BOOK REVIEW.

Moore Barrington. 1966. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord

and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston: Beacon Press.
Introduction
Barrington Moore’s (1966) thesis, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and
Peasant in the Making of the Modern World is a comparative analysis of America, England,
France, India, China and Japan. The objective is to analyze the political character undertaken by
landlords and Peasants that led the agrarian societies to modernization. The thesis covers arrays of
modern civilizations such as: Western democracies, fascist, and totalitarian communist regimes.
Historical analysis is used to look at distinctive features such as: revolutions, type of societies, type
of land relationships and how differing classes of people and institutions contributed to the
outcome. Aristocrats, Monarchs, the landed and the peasants and institutions like parliament are
observed and analyzed. The resultant is the indication of differing outcomes owing to different
combinations of the variables mentioned.
The thesis avers that, Western democracies currently seen in US, England and France are as a
result of an uprising between the nobles and landlords referred as bourgeoisie. The presence of
strong bourgeoisie class led to democratization. In Japan and Germany, fascist regimes came about
as a result of conservative uprisings from the landed elites (p.413). In China and Russia, communist
regimes emerged from revolution by the peasants. The suppressed classes are given importance
due to their resistance to the status quo that marshalled in the futures. The notion is, social
revolutions formed a basis of development and modernization. The parliamentary outcome in India
depicts a lack of revolution of any kind leading to Moore’s historical analysis for an explanation.

Theoretical Premise (pp. 3-4)’

The thesis depicts a neo-Marxist theory offering three paths to modernization (pp. 3-4). The
bourgeoisies are central to transition to democracy as a result of revolution against the status quo
of the agrarian societies. This is shown to have occurred first in England (pp. 3-4). In essence, the
strength of the bourgeoisie class determines which path a country will take. Those with high
strength comparatively, results to democracies. The theory challenges Rostow’s (1960)

1
modernization theory of economic take-off. In addition, it refutes Huntington’s (1966) argument
of expansion of political participation.

Central Premise (P. xvii)

The book seeks to analyze the political role played by the landlords and the peasants in
transforming agrarian societies to modernized societies (p. xvii). It endeavors to find historical
explanations of how both the landed and the peasant rural populations contributed towards the
emergence of democratic, fascist and communist modern societies. It implies, modernization is
not linear, it can take fascist, democratic or communist route. Each consideration requires
destruction of traditional societies and cleavages. This involves discomfort and human suffering.

Critical Appraisal
The thesis is written at the peak of the Cold War, however, it does not support the powers of the
Cold War. The lack of overtly or covertly advancing the interests of either side of the divide, makes
the thesis objective. In the analysis, neither: China, the West or the Soviet bloc could find solace.

The thesis does not shy away from embracing great human suffering/losses and cost that led to the
observed futures of the countries analyzed. In a clever manner, it emerges that, the lack of human
suffering is not the answer to changing the status quo despite the fact that, proffering the same is
uncomfortable. It is paradoxical to the liberal democracies supremacy arguments since, the path to
democracy takes a revolutionary action involving human suffering just as in fascist and communist
ones.
The concentration is on the social determinants, mainly, economic. This locks out other causes
deemed important in resulting to: Western democracies, fascism and communism. The
contribution of politics and political utterances are not brought to fore, implying, Moore’s thesis
is narrowly focused and hence high chances of narrowly interpreting the historical occurrences.
Arguably, the resultant liberal, fascist and communist societies are value laden systems ensuing
from a reaction or conformity to scholarly works, such as of; Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau.
In concentrating on the economic aspects, the significance of cultural factors of these societies are

2
reduced. Though the inclusion of culture is countered by observing that it is not inert, and
furthermore that inclusion of many variables creates chaos and hence not helpful, equally, it can
be argued that concentrating on a singular variable markedly narrows the significance of those left
out, especially when analyzing historical futures of six major countries.

Modernization path is at the center of state involvement. The problem emanates due to the absence
of a depiction of the state’s role. Arguably, the link between the state and the landed or the absence
of it with the landless has great significance in the analyzed outcomes. Noteworthy, from the onset
of the revolution, England had the outcome of reducing the projections for development and
democratization because of her promotion of cooperation of the aristocracy and bourgeoisie to
thwart militancy (Skocpol, 1994). The revolution was meant to weaken the tendency towards
centralization and administrative absolutist state. The case of Japan takes a revolution led by an
upper class who were largely landless Samurais. This takes an independent path to modernization
free from bureaucratic involvement of the long-established land holders. It depicts a lack of
inhibition to the state by those with land because they are not part of the elite revolution. The thesis
looks at class effects systematically but fails to delve in the internal organization of the state and
how that impacts on the modernization outcomes.

Conclusion
The thesis is in the intellectual realm since it does not support any political organization. The
outcome is knowledge based on historical analysis of six countries. Noteworthy, democracy
emerges where powerful middle class revolts. The other ends is the emergence of fascism where
aristocratic elites forge a revolution or communism where peasants revolt. In essence, in absence
of a strong middle class revolution the outcome cannot be a modernized democracy. Paradoxically,
liberalism is attributed to the precedent of violent struggles, this undermines peaceful transition to
democracies attributed in the contemporary (p. 406). In this case, where vested interests are in the
hands of the powerful who are not willing to change to a less oppressive society, resorting to
revolution is an inevitable means for freedom (p. 508).

The thesis challenges the linear path of modernization theory by offering a tripartite path to
modernization. These are fascist as in Japan and Germany, democracy like England and US or

3
communist like China. To transition, traditional structures, classes and economic relationships and
cleavages are eradicated. The path is destructive and agonizing. The question emerging is when
do you distinguish violence as merely destructive and when is it a prerequisite for democratization?
This is perhaps the burden for developing countries when considering Moore’s thesis.