Social Origins of Dictatorship and

Democracy: Lord and Peasants in

the making of the modern world
Barrington Moore
• He explores the role of land lords and peasantry in the transformation
of society from agrarian to modern.
• He did a comparative analysis with the help of case studies covering
Western Democracies, Fascist Regimes and Communist totalitarian
governments in Europe and Asia.
• In order to explain his theory Moor evaluated interrelation between
various groups including aristocrats, landlords, monarchs, parliament
and peasantry.
His main question was
• How social and economic changes among these groups caused
modernization, revolution, modification in existing relationship and
role of different section of population and history?
• In Moor’s view every society took its own route to modernization.
• The first route was through Bourgeois revolution which resulted in capitalist
democracy.
• second was abortive bourgeois revolution which resulted in fascism,
• third was peasant revolution which led to communism.
• The determining factor which draws a distinction in all routes is the way landlords
and peasants reacted to the challenge of commercialization of agriculture and the
way coalitions between urban and rural elite were developed.
• Moor emphasize on the fact that all routes to modernization is interconnected,
none of them can happen in isolation.
• Fascism is inconceivable without democracy, it is an attempt to make conservative
modernization popular, communism happens when bourgeoisie are not strong
enough to become political ally of landed class
The Capitalist-Democratic Route

• In case of first route, modernization was based on Bourgeois Revolution, Moore used
England and France as two instances of Bourgeois Revolution.
• The English society modernization started in response to increasing commercialization
of agriculture after expansion of commerce and trade in urban areas.
• It gave rise to commercializing gentry and urban capitalists Both created independent
economic base from aristocracy and political institutions.
• Urban and rural elites developed a community of interest against monarchy which
triggered the initial and reactionary phase of modernization under which Puritan
Revolution started.
• Civil War broke hold of monarchy through strong parliament and peasantry due to
aggressive capitalism of enclosure movement by landed upper class and Yeoman class.
• This capitalist coalition became dominant in all institutions including Parliament,
academia, judiciary, military and church. In Moor’s view surge of capitalism and
decline of traditional authority became the basis for democracy in case of England.
• In pre-revolutionary France commercial impulse was weaker but
capitalism in scattered form.
• Instead of opposition nobility and monarchy were in coalition.
• Peasantry was strengthen as French nobles’ main source of income
was based on the dues paid by them.
• In addition to feudalism, monarchial bureaucratic absolutism was also
prevailing which discouraged any attempt to commercialize
agriculture, for instance unlike England enclosure movement could
not take its roots in France due to monarchial absolutism.
• Capitalism was practiced in limited capacity like grain trade or wine
farming but it was not technologically sophisticated.
• Commerce and capitalist activities did not increase commercialization
of agriculture rather landed upper class put pressure on peasants for
additional share in crop to be sold in markets.
• In Moor’s view this increasing pressure on peasantry through
additional taxes and share in crops fatigued peasants in rural areas
and lower class in urban areas.
• In Moor’s view an intact peasantry is a reservoir of revolution.
• The revolution France abolished monarchial absolutism which
allowed capitalistic democracy to take roots.
• After revolution bourgeoisie took over political powers and peasantry
managed to abolished seigniorial system.
The Capitalist-Reactionary Route

• Second route to modernization happens when capitalist revolution

happens from above.
• Moore primarily puts Japan in this category In the presence of weak
liberal-capitalist impulse; traditional ruling group could not only retain
its authority but also controls agriculture and industrial policies.
• On the other hand Capitalist class relied on landed class for
modernization. They opted for money making rather than policy
making.
• They performed the role of political ally of landed class.
• Resultantly modernization were conservative in Japan, traditional elites
retained most traditional structures in their original form, only enough
changes were made to ensure economic surplus. Labor and peasant
repressive policies were maintained.
• This repression was justified through peasant virtue based on
“Cantonism” which promotes militarism, patriotism and denounces
democracy, technology, money and foreigners.
• It provided a unifying factor to upper class and it rationalized the
plight of peasants by using capitalism as a scapegoat.
• Resistance against such policies was abortive, for instance Jiyuto in
1881against tax increased collapsed when radical peasant demands
went against the interest of landlords.
• In such deferential and repressive system democracy could not
sustain. A semi-parliamentary system was introduced in Japan but
ultimately it gave way to fascism.
The Communist Route

• Third route to democracy comes from peasant revolution.

Commercial and capitalist impulse is not present.
• Political office and landed bureaucracies were closely submerged. A
large landless peasantry was involved in labor intensive agriculture.
• The retainers of the land were not interest in commercial agriculture;
they were only interested in squeezing economic surplus out of
peasant tenants.
• The connection between government, upper class and peasant was
very artificial. Through public granaries and Pao-China policy, teaching
of Confucianism and traditional clan system efforts were made to
justify conservative modernization in China.
• After the decline of imperial regime in China and onset of Kuomintang
similar class structure was retained.
• China could not make a successful transition to commerce and
industry due to Mal-administration, poor and landless peasantry,
statist approach to modernization and devotion to retain old order.
• The outcome was peasant revolution with support of urban strata,
which led to destruction of old order and introduction of communism.
• Political leadership under new communist regime made peasantry
their priority.
India the deviant case
• When the British stepped foot in India, they found a Mogul empire in serious decay
to inefficient and ineffective governance. However, this did not seem to bother the
India as authority outside the village---in a decentralized agrarian 'state'---seemed
to be "superfluous" at best.
• A democratic order, Moore contended should not have taken hold in India as,
"There was no landed aristocracy that had succeed in achieving independence and
privilege against the monarch, while retaining political unity."
• Landed aristocracy often ruled villages outside of the decaying Mogul imperial
system. Unlike feudal China, as the author noted, there was not a movement
amongst Indians to oust a bad government for a good one.
• It was counterproductive to British needs---economic and colonial--- to have a
decentralized India. In order to ensure their interests, the British established a
system of law and order---e.g. a judiciary and legal profession---which angered
those whose power was derived heavily from the traditional caste system, while
also further empowering the local elites.
• Though, the English introduced the rule of law to India, it did not
make them benevolent rulers as seen through repeated uprisings---
namely the Sepoy Rebellion----up until the nationalist and
independence movement led by Gandhi.
• The British did nothing but export their way of life and culture to
another part of the world, displacing traditional Indian society, as
seen with the destruction of the local economy, and the impetus for
Indian self-rule in the 20th century.