشورها شده اند.
تنها عیب کتاب این هست که در دهه 60 میلادی نوشته شده و وضعیت کشورهای آلمان و ژاپن به عنوان کشورهای دموکراسی، و چین و روسیه به عنوان کشورهای کمونیسیتی و البته هند در حال توسعه بررسی نشده اند.
Currently reading
March 16, 2009Whoaa. Moore isn't exactly a linear fellow. Recommend taking one chapter, at minimum and maximum, at a time. Re-read salient passages and hop around within chapters in order to follow the argument. He is good at quickly deconstructing recent historical theories and replacing them with a more pragmatic view.
What about religion? I'm about half way through and not much mention of religion at all for a "social" history. He disparages (mostly rightly) a number of Marxist arguments but is quite materialist just the same. Still, very worth reading even as a primer for various historical epochs.
What about religion? I'm about half way through and not much mention of religion at all for a "social" history. He disparages (mostly rightly) a number of Marxist arguments but is quite materialist just the same. Still, very worth reading even as a primer for various historical epochs.
August 20, 2016
I'm afraid my eyes glazed over many times. Perhaps there was a deficiency of brain activity at the time. But I walked away from this very long book without a clue as to what he was saying (except, of course, that it had to do with dictatorships, democracy, lords and peasants).
October 22, 2009
This book is too detailed and in the end he makes grandiose claims that come out of nowhere.
March 28, 2012
good leterature
March 10, 2021
Okuduğum en iyi fakat zamanı geçmiş kitaplardan biri..
Moore toplumların diktatörlüğe, demokrasiye ve faşizme doğru nasıl yol aldığı konusunu köy toplumuna ve aristokrasiye dayanarak açıklamış. Moore diyor ki, bir ülkenin demokrasi olması için de diktatörlük olması için zorunlu olan şiddet zorunlu. Kanıt olarak da İngilterede "Şanli Devrimi", Fransız devrimini ve de Amerikan iç savaşını gösteriyor. Moore bu devrimlerin toplumların tarihi yapısından kaynaklı farklılıklara sahip olduğunu da diyor ve de bu farklılıkları fazlasıyla bilgi harmanlamasıyla yansıtıyor bizlere. O kadar bilgi veriyor ki bazen benim okurken kafam karıştı.
Moore ayrıca diyor ki İngilterede demokrasinin diğer ülkelerden daha önce kurulmasının nedeni bu ülkede çitlemelerin neden olduğu özel mülkiyetin diğer ülkelerden daha önce yayılması ve de gentry'nin kira toprağında işlemesidir. Fransa konusuna gelince yazar Fransız köylü ve soylusunu güneş kral 14. Louis zamanından başlayarak (kabaca 16. yüzyıldan) araştırma konusu ediyor. Yazar diyor ki, Fransada burjuvazi güneş kral zamanında bürokrasi pozisyonlarını parayla almağa başladığında kabaca aynı zamanda fransız soyluları da ticarete girişiyordu. Birleşik Devletler konusunda Moore İç savaşın nedenleri konusunu araştırmış ve bu ülkede 3 bölgenin (Kuzey Doğu, Guney ve Batı eyaletleri) bir-birileri ile ilişkilerini analiz etmişdir. Yazara göre Güney eyaletlerinin kendilerini özgür ilan etme nedeni Kuzey Doğu bölgesinden Batıya göç eden çiftçilerin Güneydeki köleliği tehdit etmesi olmuştur. Gerçi Güney eyaletleri de kendilerini demokratik olarak ve de manevi bakımdan iyi hristiyan görmüşler ki, bu bölgede köleliğin mevcudiyetini konu ettiğimizde oldukça tuhaf sonuçtur yine de.
Yazar ayrıca Japon faşizmini araştırmış, ülkede 1600 yılında kurulan Tokugava Şoganlığından 1868 yılında baş vermiş Meici devrimine kadar devam eden köylü ve soylu ilişkilerini toplumda nüfuz sahibi Şogan, Daimyo ve Samuray katmanlarını dahil ederek harika bir analiz yapmıştır. Yazar Japon ve Alman faşizmini farklı toplumlar olarak gördüğünü belirterek Japon deneyiminden yola çıkmakla faşizmin temellerini bolca bilgi ile açıklamıştır. Ayrıca, Asyada Hindistan demokrasini Moğollar döneminden İngilizlerin işgaline ve de Hindistanın özgürlüğünü kazandığı 1948 yılına kadar analiz etmiş. Yazara göre Hindistanda demokrasinin mevcut olması en tuhaf olaylardan biri zira bu ülkede mülk sahibi soylular yerine topraklarının elinden alınması tehlikesi her zaman mövcut zemindarlar olmuştur. Ayrıca Hindistanda köylüler diğer ülkelere kıyasla toplumda kast sisteminden kaynaklanan (ama yine de yalnızca kast sistemi ile açıklanması doğru olmayan) nedenlerle köylu isyanları pek görülmemiştir.
Yazarın Çin toplumu konusunda yazdıkları da bir ayrı harika konu. Zira Çin konusunda yazarın görüşleri konfutsi felsefesinin toplumsal yansımasından Çinde 1912 yılında imparatorluğun kaldırılmasına ve de komünistlerin kırsaldakı zaferlerine dek uzanır. Yazar diyor ki Sun Yat Sen 1912 yılında Çin imparatorluğunu yıksa dahi Çin kırsal manzarası pek değişmemiştir. Ayrıca 1927 sonrası dönemde Çang Kai Şek dahi toplumda yerini korumak için güçlü derebeylerine ve şehirli seçkinlerine dayanmak zorunda olmuşdur. Yine de komünistlerin Çinde zafer kazanması ve de kırsaldakı halkı memnun ederek Çang'a karşı zaferlerini pekiştirmek için Japon istilası yardımcı olmuş adeta.
Benim için aslında biraz zorlu okuma oldu zira yazar adeta her bir detayı araştırdığı konulara katmış. Yaptığım yorumda çıkardığım hatalar olabilir, zira bazı noktaları unutmuş olabilirim. Ne de olsa yazar fazla bilgiye boğuyor bizleri. Ama yine de çıkardığım sonuçları yukarıda kısaca yazmağa çalıştım. Kitabın Soğuk Savaş doneminin en kızgın dönemlerinde (1960-lar) yazılmış olması demokrasi ve diktatörlük terimlerinin anlam yansımasında da kendini hissetdirmiş. Ayrıca, daha sonra yazardan ilham alan diğer yazarlar jeopolitik, dış müdahale gibi konuların da toplumsal değişimde önemli rol oynamış olduğuna dikkatleri çekmişler ama Moore-nin yapıtında yaptığı köylü ve soylu müdacelesinin toplumsal değişimdeki rolunu yadırgamamışlar.
Moore toplumların diktatörlüğe, demokrasiye ve faşizme doğru nasıl yol aldığı konusunu köy toplumuna ve aristokrasiye dayanarak açıklamış. Moore diyor ki, bir ülkenin demokrasi olması için de diktatörlük olması için zorunlu olan şiddet zorunlu. Kanıt olarak da İngilterede "Şanli Devrimi", Fransız devrimini ve de Amerikan iç savaşını gösteriyor. Moore bu devrimlerin toplumların tarihi yapısından kaynaklı farklılıklara sahip olduğunu da diyor ve de bu farklılıkları fazlasıyla bilgi harmanlamasıyla yansıtıyor bizlere. O kadar bilgi veriyor ki bazen benim okurken kafam karıştı.
Moore ayrıca diyor ki İngilterede demokrasinin diğer ülkelerden daha önce kurulmasının nedeni bu ülkede çitlemelerin neden olduğu özel mülkiyetin diğer ülkelerden daha önce yayılması ve de gentry'nin kira toprağında işlemesidir. Fransa konusuna gelince yazar Fransız köylü ve soylusunu güneş kral 14. Louis zamanından başlayarak (kabaca 16. yüzyıldan) araştırma konusu ediyor. Yazar diyor ki, Fransada burjuvazi güneş kral zamanında bürokrasi pozisyonlarını parayla almağa başladığında kabaca aynı zamanda fransız soyluları da ticarete girişiyordu. Birleşik Devletler konusunda Moore İç savaşın nedenleri konusunu araştırmış ve bu ülkede 3 bölgenin (Kuzey Doğu, Guney ve Batı eyaletleri) bir-birileri ile ilişkilerini analiz etmişdir. Yazara göre Güney eyaletlerinin kendilerini özgür ilan etme nedeni Kuzey Doğu bölgesinden Batıya göç eden çiftçilerin Güneydeki köleliği tehdit etmesi olmuştur. Gerçi Güney eyaletleri de kendilerini demokratik olarak ve de manevi bakımdan iyi hristiyan görmüşler ki, bu bölgede köleliğin mevcudiyetini konu ettiğimizde oldukça tuhaf sonuçtur yine de.
Yazar ayrıca Japon faşizmini araştırmış, ülkede 1600 yılında kurulan Tokugava Şoganlığından 1868 yılında baş vermiş Meici devrimine kadar devam eden köylü ve soylu ilişkilerini toplumda nüfuz sahibi Şogan, Daimyo ve Samuray katmanlarını dahil ederek harika bir analiz yapmıştır. Yazar Japon ve Alman faşizmini farklı toplumlar olarak gördüğünü belirterek Japon deneyiminden yola çıkmakla faşizmin temellerini bolca bilgi ile açıklamıştır. Ayrıca, Asyada Hindistan demokrasini Moğollar döneminden İngilizlerin işgaline ve de Hindistanın özgürlüğünü kazandığı 1948 yılına kadar analiz etmiş. Yazara göre Hindistanda demokrasinin mevcut olması en tuhaf olaylardan biri zira bu ülkede mülk sahibi soylular yerine topraklarının elinden alınması tehlikesi her zaman mövcut zemindarlar olmuştur. Ayrıca Hindistanda köylüler diğer ülkelere kıyasla toplumda kast sisteminden kaynaklanan (ama yine de yalnızca kast sistemi ile açıklanması doğru olmayan) nedenlerle köylu isyanları pek görülmemiştir.
Yazarın Çin toplumu konusunda yazdıkları da bir ayrı harika konu. Zira Çin konusunda yazarın görüşleri konfutsi felsefesinin toplumsal yansımasından Çinde 1912 yılında imparatorluğun kaldırılmasına ve de komünistlerin kırsaldakı zaferlerine dek uzanır. Yazar diyor ki Sun Yat Sen 1912 yılında Çin imparatorluğunu yıksa dahi Çin kırsal manzarası pek değişmemiştir. Ayrıca 1927 sonrası dönemde Çang Kai Şek dahi toplumda yerini korumak için güçlü derebeylerine ve şehirli seçkinlerine dayanmak zorunda olmuşdur. Yine de komünistlerin Çinde zafer kazanması ve de kırsaldakı halkı memnun ederek Çang'a karşı zaferlerini pekiştirmek için Japon istilası yardımcı olmuş adeta.
Benim için aslında biraz zorlu okuma oldu zira yazar adeta her bir detayı araştırdığı konulara katmış. Yaptığım yorumda çıkardığım hatalar olabilir, zira bazı noktaları unutmuş olabilirim. Ne de olsa yazar fazla bilgiye boğuyor bizleri. Ama yine de çıkardığım sonuçları yukarıda kısaca yazmağa çalıştım. Kitabın Soğuk Savaş doneminin en kızgın dönemlerinde (1960-lar) yazılmış olması demokrasi ve diktatörlük terimlerinin anlam yansımasında da kendini hissetdirmiş. Ayrıca, daha sonra yazardan ilham alan diğer yazarlar jeopolitik, dış müdahale gibi konuların da toplumsal değişimde önemli rol oynamış olduğuna dikkatleri çekmişler ama Moore-nin yapıtında yaptığı köylü ve soylu müdacelesinin toplumsal değişimdeki rolunu yadırgamamışlar.
December 21, 2023
'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse;
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there".---Clement Moore
That's right. Clement Moore, the composer of "A Visit from St. Nicholas", the most beloved and famous Christmas poem of all time, was the grandfather of Barrington Moore, Jr., author of SOCIAL ORIGINS OF DICTATORSHIP AND DEMOCRACY, one of the most important historical works ever published in English. Barrington has been called many things, including "a Perry Anderson who can write comparative history" (which is not at all fair to Perry) and a "neo-Marxist" (which is simply not true) that I wish to add only a few pertinent points in the profile. Moore is a historical materialist yet not a Marxist. His study of "multiple roads to modernity" via revolutions from below in England, France, and China, and from above in Germany, Japan, and in a qualified sense in the United States, does not, unlike Anderson's two volumes, PASSAGES FROM ANTIQUITY and LINEAGES OF THE ABSOLUTIST STATE, focus on the relationship between the state and the mode of production. Moore is at his most original and persuasive when he treats the American Civil War as "the last capitalist revolution". The war against slavery in the South, and more importantly what Marx called "the slave power" or political power opposed to capitalism, was indeed the last time the bourgeoisie could play a progressive role in history, but Moore does not acknowledge how that fact influenced twentieth-century revolutionaries, starting with Lenin in Russia ("All power to the Soviets!") or Castro and Guevara in Cuba: "Either socialist revolution in Latin America or a caricature of revolution". I praise Moore for his exhaustive research and for provoking the reader into thinking globally. Pass the egg nog.
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse;
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there".---Clement Moore
That's right. Clement Moore, the composer of "A Visit from St. Nicholas", the most beloved and famous Christmas poem of all time, was the grandfather of Barrington Moore, Jr., author of SOCIAL ORIGINS OF DICTATORSHIP AND DEMOCRACY, one of the most important historical works ever published in English. Barrington has been called many things, including "a Perry Anderson who can write comparative history" (which is not at all fair to Perry) and a "neo-Marxist" (which is simply not true) that I wish to add only a few pertinent points in the profile. Moore is a historical materialist yet not a Marxist. His study of "multiple roads to modernity" via revolutions from below in England, France, and China, and from above in Germany, Japan, and in a qualified sense in the United States, does not, unlike Anderson's two volumes, PASSAGES FROM ANTIQUITY and LINEAGES OF THE ABSOLUTIST STATE, focus on the relationship between the state and the mode of production. Moore is at his most original and persuasive when he treats the American Civil War as "the last capitalist revolution". The war against slavery in the South, and more importantly what Marx called "the slave power" or political power opposed to capitalism, was indeed the last time the bourgeoisie could play a progressive role in history, but Moore does not acknowledge how that fact influenced twentieth-century revolutionaries, starting with Lenin in Russia ("All power to the Soviets!") or Castro and Guevara in Cuba: "Either socialist revolution in Latin America or a caricature of revolution". I praise Moore for his exhaustive research and for provoking the reader into thinking globally. Pass the egg nog.
June 7, 2024
Someone else on here already gave a better summary and review, so I'll worry less about coherency in mine.
A thorough study into the preconditions of an agrarian society to develop into either bourgeois (capitalist) democracy, fascism, or communism in the process of modernization. I wouldn't call Moore a Marxist historian- although he does take a class based approach to comparative history here- and I think this is where his weak spots are. He often had strangely soft/inadequate responses to questions that I thought were important- for instance, the importance of race as a structural factor in the US leading up to the Civil War (which seems to be obvious), or certain Marxist theses he spends only a sentence or two on before disregarding without further explanation. In any case, still a worthwhile read- the treatment of the American Civil War was particularly good, and the English Civil War (and discussion on the enclosure of the commons) largely vindicated the Marxist take (famously expounded in Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1, and if I remember correctly in other sources such as The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View). He also gave the only account I've encountered so far of the French Revolution that managed to make sense on more than a broad scale. His writing on the development of India I'm ambivalent about- I would like to hear from a few comrades from India on how they feel before making more of a judgement.
In short, I would like to give all peasants a smooch, and wish all lords (to paraphrase Vollmann) "a warm stay in Hell".
A thorough study into the preconditions of an agrarian society to develop into either bourgeois (capitalist) democracy, fascism, or communism in the process of modernization. I wouldn't call Moore a Marxist historian- although he does take a class based approach to comparative history here- and I think this is where his weak spots are. He often had strangely soft/inadequate responses to questions that I thought were important- for instance, the importance of race as a structural factor in the US leading up to the Civil War (which seems to be obvious), or certain Marxist theses he spends only a sentence or two on before disregarding without further explanation. In any case, still a worthwhile read- the treatment of the American Civil War was particularly good, and the English Civil War (and discussion on the enclosure of the commons) largely vindicated the Marxist take (famously expounded in Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1, and if I remember correctly in other sources such as The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View). He also gave the only account I've encountered so far of the French Revolution that managed to make sense on more than a broad scale. His writing on the development of India I'm ambivalent about- I would like to hear from a few comrades from India on how they feel before making more of a judgement.
In short, I would like to give all peasants a smooch, and wish all lords (to paraphrase Vollmann) "a warm stay in Hell".
December 7, 2025
Notes on Barrington Moore’s theory of revolution from above and fascism.
Coalitions of industry and landowners, the dynamics of which (some more peaceful than others) allow for more or less unstable democratic formations (Weimar, Giolitti / trasformismo) and rationalization / bureaucracy. Flashes of Weber. Nod to Marx and Engels, 1848: much they got wrong, but on the solidarity of the owning classes against labor, spot on and enduring.
Labor-repressive economics; the incomplete separation of the political and economic; extra-economic (violent) means to keep the laboring class in check. Commercial farming; economic incentives to industrial productivity: societies in which ancien regimes survived - but why is this uneven across the globe? - would not reconcile themselves fully to the market, substituting extra-economic whips. Interesting contrast between England and Germany - again, hinging on the separation of the political and economic (pub: 1966). “Nonsense”: the idea that revolutions from below are required to subvert the feudal order - simply not the case (Meiji; Bismarck); however, the consequences of being late to the scene (does he use that kind of temporal judgment?) darken their prospects for democratic politics. (How to square this all with Meyer’s “persistence” thesis?)
Fascism: distinctively plebeian anticapitalist revolution from above. Prototype, the Russian Black Hand; failed to stabilize, lacking mass base. Dependency upon democracy (the “entry of the masses…”); theoretical touchstone of Riley? Appeals to the peasantry, counterposed (eg Italy) to farm-worker unions. Not a transhistoric phenomenon, highly contextualized by the processes of modernization, industrial society on the rise. Does he leave the question open - fascism in the age of capitalism’s decline?
Coalitions of industry and landowners, the dynamics of which (some more peaceful than others) allow for more or less unstable democratic formations (Weimar, Giolitti / trasformismo) and rationalization / bureaucracy. Flashes of Weber. Nod to Marx and Engels, 1848: much they got wrong, but on the solidarity of the owning classes against labor, spot on and enduring.
Labor-repressive economics; the incomplete separation of the political and economic; extra-economic (violent) means to keep the laboring class in check. Commercial farming; economic incentives to industrial productivity: societies in which ancien regimes survived - but why is this uneven across the globe? - would not reconcile themselves fully to the market, substituting extra-economic whips. Interesting contrast between England and Germany - again, hinging on the separation of the political and economic (pub: 1966). “Nonsense”: the idea that revolutions from below are required to subvert the feudal order - simply not the case (Meiji; Bismarck); however, the consequences of being late to the scene (does he use that kind of temporal judgment?) darken their prospects for democratic politics. (How to square this all with Meyer’s “persistence” thesis?)
Fascism: distinctively plebeian anticapitalist revolution from above. Prototype, the Russian Black Hand; failed to stabilize, lacking mass base. Dependency upon democracy (the “entry of the masses…”); theoretical touchstone of Riley? Appeals to the peasantry, counterposed (eg Italy) to farm-worker unions. Not a transhistoric phenomenon, highly contextualized by the processes of modernization, industrial society on the rise. Does he leave the question open - fascism in the age of capitalism’s decline?
May 17, 2019
A good materialist attempt to explain political development of the major countries of the modern world. It provides good illustrations of how economic changes give rise to social classes which can make a variety of alliances and end up in a variety of conflicts that lead to different political paths. Moore thinks there are three main paths: bourgeois democratic, fascist, and communist. Moore is an original thinker with many keen insights. His intellectual approach seems fair and honest (a lot of writers are more pretentious). Some of his theories are however a bit sweeping and seem incomplete (of course, the topic is very ambitious, so this is understandable).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews