Wiki Wiki Web

Barrington Moore

Life

Barrington Moore Jr. (1913–2005) was an American political sociologist and a long-time faculty member at Harvard University (1951–1979). He earned his Ph.D. in sociology from Yale University in 1941. Moore served as a research analyst for the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (OSS) during World War II. He is best known for his sweeping comparative historical study of the social origins of dictatorship and democracy.

People Who Influenced Their Thought

  • Karl Marx: Moore’s work is deeply Marxist in its focus on class conflict, modes of production, and the economic basis of political regimes, though he rejected orthodox determinism.
  • Max Weber: Weber’s comparative historical methods, analysis of bureaucracy, and attention to multiple causal factors (economic, political, ideological) shaped Moore’s own multi-causal approach.
  • Joseph Schumpeter: Schumpeter’s work on capitalism, entrepreneurship, and democracy influenced Moore’s understanding of the bourgeoisie as a potentially democratic force under specific conditions.
  • Thorstein Veblen: Veblen’s institutional economics and critique of predatory elite behavior informed Moore’s analysis of landlord and ruling-class power.

Main Ideas and Publications

  • Three Routes to the Modern World: In his magnum opus, argued that different classes and agrarian commercial structures produced three distinct paths to modern political regimes. Key work: Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (1966).
  • Bourgeois Democratic Route (England, France, USA): Strong commercial bourgeoisie, weak or commercially oriented landlords, and revolutionary peasantry (in France) or its absence (in England/USA) led to capitalist democracy.
  • Fascist/Capitalist Dictatorship Route (Germany, Japan): Weak or co-opted bourgeoisie, strong and repressive landlord class (Junkers in Germany, landlords in Japan) that allied with the state to suppress peasant and labor unrest, leading to fascism.
  • Communist Route (Russia, China): Weak or dependent bourgeoisie, a revolutionary peasantry that destroyed the landlord class, and a centralized state bureaucracy that then suppressed both peasants and bourgeoisie, leading to communist dictatorship.
  • “No Bourgeoisie, No Democracy” Thesis: Argued that a strong, independent commercial-industrial class (bourgeoisie) was historically necessary for the development of liberal democracy.
  • Moral Outrage and Social Science: Insisted that social scientists should not hide moral judgments behind value-neutrality. He openly condemned oppression and suffering, particularly peasant exploitation.
  • Critique of Functionalism: Rejected Parsonian functionalism and equilibrium models, arguing that conflict, coercion, and violence are central to political development.
  • Injustice and Obedience: Explored why people tolerate oppression and under what conditions they rebel. Key work: Injustice: The Social Bases of Obedience and Revolt (1978).

Controversies around His Main Work or Thought

  • Debate over the Bourgeoisie’s Role: Historians and political scientists have challenged Moore’s claim that a strong bourgeoisie is necessary for democracy. Gøsta Esping-Andersen and others noted that Scandinavian social democracy emerged in countries with weak commercial classes, while India has sustained democracy without a classic bourgeois revolution.
  • Neglect of Colonial and Postcolonial Cases: Critics argued that Social Origins focused almost exclusively on Western and East Asian cases, ignoring how colonialism shaped political development in Africa, Latin America, and South Asia. Partha Chatterjee and postcolonial scholars noted that Moore’s framework poorly fits nations where colonial states rather than indigenous classes drove regime outcomes.
  • Peasant Agency and Revolution: While Moore famously wrote “the peasantry is a category of people who are usually on the receiving end of the lash,” critics such as James C. Scott and Eric Wolf argued that Moore still underestimated peasant agency, resistance strategies, and autonomous revolutionary organization.
  • Economic Determinism: Even sympathetic critics (e.g., Theda Skocpol ) noted that Moore’s focus on class and agrarian structures sometimes downplayed the autonomous role of the state, geopolitics, and international pressures. Skocpol’s own States and Social Revolutions (1979) was both an extension and a critique of Moore.
  • Fascism Interpretation: Historians of Germany and Japan debated Moore’s claim that landlord-bourgeois alliances produced fascism. Some argued that his class analysis overlooked the role of mass politics, ideology, and charismatic leadership (e.g., Ian Kershaw on Hitler).
  • India as a Puzzle: Moore classified India as an “unsuccessful” or “incomplete” democracy, expecting it to veer toward dictatorship. Critics noted that India’s long democratic survival (despite poverty, inequality, and weak bourgeoisie) undermines Moore’s thesis. Moore later acknowledged this as a limitation.

Key People Influenced by Their Thought

  • Theda Skocpol: Directly extended and critiqued Moore’s comparative historical method in States and Social Revolutions (1979), adding state autonomy and international pressures to Moore’s class-centered framework.
  • Charles Tilly: Built on Moore’s historical sociology of state formation, class conflict, and collective action, though Tilly emphasized war-making and capital extraction more than agrarian class structures.
  • James C. Scott: Extended Moore’s focus on peasant politics and resistance, though Scott emphasized everyday forms of resistance (foot-dragging, sabotage) rather than revolutionary upheaval.
  • Jeffrey Paige: Applied Moore’s agrarian class framework to the study of rural revolutions in the developing world in Agrarian Revolution (1975).
  • Dietrich Rueschemeyer: Co-author of Capitalist Development and Democracy (1992), which tested and revised Moore’s thesis across multiple countries, finding that working-class mobilization, not just bourgeoisie strength, matters for democracy.
  • Michael Mann: Engaged with Moore’s class analysis while developing a more multi-dimensional theory of power (ideological, economic, military, political) in The Sources of Social Power.

Legacy

Barrington Moore transformed comparative historical sociology by demonstrating, through rigorous comparative case analysis, that the divergent fates of democracy and dictatorship are rooted in class structures, agrarian commercial relationships, and revolutionary conflicts.