Post on 03-Jun-2018
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 1/31
The Barrington Moore Thesis and Its CriticsAuthor(s): Jonathan M. WienerSource: Theory and Society, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Autumn, 1975), pp. 301-330Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/656776 .
Accessed: 22/08/2013 22:22
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theory and Society.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 2/31
301
THE BARRINGTON MOORETHESIS AND ITS CRITICS
JONATHAN M. WIENER
At a time when most studies of modernization assume that the existing
political order is the most desirableone, BarringtonMooreargues n Social
Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (Boston, 1966) that violent social
revolution has been, and is, a prerequisite or increasing reedom and ratio-
nality in the world. Moore rejects the view that all modernizingsocieties
undergo essentiallythe same process.Wheremost recent studies have triedto
find characteristicswhichall modernizing ocieties share- whether econom-
ic take-off (Rostow), expanded political participation (Huntington), or
multiple dysfunction (ChalmersJohnson)- Moorearguesthat there have
been three different types of modernizationdistinguishedby the changesin
class structurethat acconmpany evelopment,and by the political costs and
achievements of each in their contribution to increasing freedom and
rationality.
The first type Moore calls bourgeoisrevolution, in which a violent revolu-
tion abolished he dominationof the traditional anded elite and brought capi-
talist democracy to England, France, and the United States. The second isrevolution from above, the process in Germanyand Japan by which the
traditional landed elite defeated popular revolution and preserved its
dominant position during industrialization, a process which culminated in
fascism. The third type is peasant revolution, which in Russia and China
saw the traditionalelite abolished,not by a revolutionarybourgeoisie,but by
a revolutionary peasantry which cleared the way for modernization. All
modernizingsocieties have undergonea version of one of these three types,
Moore argues, providing case studies of England,France, the United States,Japan, China,and India.
More than 35 discussionsof the Moorethesis have appeared n Englishsince
the book was published; they include many brief journal reviews and some
longer review essays. These discussionshave been of three kinds: criticismof
University of California, Irvine
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 3/31
302
Moore's method, consideration of the thesis itself, and examination of
particularcase studies. I will considerthe importantissues raised in each of
these areas, and conclude with a brief evaluationof the Moore thesis in light
of the criticaldiscussionof the pastnineyears.
1. Moore'sMethod
The most frequent criticism of Moore's method is that he is an economic
deterministwho neglects non-economic factors which play a causalrole in
modernization.The chargeof economic determinismwas made explicitly by
Gabriel Almond, Lee Benson, David Lowenthal, and Cyril Black, among
others.' Stanley Rothman's reviewarticlein the AmericanPolitical Science
Review was the longest and most polemical statement of this argument:
Moore, he wrote, sees actors moved inevitably towards a predetermined
end by their economic interests; Moore argues that ideology, politics,
society, and culture are all determined by economic forces,and function as
mechanismsusedby the rulingclassesto furthertheirown interests, Moore
considers past revolutions to have been inevitable results of economic
forces.2
Rothman providedevidencefor his critiqueby embarking n a massivesearch
through Moore's footnotes, conclusively provingthat Moore's own sources
did not support an economic determinist interpretationof history. They
argued the importance, at various points, of politics, social structure,
ideology, and so on. And every point at which Mooreexaminesthe relations
between these elements in a particularhistoricalsetting,Rothman statedthat
he had found a point at which Moore weakenedhis thesis of economic
determinism,exhibited a tendency to hedge, and whimsically ntroduced
other factors beyond the economic.3
Rothman failed to see that behind Moore'sapparentwhimsey lay a method.
He was correct in arguing hat the sourcesdid not put forwardan economic
deterministanalysis;but neither did Moore. Rothman'scritiqueof Moore's
method succeeded n demolishing he classic strawman.
Those who criticized Moore for economic determinismmissed one of the
most fundamentalpurposesof his project: to distinguishbetween economic
analysis and social class analysis.Moore'sbook standsas the most thorough
and systematic demolition of economic determinismfrom a social class
perspective.4The decisive element in historical development from Moore's
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 4/31
303
point of view is class conflict, an understandingof which presupposesa
specific historicalanalysisof the constituent classes. The confusion betweenMarxian class analysis and economic determinismarises from the Marxian
definition of classesin terms of property in the meansof production.Moore
follows Marx be definingclasses n termsof the variousmechanismsby which
elites have extracted an economic surplus from the underlyingpopulation.
This method is economic only in the broadest sense. It permits com-
parative analysis by recognizing the existence of a recurringproblem (ex-
tracting the surplus) and limited historical solutions (feudalism, agrarianbureaucracy,commercialagriculture,etc.); but it also recognizesthe differ-
ence among particular lassesat particularplacesand times. Thesedifferences
result from unique configurations of economic interests, existing political
alternatives, emi-autonomouscultures,and particularworldviews,which are
seen in relation to economic interests,but not wholly subordinate o them.
The assumption that the economic factor determines the behavior of a
class in any particular situation rather than, for instance, the religious
factor or the political factor, is ahistorical, ignores the totality andinterrelationshipsof the various elements, and is therefore not Marxist.As
Marxhimself wrote, empirical observationsmust in each separate nstance
bringout empirically . . the connection of the social and politicalstructure
with production. 5
Moore himself repeatedly rejects economic determinist explanations. The
conception of bourgeoisrevolutionas the result of a steady increase in the
economic power of the bourgeoisieMooredescribesas a caricatureof whattook place; he rejects as obviously inadequate the idea that peasant
revolts are caused by the deterioration of the peasants'economic situation
under the impactof commerceandindustry.6
A case in point is Rothman'sdescription of Moore'schapter on the English
Civil War as an economic interpretation. Rothman'sown analysis is that
wide agreement had been reached in the Long Parliament on purely
economic issues; it was the political and religious question, as well as
Charles'personality, which ultimately produced the conflict. 7 Rothman
here confuses the explicitly economic issues debated in Parliamentwith the
changes in class structurewhich culminatedin war - Moore's own concern.
But Rothman'scategories of analysis are not exactly clear; n what sense did
the factor of personality ultimately produce the conflict?
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 5/31
304
The most frequentlyrecommendedalternative o economic determinismwas
the additionof non-economicfactors to the list of effective causesof social
change. Thus LawrenceStone insistedthat demographybe considered,Rein-
hard Bendix and Gabriel Almond agreed that internationalrelations should
not be ignored, and Lee Benson called for attention to religious and ethno-
cultural influences; Cyril Black's list of factors was among the longest:
ideology, social psychology, leadership,war, diplomacy, and indeed, chance,
must be taken into account. 8
What these critics shared was an unsystematic, almost haphazardnotion of
how to explain social change. In place of a theory of change,they depended
on the existing sub-fields of academic disciplines to form the basis of their
conception of society and history, uncriticallyassuming that, just as each
field makes a contribution, so each factor playsa role in explaining he
overall pattern of social change.The resulting ist of factors amounts to, not
an alternativemethod to social class analysis,but ratheran absenceof theory
and method.
The multi-factor approachtended in two directions - either toward an
emphasis on a particular factor, or else toward an effort to compare the
causal importanceof different factors. Some of those criticisingMoorefor
economic determinismargued that their own academicspecialty dealt with
the most importantcausalfactor - thus an intellectual historianarguedfor
the fundamentalcausalsignificanceof formal ideas in history. Other critics,
however, saw as their task not emphasizing he importanceof one particular
factor, but rather comparingthe causal role played by different factors.
Rothman, for instance, made statements such as the changing politicalcultureplayed some role, and religiousfactors played at least as importanta
role as economic. 9
In this attemptto list all potential causes,to measure he relative nfluenceof
different factors case by case, critics like Rothman left themselves in a
theoretical void - facing each new historical case without a tested way to
begin an analysis, with no conception of what is fundamentally mportant
and what is not, without a method for examiningthe structureof inter-relationshipsamong the various factors, or of systematicallycomparing he
cases thus studied.
Rothmandescribedhis alternative o Moore'sposition as Weberian. t was
Max Weber,Rothman suggested,who provided- he most thorough critique
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 6/31
305
and alternative theory to Marx's, and Rothman has strong words about
Moore'sattack on Weber. '0But Moorehas emphasized he extent to which
Weber'swork is the basis of much of his own, arguing hat Weber'smethod
resembled Marx's in severalcrucial respects, which distinguishes heir work
from contemporarysocial science.11 Moore wrote that both WeberandMarx
possessed a critical spirit, a refusal to accept the status quo as given, that
had disappearedrom modernsociology (Moorewaswriting n the mid-fifties'
end of ideology interlude); both were steeped in historical study and
possessed a historical perspectiveon present society which has been lost by
contemporary social scientists; and both refused to sacrifice content to
technical virtuosity, as modern social science has done. Marx and Weber,
Moorewrote, in spite of their lack of sophisticatedstatisticaltechnique,had
more to say about significantsocialquestionsthantoday's sociologists.
While Moore recommended Weber's historical work as a model of com-
parativesociology, he was convincedthat Weber'saterwriting particularly
Economy and Society - was characterizedby a decline of historicalperspec-
tive which culminated in an arid desert of definitions - eventually
elaboratedby TalcottParsons.12
Between Weber and Marx, Moore suggested that Marx provided the more
valuable startingpoint. He considered our aspects of Marx'smethod to be of
crucial value to social science today: Marx'sconception of social class as
arising out of an historically speciflc set of economic relationships; his
conception of the class struggleas the basic stuff of politics; his awareness
of the sharp divergencebetween official valuesand aspirations,andthe way a
society actually works;and his sense of the absence of antagonismbetweenscience and morality. For Marx, the whole enterpriseof science makes sense
only in terms of moral convictions, Moore wrote.'3 To this list should be
added Moore's acceptance of Marx's conception of exploitation as an ob-
jective and measurable conomic phenomenon.
Rothman indicated that the Weberian method he was defending against
Moore was a culturalexplanation. 4 Moore, however, n criticizingcultural
explanations, attacks not Weber, but Parsons,15He rejects the Parsonianposition that the culturalfactor is the startingpoint in historical and social
analysis,and anindependentcausal actor in its own right.Mooresays that the
basic errorof those who rely on cultural explanationsis the assumptionof
social inertia, the assumption that continuity of value systems requiresno
explanation, that only change requiresexplanation. Social analysis based on
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 7/31
306
value systems begs the fundamentalquestion. Moorewrites: Whydid this
particularoutlook prevailwhen andwhere it did? The answer o this question
is historical: particularvalues are maintainedand transmittedby particular
groups under particularconditions, often with great pain and suffering. 6
But Rothman himself did not defend the Parsonianposition which Moore
attacks - that culturalvalues, rather han social classes, should be the starting
point for historical analysis. Rothman'sargumentwas much weaker; he says
only that the cultural inheritance of a society is a significantpart of any
explanation, and urges historians to give significant weight to cultural
factors. 7 Moore never denies that cultural values are significant; he does
attempt to explain where they come from and how they function in the
context of social classes.
Parsons himself has referred to Social Origins in his System of Modern
Societies, publishedjust before he retired.18 But, instead of responding o
Moore'scritiqueof his theory, he treatedMoore as a source of half a dozen
facts to be incorporated into a structural-functional nalysis of European
history. Thus Parsons cited Moore as the authority for the statement that
English peasantswere weakerthan the French, and that the French aristoc-
racy was more dependent on the crownthanthe English and fit these into
a value-orientedrather than a class-oriented nalysis.Parson'sdecision not to
defend his own work - the single most important Americanalternative o
Marxistsocial theory - appears o be an implicit admissionof the strengthof
Moore's critique,a recognitionof Moore'ssuccessat demonstrating he value
of classanalysisas a method.
All the criticisms of Moore's method discussed thus far have come from
non-Marxistswho regardMooreas a Marxistof some sort. Marxistcriticismof
Moore's method was radically different. Eric Hobsbawmgenerally praised
Moore's method, but observedthat his focus on relations between landlord
and peasant neglectssome of the more subtleaspectsof ruralsocial structure.
Hobsbawm isted them: ruralsociety's marginal ndmobile strata, ts nuclei
of permamentdissidence and withdrawal,its permanentflux of inter-com-
munal and inter-gentryconflict and alliance,andits occasionalor permanentrecognition of wider social units. Hobsbawmsaid that Moore'schapteron
China in particulardemonstrates hat he is awareof some of these dimen-
sions; Moore'sproblemis that the necessaryprimaryresearchhas not been
done, and the comparativist an only be as good as the materialavailable or
comparison. '9
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 8/31
307
Eugene Genovese has written that he considers Moore's chapter on the
American Civil War the most successful attempt at a Marxiananalysis.
Genovese confined his discussionof Moore to the Americanchapter,without
consideringhis thesis as a whole - a procedurewhich, Genoveserecognized,
risks some distortions. He agreed that Marxian analysis requires the
broader context of comparative concerns such as the one Moore
offers. 20
Within this context of agreement on the general requirementsof Marxian
class analysis, Genovese put forward some ratherstrong criticismof Moore's
American chapter. Genovese shared Moore's concern that class analysisbe
distinguishedsharply from economic determinism,and most of Genovese's
essay on Marxiannterpretationsof the slave south is an attack on various
forms of vulgarMarxiandeterministwriting. But, Genovesewrote, Moore is
so anxious to repel (a) crude economic interpretation hat he concedes far
more ground than is necessary or safe. In arguing hat the Southern class
structure was a separate civilization, Moore minimized the economic
aspect of planter domination, and obscures the class issue, while at the
same time paying little attention to ideology; in consequence, despite a
framework that places social class at the center, he never analyzes the
slaveholders as a class; he merely describes certain of their features and
interests n a tangentialway. 1
Genovesesaid that Moore'sversionof the separatecivilizationargumentdoes
not include an analysisof the planterclass in terms of its economic interests,
ideology, and social relations with the rest of the plantation community.
Such an analysis, Genovesewrote, would consider the hegemonicmecha-nisms of the planters' domination as a special case of class rule - would
considerthe role of planter deology in defendinga particular et of economic
interests.22
Initially it may appearthat in calling for greatattention to the economic
aspect and to ideology, Genovese was makingthe same kind of argumentas
the anti-Marxistswho criticiseMoore for emphasizing he wrong factors n
his thesis, who want to add different variables o the list of effective causesin history. In fact Genovese'sargumentdoes not take this form. Hisargument
is that the method of classanalysisrequiresa more thoroughconsiderationof
the relationshipsand the reciprocalinfluences among different aspects of a
social class; his purpose is not to demonstratethat the economic factor is
causally more important n history that the politicalfactor or the cultural
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 9/31
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 10/31
309
Moore's relation to Marxismwas that of J. H. Plumb,who wrote, for too
long Americanhistorianshavebeen concernedwith narrative,with biography,
or with cultural and institutional history that evades economic and social
roots. Moore's work shows that Marx demonstrated he type of historical
question that needs to be asked,andthe way answersrequire o be framed, f
one is to understand the process of social change. Plumbconcluded that,
with Moore, a new analytic materialisms putting down strongroots. 30
Eric Hobsbawm criticized Moore's thesis from a Marxistperspective. In a
brief review, he agreedwith Moore that modernization n all forms implies
the destructionof the traditionalpeasantry;howeverhe found exaggerated
Moore's argument hat peasantswere moreimportant han industrialworkers
in radicalanti-capitalistmovements.31
In objecting to Moore'sargument hat industrialworkerswerehistorically ess
important than peasants in radical movements, Hobsbawm was of course
upholding the traditional Marxist view. Moore makes it clear that his
sociology of revolution is sharply at odds with Marx's. Moore sees no
revolutionarypotentialwhatsoever n the industrialproletariatat any stageof
the developmentof capitalism.Successfulrevolutionarymovementsfind their
mass base of supportamong the decliningartisansand peasants,rather than
amongthe growing factory proletariat; or Moore,modern social revolutions
are the dying wail of a class over which the wave of progress s about to
roll; they are reactionary rather than progressive n terms of the political
perspectiveof their mass of supporters.Here Moorejoins the ranksof those
who use Marxistcategoriesin an effort to refute Marx AdamUlam and
S. M. Lipset being prominentamongthem.
Hobsbawmalso objected, although with great tact, to the centralterms of
Moore'sanalysis: dictatorship and democracy Hobsbawmputs them in
quotation marks) - which require .. rathermore preliminaryanalysis
than Mooreprovided.
Hobsbawm suggested that Moore'sconception of freedom was the con-
ventional liberalone, limited to a constitutional framework, and was not aMarxistconception. Moore does not dwell on his definition of 'democracy,'
remarking hat concern for such definitions hasa way of leading away from
real issues to trivialquibbling. He defines the developmentof democracy
as a long and certainly incomplete struggle to accomplish three related
goals: first, to check arbitraryrulers; second, to replacearbitraryrules
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 11/31
310
with just and rational ones; third, to obtain a share for the underlying
population in the making of rules. He cites the beheading of kings as
important steps in checking arbitraryrule, and indicates that he considers
efforts to establish the rule of law, the powerof the legislature,and laterto
use the state as an engine for socialwelfare as steps toward establishingust
and rational rulesand increasingpopularparticipation.32Hobsbawmsuggests
that we ask whetherthere is anythinghere that challenges he assumptionsof
cold-war iberalhistoriography.
I think there is. First, Moore does not equate fascism and communism,but
distinguishes hem sharplyand evaluatesthem differently. Second, he argues
that liberalhistorianshave tended to accept the rulingclass'sown definition
of what is just and rational, when in fact it can be shown that they are
simply providingan ideological ustification for rulingclassinterests.33
Third, Moore challenges cold-warliberal conceptions of democracy by his
attention to the repressiverole played by Westerndemocracies n the Third
World.Moorepoints to imperialism nd to America's armedstruggleagainst
revolutionary movements in backward areas as evidence that liberal
democracyhas startedto turn into [an] ideology that justifiesand conceals
numerous formsof repression. 34While t canbe shown that this relationship
is not one which has started recently,Moore'sposition is to the left of the
cold-war iberalone.
AlthoughMooreexpressesthis criticismof the activitiesof the United States
the ThirdWorld,he does not indicate muchabout the state of democracyand
freedom within contemporary America. He would probably agree with
Joseph Featherstone'sargument hat it would be a mistaketo conclude that
because this freedom was taintedor incomplete,it was not worthhaving. At
the same time, Featherstone saw Moore arguing that revolution is no
guaranteeof freedom, citing Moore's statement that the claims of existing
socialist states to representa higher form of freedom than Westerndemo-
craticcapitalismrest on promises,not performance. 35
Lawrence Stone had a critique of Moore's political categorieswhich wassimilarto Hobsbawm's.Stone wrote that Moore'sconceptionsof dictatorship
and democracywere based on formalist, institutional,andlegalstandards.
Mooreacceptsthe notion that the institutionsof Anglo-Saxonsocieties(are)
the last word in political equity and wisdom, Stone wrote,36 He stated
explicitly what Hobsbawm only implied, that Moore's conception of the
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 12/31
311
problem of the development of twentieth-century dictatorship and demo-
cracy has its origins in the cold-war scholarshipof the late forties and early
fifties.
Stone's own critiqueof these views has an ad hoc qualityand lacksany firm
theoreticalbasis that could rivalHobsbawm's mplicit Marxism.Hewrote that
Moore was wrong to have a formal constitutional conception of democracy
because we now realizethat what matters s the state of mind which governs
the rulers. This appearsto be a suggestion that psychological analysis of
rulers replace formal analysis of the rules. Stone concluded that Moore's
political conceptions should be less legalisticand more anthropological. 37
Surely the basis on which formal analysisof political institutions should be
rejected is that it does not lead to a satisfactory understanding f power -
which groups use it to achieve what, and by what means, formal and
informal. Neither anthropology nor psychohistory have been particularly
concernedwith these questions;thus Stone's position does not seem to be a
satisfactoryone.
Stone's argumenton the cold-warform of Moore'sstatementof the problemis more substantial, though equally problematic. To pose the problem of
dictatorshipversus democracy is an historical anachronism oday, Stone
argued; t is to exaggerate he historical mportanceof the thirties andforties.
In 1945 or 1950 it seemed that the rise of Stalin andHitlerwas the greatest
development of modern times, the culmination of centuries of historical
development; Stone believes this view to have been wrong. Fascism and
Stalinism, he wrote, both now look like short-term ransitionphasesrather
than permanentand deep-seated tructuralphenomena. 38Cyril Black agreedwith Stone's view of what can be called the culminationproblem. in what
sense did the conservativeroute taken by Germanyand Japan culminate' n
fascism? Blackasked, observing hat in neithercountry did fascismsurvive
for more than a dozen years. 39 The criteriaby which Black in particular
separates genuine 'culminations'from brief 'interludes'seems to be simply
temporalduration dependingupon the brevityof the phase,rather hanthe
extent of socialor politicaltransformationwhich areinvolved.
As evidence for his view, Stone cited the apparentsuccess of democratic
institutions in post-war Germany,Italy, and Japan, and the apparentevolu-
tion of the Soviet Union toward increasedpolitical participationand personal
freedom. He concluded that in studying the social origins of dictatorship
and democracy, Moore is not asking a significant question; a better
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 13/31
312
question would be: under what conditions a given society is likely to pass
through a relatively brief authoritarianphase as it enters the modern world.
However, he regardedeven this question as not a terribly important one,
since the phase is not likely to be prolonged much beyond the period of
industrial akeoff. 40
Stone's reasoning overlooks elementary facts. In the thirties, Germanyand
the Soviet Union were at radicallydifferent stages of development; t hardly
seems necessary to point out that German ndustry in 1933 was far beyond
take-off. Even if we accept all the assumptionsbehind Stone's argument,
the conclusion based on the German case would be that an authoritarian
phase s likely to occurin some of the most developed ndustrialcountriesat
times of capitalist crises, rather than, as Stone sees it, that such a phase will
come in the less developedcountriesat the time of take-off. ,4'
Stone arguedthat because there are short-term luctuations n the degree of
liberty and democracy in different societies, Moore may not be asking a
significant question in seeking the social origins of democracy. Stone cited
the Greek colonel's coup of 1968 as an example of such a short-term
fluctuation; Greece was a constitutional democracy from 1948 to 1968, and
now is in a period of right-wingdictatorship;Stone asked, how then is it
possibleto discusssocial originsfor such relativelybriefpolitical phases?
Moore's thesis in this regard s that industrialdevelopmenttends to culminate
in fascism unless there is social revolution which destroys the power of the
traditionalelite. MichaelWalzerhas appliedthis thesisto the case Stone cites
against Moore - the Greek colonel's coup. Walzerarguedthat American
foreign aid in the 1948-68 period promotedGreek economic development
while it repressedradical social change, with the consequence of simulta-
neously reinforcing oligarchicrule and threateningit - threateningit by
enhancingthe resentmentand capacities of the underlyingpopulation, at
the same time providing the elite with the material forces to meet the
threat. 42The result was the rise of fascism. Walzerconcluded that the
Moore thesis providesan excellent analysis of the social basis of post-war
Greekpolitical developments.
Stone also cited the developmentof democraticpolitics in post-warGermany
and Japanas evidencethat fascismwas a short-term ransitionphase rather
than the culmination of deep-seated structural phenomena. N. Gordon
Levin had a more consistent and more satisfactory analysisof this develop-
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 14/31
313
ment. He arguedthat the defeats and occupations of 1945 may be seen as
providing n some sense the bourgeois revolutionswhich Germanyand Japan
both missed; if this is the case, then the post-1945 constitutional politics
Stone cited againstMoore seem to bearout his general heory. 43Thus, for
Moore,one way or another, the violent destructionof the traditionalagrarian
ruling class is necessary if democracy is to have a chance in a developing
society - destruction either throughsocial revolution,or internationalwar;
either by the exploited classes, or by foreign powers. Moore believes the
choice is between Jacobin terrorand Nazi horrors.
Black's criticism focused on Moore's contention that his types constituted
successive historical stages. In what sense have democracy, fascism, and
communismsucceededeach other? he asked,arguing hat the introduction
of Communism . . preceded that of fascism. 44What Moore says is that
''conservativerevolutions from above bringabout successfulmodernization
before peasant revolutions do, which is only to say that Germany ndustri-
alized before Russia and China.45 Fascism does not appearin nineteenth-
century Germany,but conservativemodernization,which later culminates n
fascism, does. It is in this sense that what Moore calls the reactionary
experience of industrializationprecedes the communistmethod.
N. Gordon Levin also noted Moore's account of the relationship between
the reactionary experience and fascism. Levin saw Moore arguing con-
traryto the traditional Marxistview that Germanfascismwas not the last
stageof a dyingand threatenedmonopoly capitalism,but rather he defensive
maneuverof a capitalismwhich has never really been triumphant. 46Here
Levin misread Moore. It was democracy that had neverbeen triumphant nGermany,not capitalism; he Germaneconomy was thoroughly capitalistby
the 1930's, but the political system was far from being thoroughly demo-
cratic. Mooreemphasizesthat the reactionaryroad has been as successful as
the bourgeois democratic one at transforming agrarian nto industrial so-
cieties, as GermanyandJapanprove; t is nonsense o believe otherwise,he
writes.47Whatdistinguishes hese two routes is not their successat industri-
alization, but rather he political practiceswhich accompanythat process.
Stanley Rothman, whose review article in the AmericanPolitical Science
Review was the most critical, and most intemperate, summarizedwhat he
believed to be Moore's propositions, which took twenty pages for
Rothmanto disprove: All industrialization as ... been more or less equally
violent and repressive;all ruling classes are ... equally exploitative; and
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 15/31
314
fascism is . .. the necessaryoutcome of so-called 'conservative ndustrializa-
tion.' 48 It is difficult to believe that such a massive failureto understand
Moore's book could not be willful. Mooredoes not say all industrialization
has been equally violent and repressive; he whole point of identifying
distinctive types of modernization or Moore is to distinguish heir different
costs. He concludes that the route of moderation and gradualism reates at
least as much, and probably more suffering than revolutionarymoderniza-
tion, and arguesthat the greatest violence and repression s asoociated with
industrializationunder conservativeauspices.As Joseph Featherstonewrote,
for Moore thereis pointless sufferingand suffering hat leadsto progressand
even to freedom. 49
Moore does not believe that all rulingclasses are equally exploitative. He
arguesthat exploitation has an objective characterwhich canbe measured n
terms of rewardsand privilegescommensuratewith the socially necessary
services rendered by the upper class. 50This varies among societies and
historical periods;Moore arguesthat the less the degree of exploitation, the
greater he chancesfor social stability in a particular ociety.
Moore does not arguethat fascism s the necessaryoutcome of moderniza-
tion under conservativeauspices. He writes that where the [reactionary]
coalition succeedsin establishing tself, there has followed a prolongedperiod
of conservativeand even authoritarian overnment,which, however, fallsfar
short of fascism; in Germany, Italy and Japan, fascism eventually took
power (as it did in Poland, RomanianHungary,Spain and Greece), but it
failed in other countries, even those where the same reactionary syn-
drome was present - notably Russia, India, and early nineteenth-century
England.5'Moorespendsseveralpagesexplainingwhy periodsof conservative
modernization ed to fascist rulein some cases but not others.
One of Moore's most radical conclusions is that revolutionaryviolence has
been a prerequisitefor liberal government constitutional democracy has
succeeded only where a social revolution has taken place. One might think
that many would object to this conclusion, but only one reviewer did:
Lawrence Stone. Stone characterizedMoore's argument as the Catharsistheory of history, and saidhe was in seriousdisagreement with Mooreon
a basic judgmentabout the moral and practical ustificationfor the use of
violence. He arguedagainstMoore that such violence is . . . almost always
self-defeating, citing the FrenchRevolution as a casein which the evil they
did came out of the violence they employed. 52This is indeed exactly the
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 16/31
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 17/31
316
in dealing with contemporary problems of modernizationand democratiza-
tion?
At the same time that he argues that only the communist model offers
realhope for developingcountries ike India, Moore s not enthusiasticover
the prospects of political freedom developing under such governments.
Communism, ike liberalism,he writes, has startedto turn into an ideology
that justifies and conceals numerous forms of repression. The common
feature of both, he writes, is repressive practice covered by talk of
freedom; it is dubious in the extreme that the opressivetendencies in
either systemwill be overcome.60
3. The Case Studies
The simplest kind of critique of Moore's book is for a reviewerto pick the
chapter on which he is a specialist, and attack Moore for ignoringrecent
monographs,for exaggeratingor misunderstanding articulardevelopments,
for comingto the materialwith categoriesthat don't necessarilyfit it - and
to conclude as the basis of one of the case studies that the book is seriouslyflawed, without considering he author'scornparativemethod or his thesis.
However, the increasing nterest in comparative tudies of development has
made such critiquesless tenable, and few in fact appeared n print.No doubt
the practiceof assigningbooks for reviewto writerswith similarcomparative
interests played a role. Severalreviewers n fact explicitly rejectedthe tactic:
LawrenceStone wrote, it is very easy, but perhapsnot very fruitful norvery
generous,for the local expert to pick holes in particularchapters, and EricHobsbawmcommented, it would be easy but pointlessfor the specialists o
criticise any one of the case studies; Hobsbawmexplained that the com-
parativeanalyst does not competewith the specialists,he exploits them and
may have to question them. 6' Nevertheless, the reviews sometimes con-
tained criticism of specific interpretationsin the case studies, and these
deserveconsideration.
Moore'schapteron the AmericanCivil Warevokedmorediscussion han anyother single chapter,apparentlybecausemoreof the reviewerswerehistorians
of the United Statesthanof any other country.
Most frequently discussedwas Moore's argument hat the key to American
democracy lies in the Civil War more than in the Revolution. Reinhard
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 18/31
317
Bendix asked, why discuss the social origin of Americandemocracy by
reference to the Civil Warratherthan the Americanrevolution? and David
Lowenthal similarly suggested that Moore should have focused on the
RevolutionaryWarand the basic tenets of the Declarationof Independence
and the Constitution if he wanted to understand Americandemocracy.62
Perez Zagorin wrote that Moore's view of the Civil War as a bourgeois
revolution was incompatible with his argument that southern plantation
slaverywas economicallycompatiblewith Northerncapitalism. 63Lawrence
Stone askedwhether, if a reactionarycoalition was formedafter the failure
of Reconstruction, the civil war was in fact not negotiable after all, if the
resultshavebeen as decisiveas Mooresupposes. 64
Other reviewers disagreed with these objections, restating Moore's case.
Joseph Featherstone describedMoore'sAmericanchapteras persuasivebut
uneasy, arguingthat Moore has some difficulty fitting America into his
scheme, andobserving hat it is characteristic f his scholarship o lay weak
cardson the table as well as strong. 65MichaelRogin'sevaluationwas more
favorable;he found Moore's bourgeoisrevolution argumentto be bril-
liantly relevant, arguingthat the Civil War delayed and weakened the
foundations of an alliancewhich, . . . in a slave-owningcountry, would have
been profoundly anti-democratic. 66C. Vann Woodwardsimilarly empha-
sized the importance of Moore's argumentthat the Civil Warwas crucial,
agreeing that it broke the power of landed resistanceto democratic and
capitalistadvance. 67
Stanley Rothman also raised a number of objections to Moore'sAmerican
chapter.Moorearguedthat industrialization nder the auspicesof a Prussian-
styled reactionarycoalition of northern industrialistsand southern planters
was an alternative o war in 1960; Rothmanfound this absurd, and went
on to argue that Reconstruction was not liquidated by such a reactionary
coalition.68 He cited Genovese and Woodwardas his authoritieson these
points; however, both have sided with Moore in subsequent publications.69
Finally Rothmanquestioned the analogyMooredrawsbetween slave-owning
planters and Prussian Junkers, arguing that class divisions among white
southernerswere less sharp than in Europe.70Genoveseobjected to the sameanalogy,but on radically differentgrounds;he saw the southernplantersas a
clearly delineated social class, but more reactionarythan the Junkers, who
Genovesesuggestsweremoremodernthan Mooreindicates.71
David Lowenthal, writing in History and Theory, put forward the only
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 19/31
318
objections to appear n print to Moore's favorableevaluation of the goals of
Radical Reconstructionafter the AmericanCivil War the abolition of the
planters as a class and the transformation f formerslaves nto small farmers.
Lowenthal spoke of the immorality of destroying a white South, which
had an explicit constitutionalright to slavery.He askedwhether American
democracy could have survived the moral shock of a successful Radical
Reconstruction: that Moore does not even raise such questions is yet
another sign of the great harm done to the criticalfacultiesby an imprudent,
doctrinaire,and evenfanaticalradicalism, Lowenthalwrites.72It is not clear
whether the fanaticalradicalism n questionis that of the RadicalRepubli-
cans, or Moore. Lowenthal's racism was an isolated phenomenon among
Moore'scritics.
Lee Benson'sidiosyncraticcriticismof Moore'sAmericanchapterwas partof
his projectto discreditandeventuallyabolish the establishedhistoriographic
system and to reorient and reorganizethe social sciences. 73 Moore's
chapter represents the best work done to date on Civil Warcausation,
Benson wrote; yet, to understand t is to dismiss it as not worth serious
consideration. t is significantprimarilybecause the seriousnesswith which
it has been taken indicates something must be radicallywrong with the
historiographic ystem. 74
Moore's basic problem in Benson's view is that the question he asked -
what caused the Civil War? is useless. He should have asked who
caused it.75 To the extent that Benson was able to translate Moore's
arguments into answers to this question, it appears that the answer is
northernpoliticians. But, Bensonasked, whatevidencedid he offer . . . tosupport that claim? None. 76 Moore, however, did not attempt to answer
Benson's question; it seems unfair to criticize him for failing to provide
evidencefor an argumenthe didnot make.
Aside from his Americanchapter, Moore'sEnglishcase study was the only
one which was commented on by more than two or three reviewers.
Lawrence Stone argued that Moore's conclusions about the peasants and
revolutiondid not fit the Englishcase very well. Mooreheld that democraticmodernizationrequiredthe destruction of the peasantryas a social class -
the eliminationof agricultureas the primaryactivity of a majority of the
population. And Moore described the enclosures of eighteenth-century
England as a social upheaval which destroyed the whole structure of
English peasant society as embodied in the ruralvillage. Stone wrote that
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 20/31
319
this interpretation flies in the face of modernscholarship, whichhas found
that enclosureswere a slow, relativelyequitable processthat improved he
ruralstandardof living by providingmore food. Stanley Rothmanalso sided
with the revisionistsagainstMoore on the enclosurequestion.77
Hobsbawm, like Stone, observed that Moore's view on enclosures runs
counter to recent fashions in scholarship, but Hobsbawm found Moore's
position perfectly tenable, because Hobsbawm was not convinced that
recent fashions in scholarship had resolvedthe issue- as Stone apparently
was.78 The position Moore took seems to be a reasonable one, which
recognized the revisionist evidence: though the enclosures may not have
been as brutal or as thoroughas some earlierwriters have led us to think.
Moorewrites, they eliminated he peasantquestion fromEnglishpolitics in
a way that did not occur in Germany,France,Russiaor China.79
Stone's second criticismof the English chapterwas that during he CivilWar
the English peasantry remained passive and quiescent, that after 1549
England did not have constant, desperate, ferocious peasant revolts. 80
Stone stated this as a disagreementwith Moore,but in fact it is one of the
problems Moore is investigating:he calls the peasants'role in the Englishcivil
war trivial, rejects many explanationsof that fact, and concludes that the
most importantreason for it was the riseof commercialagriculturebefore the
war.8' However, Moore does conclude that the process of modernization
begins with peasant revolutions that fail, and Stone rightly suggestedthat
this is not the way Mooreexplainsmodernization n England.82
J. H. Plumb argued that Moore exaggerates he extent of bourgeoisrevolu-
tion in 17th century England, .. a great deal of land in 18th century
Englandwas still held for status rather than for profit. 83And Stone agreed
that Moore greatly exaggerates he degree to which English society . .. had
gone over to a competitive, individualistic,commercializedvalue system in
the seventeenth century.84Moore'sargument,however, is not that the value
system changed, but ratherthat the structureof social classesdid: he rejects
analysisof social change n terms of value systems.
There was little discussion or criticism of the French case study. Stone
devoted one paragrapho variouspoints of disagreement, nd concluded that
Moore's analysis seems acceptable although one could quarrel over
details. 85Rothmanbelieved Mooreunderestimated he costs of the Revolu-
tion and exaggerated ts achievements.86Zagorin chargedthat Moore does
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 21/31
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 22/31
321
exclusion of Sweden and Norway was problematical, and Edith M. Link
wrote in the Journal of Economic History that it is not clear how the
Moorethesiswould explainEasternEuropetoday.94
Moore anticipated these objections in his introduction; smallercountries
depend economically and politically on big and powerful ones, he wrote;
thus the decisive causes of their politics lie outside their own boundaries,
and their political problemsare not really comparableto those of larger
countries. His concern is with innovationthat has led to political power,
not with the spreadand reception of institutions thathave beenhammered
out elsewhere. 95
Moore did not include chapterson RussiaandGermany,which play a central
role in his thesis, but few reviewers criticized these omissions. David
Lowenthalpointed out that Mooredevotes muchless time to the differences
and similaritiesof Russian and Chinese communism than he does to German
and Japanesefascism;he rightly suggestedthat it is the Russian,more than
the Germancase, that poses potentialproblems or Moore's hesis.96
Moore's exclusion of the Russian case certainly does not rest on his own
ignorance;he spent the earlieryears of his careerstudying Soviet politics.97
He writes in the prefaceto Social Originsthat he discarded he draft of a
Russian chapter because first-rate accounts became available during the
course of writingto which it was impossiblefor me to add anything. 98That
is, the story of classrelations n the RussianRevolution is told elsewhere.But
in his bibliography,Moore lists only two books on Russia published since
1949: Franco Venturi'sRoots of Revolution, and Jerome Blum'sLord andPeasant in Russia Neither deals with the twentieth century; neither answers
what for Moore s the absolutelycrucialquestion: what role did the industrial
proletariatplay in the Russian Revolution?If the revolutionwas based on an
anti-capitalisturban proletariat,then it does not fit Moore'sChina-oriented
type of peasant revolution. Moore'sassertionthat the proletariathasnever
played a revolutionaryanti-capitalist role must be abondoned, and some
fourth type of modernizationmust be created to account for the Russian
case.
The problemwith the Russian case is to understand he relationshipbetween
the revolutionary leadership, the urban proleteriat, and the peasantry.
Moore's French case study provides a key: in France, he wrote, the urban
laborers made the bourgeois revolution, while the peasants determined
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 23/31
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 24/31
323
Moore does go on to argue that there may be a point at which quantitative
evidence becomes inapplicable,wherecountingbecomes the wrong procedure
to use. 105 The key question is obviously where the point is. Moore never
says it is wrong to count membersof Parliamentduringthe Civil War,or to
count victims of the Terror, or the number of small farms that survived
enclosure,as long as that countingis done with an awarenessof the natureof
the evidence and the problem under investigation.Hisargument s that there
are qualitativechangesfrom one type of social organization o another -
such as the transition from feudalism o capitalism in which theremay be
an upperlimit to the profitableuse of statistics. '06Can Stone reallybelieve
these cautiousand qualifiedstatementsamountto obscurantism?
4. Conclusion
The critical response to Moore'sSocial Originsmay revealas much about the
present state of social science as it does about the book itself. While the
critics accused Moore of an excessive emphasis on economic factors, the
economistsandeconomichistoriansvirtually gnoredthe book; while Moore's
case studies were all historical, national historians have tended to overlook
them.'07 The academicgroupwhichshowed the greatest nterestwas the new
field of comparativemodernization, which consists mostly of sociologists
and sociologically-orientedhistorians. Criticsof this school were enthusiastic
about the interdisciplinaryand comparativeaspect of the book, but tended
not to discussthe theoretical ssuespresentedby Moore, except for a vigorous
defense of non-Marxistand anti-Marxistpositions. In generalthe critics did
not defend value neutrality, which Mooreattacked, and were impressedby
Moore's case for progressive iolence, but eagerto move on to other topics,instead of considering he implicationsof these issues. Therewere only a few
committed cold warriors;Stanley Rothman described Moore as a former
fellow traveller, and Gabriel Almond indicated that Moore was soft on
communism,but these argumentswere the exception rather han the rule.108
Moorehas demonstrated hat an analysisof changes n the structureof social
classesis the most fruitfulmethod by which to study comparativemoderniza-
tion. The Moore thesis stands - because the critics either did not attemptto make, or else did not succeed at making,arguments hat would lead to its
rejection.As the T.L.S. reviewerwrote, Moore's hesis imposes imitationsas
well as offering opportunities. But the limitations appear fewer, and the
opportunities greater, than in any alternative approach . . this [is] a very
importantbook indeed; t may even be a great one. 109
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 25/31
324
Unfortunately, a large proportion of the critical remarks arose out of a
misunderstanding f Moore'smethod. This suggests hat a majorweaknessof
Moore'sbook is that he did not spell out more clearlythe distinction between
his method of class analysis and the alternative positivist and empiricist
explanations in terms of factors and variables. n this respect his 1959
essay Strategyin Social Science is essential supplementaryreading. 0 As
GianfrancoPoggi wrote in the British Joumal of Sociology, Moore is not
explicit enough ... about his theoretical assumptions and his conceptual
apparatus; t would have been helpful had he clarified the theoretical
significance of this thesis. ' It is unlikely that such a clarificationof his
method would have changedthe minds of his positivistand empiricistcritics,
but at least the issues would be clearer.
Given that Moore has demonstrated the superiority of class analysis of
comparativemodernization, he question which remains s one of weaknesses
in his methodand conclusions,aspectsin which the comparative lass analysis
of modernization could be strengthened. The least satisfactory case in
Moore'sbook itself is the Russianone. If the RussianRevolution does not fit
his model of peasant revolution,but is some kind of a proletarianmovement,
it may be necessaryto modify the Moore thesis; thus an analysisof Russian
developments along the lines set out in Social Originswould be one of the
most importantcontributionsto the comparative lassanalysisof moderniza-
tion.'12
The analysisof Europeandevelopmentscould be strengthenedby makinguse
of the Marxian concepts of the feudal mode of production and the
transitionfrom feudalismto capitalism. Moore covers similarground by
analyzing how the links between lord and peasant in traditional society
change with the introduction of commercial agriculture,but he does not
begin with an explicit analysisof the feudalsystem of classrelations. Such
a considerationwould offer a clearer ense of the startingpoint of the process
of change in Europe; it would also providethe opportunity for considering
the relationshipbetween demographicchangeand the social transformations
Moore describes.
The comparativeclass analysis of modernizationwould be furtherstrength-
ened by a fuller and more explicit considerationof the ideological aspectof
these developments - of the mannerin which classesbecome conscious of
their positions, and of the termsin whichthe conflictsarefought out (or not
fought out). Puritanism n seventeenth-centuryEngland,to make a familiar
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 26/31
325
case, hardly enters into Moore's analysis - because it was an urban
phenomenon, and he focuses on rural society - but it obviously plays a
crucialrole in shaping the self-conceptionsand political goals of the popular
revolutionary groups, a role which cannot be understood simply as reflec-
tion or superstructure. Moore'sappendix on reactionaryand revolu-
tionary imagery provides a significant contributionto the study of ideology
in relation to the three types of modernization.)
It would be useful to analyze the histories of smaller countries from the
perspective of comparativesocial class developments. For example, Michael
Walzerhas suggested that the Moorethesis be used to compare Greek with
Yugoslavdevelopments since World War I - by contrastingthe genuinely
indigenous insurrection which established socialist Yugoslavia with the
relatively ophistical ntervention of the Britishand Americans n Greece to
defeat social revolution and lead Greece down the capitalist road. The
question Walzerproposes is, what price has Yugoslaviapaid for destroying,
and Greece for failing to destroy, the social and institutional basis of old
authoritarianismand traditionalistmythology? '114 t seems likely that a
numberof comparative tudies along these lines would be possible - South-
east Asia and LatinAmericabeingobviouschoices.
Moore's concept of the reactionarycoalition of a persistent traditional
landed elite with a weakmodernizingbourgeoisie s one of the richestaspects
of his thesis; t deservescontinuingattention. It shouldbe particularlyhelpful
in analyzing social and political developments in contemporary Latin
America, the Middle East, and elsewhere. Perhaps t would be possible to
distinguishvariations n the revolutionfrom above model to explain why,
in some countries, the reactionarycoalition remains n a traditionalauthori-
tarianphase,while in others it moves toward a fully developedfascism.
Many would appreciateseeingMoore'sargumenton the industrialproletariat
spelled out in greaterdetail. That the most industriallydevelopedcountries
have not had proletarianrevolutions is a commonplaceobservation; t would
be interesting to learn of Moore's evaluation of the relative importanceof
capitalist concessions and repression,of liberal hegemony, of reformism nthe laborbureaucracy, ndof CommunistandSoviet strategy.
Finally, there is the question of the practical implicationsof Moore'sthesis,
of the relationshipof the student of comparativeclass developmentto his
own work. The Weltanschauungwhich informs Moore's work is closer to
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 27/31
326
Weber's heroic pessimism than to Marx's optimistic attempts to unite
theory with revolutionary practice.115Moore works as a politically isolated
individual;he is associatedwith no movement, intellectual or political. As
Peter Nettl wrote, Moore is a loner, ' a radical of great and austere
scholarship. 16 He sees his task not as a political one, but as a personaland
intellectual one - to work until he can comprehendthe whole; to find the
facts, and then face them like a man, howeverunpromising hat may be.
Whenhe has accomplished hat, he believeshis work is done. Marx,of course,
would havethought otherwise.
NOTES
1. GabrielA. Almond,Reviewof SocialOrigins,AmericanPoliticalScienceReview,
61 (1967), p. 769; Lee Benson, Towardthe Scientific Study of History (Philadelphia,
1972), p. 243; David Lowenthal, Review Essay on Social Origins, History and
Theory, 7 (1968), p. 296; C. E. Black, Review of Social Origins,American Histori-cal Review, 72 (1967), p. 1338. See also Stein Rokkan, Models and Methods in
the Comparative Study of Nation-Building, in T. J. Nossiter, et. al. (eds.). Imagina-
tion and Precision in the Social Sciences (London, 1972), pp. 136-37; Lawrence
Stone, News from Everywhere, New York Review of Books, 9 (24 August 1967),
p. 34; Lester H. Salamon, Comparative History and the Theory of Moderniza-
tion, WorldPolitics, 23 (1970), p. 100; Reinhard Bendix, Review of Social Origins,
Political Science Quarterly, 82 (1967), p. 626; Isaac Kramnik, Reflections on
Revolution: Definition and Explanation in Recent Scholarship, History and
Theory, 11 (1972), p. 40.
2. Stanley Rothman, Barrington Moore and the Dialectics of Revolution: An Essay
Review, American Political Science Review, 64 (1970), p. 82-162. Rothman set thetone for his attack on Moore with an opening epigram taken from Through the
Looking Class. Alice asks Humpty Dumpty whether you can make words mean so
many different things, to which comes the reply, the question is, which is to be
the master - that's all. Rothman thus suggested that Moore is a kind of authoritar-
ian Marxist Humpty Dumpty to whom he seeks to play Alice.
3. Rothman, pp. 62, 63.
4. See also Eugene D. Genovese, Marxian Interpretations of the Slave South, in In
Red and Black: MarxianExplorationsin Southern and Afro-AmericanHistory
(New York, 1972), and E. J. Hobsbawm, KarlMarx'sContribution to Historiogra-
phy, in Robin Blackburn (ed.),Ideology in Social Science (London, 1972).
5. Karl Marx, The GermanIdeology; see also Genovese, pp. 322-25. Gianfranco Poggi
provided a good brief summary of the conceptions that underlie Moore's method:
an intrinsically, objectively exploitative relationship typically binds the upper and
lower strata; the maintainance of this relationship involves the systematic use of
coercion; the critical process is that whereby the productive surplus yielded by the
labor of the majority is extracted from it and allocated within the minority. Poggi,
Reviewof Social Origins,BritishJournalof Sociology, 19 (1968), p. 216.
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 28/31
327
6. Moore, Social Origins, pp. 428, 453-54. Reviewing J. H. Hexter's attack on
Tawney for being an economic determinist, Moore writes, this is simply untrue ...
Tawney has written one of the best eloquent warnings against doctrinaire
determinist history that has ever come to my attention, p. 8, n. 8. Rothman's
critique of Moore simply reiteratcs the Hexter attack on Tawney.
7. Rothman, pp. 66, 67.
8. Stone, p. 34; Bendix, p. 626; Almond, p. 769; Benson, p. 243; Black, p. 1338. Dean
C. Tipps, Modernization Theory and the Comparative Study of Societies: A
Critical Perspective, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 15 (1973),
pp. 199-226, criticizes others but ignores Moore.
9. Rothman, p. 66-67.
10. Rothman, p. 65.
11. Moore, Strategy in Social Science, Political Power and Social Theory (New York,1956).
12. Moore, Strategy,
13. Moore, Strategy, p. 1 17.
14. Lester Salamon was similarly concerned with alternative 'cultural' explanations to
Moore's questions. He suggested it was not the persistence of a pre-modern elite
that contributed to the rise of German fascism but rather the absence of political
skill among the German bourgeoisie. If they had had a greater capacity to
organize, Salamon wrote, they would have been better able to resist the rise of
fascism. But where does political skill come from? Salamon says from cultural
values, p. 19.
15. Moore, Social Origins, p. 486 n. Moore cites Weber's historical work favorably on atleast three occasions: pp. 121, 172, 220.
16. Moore, Social Origins, p. 486. Poggi considered Moore's critique of cultural
explanations to be his outstanding contribution. Poggi, p. 217.
17. Rothman, p. 64. At every point where Rothman offers Weber as an alternative to
Moore, he footnotes not Weber himself, but Reinhard Bendix, Max Weber: An
Intellectual Portrait - an introductory interpretation which many, including
Moore, reject. See for instance H. Stuart Hughes' review in American Historical
Review, 66 (1960), p. 154-55. Irving Zeitlin, in Ideology and Social Theory also
argues against Bendix for the compatibility of Weber with Marx.
18. Talcott Parsons, The System of Modern Societies (Englewood Cliffs, N. J., (1972).19. E. J. Hobsbawm, Review of Social Origins, American Sociological Review,
32 (1967), p. 36.
20. Genovese, pp. 345, 348.
21. Genovese, pp. 346, 347.
22. Genovese, p. 348.
23. Bendix, p. 626.
24. Michael Rogin, Review of Social Origins, Book Week,4 ( 1 January 1967), p. 5.
25. Genovese, p. 353 n. 58.
26. C. Vann Woodward, Comparative Political History, Yale Review, 56 (1967),
p. 453.
27. Lawrence Stone, Causes of the English Revolution (New York, 1972), p. 148 n. 5.28. Lord and Peasant, Times Literary Supplement,3434 (21 December 1967),
p. 1231.
29. Joseph Featherstone, Modern Times, New Republic, 156 (7 January 1967),
p. 347.
30. J. H. Plumb, How It Happened, New York Times Book Review, 171 (9 October
1966), p. 11. See also James H. Meisel, Origins: A Dialogue. Tape-Recorded,
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 29/31
328
Michigan Quarterly Review, 7 (1968), pp. 135-38; A. L. Stinchcombe, Review of
Social Origins,HarvardEducationalReview, 37 (1967), p. 291-92.
31. Hobsbawm, Review, p. 882.32. Moore, Social Origins, p. 414.
33. However, Moore does not attempt to deal with the thorny issues in the Marxian
critique of the notion of justice. See John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cam-
bridge, 1971); Allen W. Wood, The Marxian Critique of Justice, Philosophy and
Public Affairs, 1 (1972), pp. 244-82.
34. Moore, Social Origins, p. 508; Gareth Stedman Jones and Robin Blackburn criticize
Moore for overlooking the connection between the imperialism he condemns and
the bourgeois democracy he admires. Jones, The History of U.S. Imperialism, in
Blackburn, Ideology in Social Science, p. 219-20; 1 1.
35. Featherstone, pp. 34, 36.36. Stone, New YorkReview, p. 32.
37. Stone, p. 32.
38. Stone, p. 32.
39. Black, p. 1338.
40. Stone, p. 32.
41. Furthermore, Stone does not seem to recognize that Rostow's stages of economic
growth notion is radically incompatible with Moore's version of Marxian class
analysis of modernization, that Moore emphatically rejects the understanding of
industrialization in terms of the one-dimensional concept of take-off: that is the
whole point in developing a theory of different types of modernization.
42. Michael Walzer, The Condition of Greece, Dissent, 14 (1967), p. 429.43. N. Gordon Levin Jr., Paths to Industrial Modernity, Dissent, 14 (1967), p. 241.
44. Black, p. 1338.
45. Moore, Social Origins, p. 414.
46. Levin, p. 241.
47. Moore, Social Origins, p. 438.
48. Rothman.
49. Featherstone, p. 34.
50. Moore, Social Origins, p. 470.
51. Moore, Social Origins, pp. 437, 442. Rothman also criticized Moore for failing to
see the irony and genuine tragedy in the historical developmentshe
describes;Rothman says Moore lacks the sense that history consists of tragic encounters
among men equally caught up in their own limitations. (p. 81) I would agree that
Moore's book does lack this kind of ahistorical pseudo-significant thought.
52. Stone, p. 34. Stone's criticism of Moore is reviewed in Henry Bienen, Violence and
Social Change (Chicago, 1968), p. 79.
53. At the same time that Stone deplores Moores' defense of revolutionary violence by
arguing that such violence is evil, Stone characterizes German fascism as a
short-term transition phase. Some might see an inconsistency in Stone's evalua-
tion of revolutionary violence in comparison to reactionary violence.
54. Featherstone, p. 43.
55. Rogin, p. 5.56. Woodward, p. 453; Almond, p. 769.
57. Almond, p. 770.
58. Featherstone, p. 37; see also Werner L. Gundersheimer, Journey to Synthesis,
Reporter, 36 (9 March 1967), p. 59; Gilbert Shapiro, Review of Social Origins,
American Sociological Review, 32 (1967), p. 820; Black, p. 1338. On the other
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 30/31
329
hand, Rothman believes the Moore thesis is not applicable... to much of the
'ThirdWorld.' Rothman, p. 61-62.
59. Moore, Social Origins, pp. 408-10. Kramnik observes that Moore is virtually aloneamong theorists of modernization in advocating this position.
60. Moore, Social Origins, p. 508.
61. Stone, p. 32; Hobsbawm, p. 82. A similar view was expressed by Gundersheimer,
p. 58; see also Review of Social Origins, Virginia Quarterly Review, 43 (1967), p.
cliv.
62. Bendix, p. 627; Lowenthal, p. 267. A similar view was expressed by Joseph Gus-
field, Review of Social Origins, Social Forces,46 (1967), p. 114.
63. Perez Zagorin, Theories of Revolution in Contemporary Historiography, Political
Science Quarterly, 88 (1973), p. 41.
64. Stone, p. 34.
65. Featherstone, p. 34.
66. Rogin, p. 5:
67. Woodward, p. 451.
68. Rothman, p. 73.
69. Genovese; Woodward.
70. Rothman, p. 72.
71. Genovese's criticism of Moore's American chapter was discussed above in the
section on Moore's method.
72. Lowenthal, p. 272.
73. Benson, p. 228-29.
74. Benson, pp. 228, 247.75. Benson. p. 234.
76. Benson, p. 242.
77. Stone, pp. 21, 33; Rothman, pp. 67-69.
78. Hobsbawm.
79. Moore. p. 426.
80. Stone, p. 33.
81. Moore, pp. 453, 477.
82. Moore, p. 453.
83. Plumb, p. 11.
84. Stone, p. 32.
85. Stone, p. 33.
86. Rothman, p. 70-71.
87. Zagorin, p. 41.
88. Moore, p. 107-08.
89. Gayl D. Ness, Review of Social Origins, American Sociological Review, 32 (1967),
p. 819; Rothman, p. 77.
90. Ness, p. 819.
91. Rothman, p. 79; Gusfield, p. 115. See also H. D. Harootunian, Review of Social
Origins;Journal of Asian Studies, 27 (1968), pp. 372-74.
92. Rothman, p. 74-75.
93. Rokkan, p. 141.94. Edith M. Link, Review of Social Origins, Journal of Economic History, 27 (1967),
p. 261.
95. Moore, p. xiii. Walzer's success at using the Moore thesis to analyze Greek politics
should be recalled in this regard;see above.
96. Lowenthal, p. 260.
97. Moore, Soviet Politics: The Dilemma of Power; USSR: Terror and Progress.
This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 22:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/13/2019 Sobre B. Moore
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sobre-b-moore 31/31
330
98. Moore, p. xii.
99. Moore, p. 110. I am indebted to Juan Corradi for this argument.
100. Moore, p. 410; Lowenthal, p. 275.101. Richard Frank, Augustan Elegy and Catonism, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der
romischen Welt, vol. II, p. 2. (1974).
102. Gilbert Shapiro found that Moore's minor disgressions on statistical studies
increase confusion and disorient the reader; Gabriel Almond considered
Moore's polemics with the statisticians to be often unessential and diverting,
but unlike Shapiro he found Moore to offer a useful corrective to the quantitative
theory of know ledge so influential today. Joseph Featherstone wrote, Moore's
careful work is a standing rebuke to social scientists who imagine that quantitative
data, like virtue, is its own reward. Shapiro, p. 820; Almond, p. 768; Featherstone,
p. 36.
103. Stone, p. 34.
104. Featherstone, p. 36.
105. Moore, p. 519.
106. Moore, p. 519.
107. For instance, Colin Lucas' review essay on the social interpretation of the French
Revolution discussed dozens of obscure articles but ignored Moore's chapter on
France: Nobles, Bourgeois and the Origins of the French Revolution, Past and
Present, 60 (1973), pp. 84-126.
108. Rothman, p. 81. When Moore objected in print to Rothman's characterization,
Rothman replied that his source of information on Moore's fellow-travelling was
my memory of classes of his which I attended in the early 1950s, in which heindicated what his sympathies had been earlier. (p. 182); Almond, p. 769.
109. TimesLiterarySupplement,p. 1231.
110. Moore, Strategy. Poggi, p. 217. Along these lines, see Leopold Haimson.
111. Poggi, p. 217.
112. Along these lines, see Leopold Haimson.
113. I am indebted to Robert Brenner for this analysis.
114. Walzer, p,429. Walzer's own view is that Yugoslavia is today the better society, or
at least the one for which we can entertain higher hopes.
115. Wolfgang Mommsen, Max Weber's Political Sociology and his Philosophy of World
History, in Dennis Wrong (ed.), Max Weber (Englewood Cliffs, 1970), pp. 183-
94. Moore emphatically rejects the narrow liberal nationalism and limited concep-
tion of democracy that characterized Weber's political writing, particularly in the
World WarI period.
116. Peter Nettl, Return of the Intellectual, New Statesman, 73 (6 October 1967),
p. 438..
Theory and Society, 2 (1975) 301-330? Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands