Customer Reviews: Read 5 more reviews...
 Examing Modernization May 3, 2007
Matthew P. Arsenault (SW Michigan)
5 out of 5 found this review helpful
Moore seeks to examine the paths to modernity adopted by various countries and the subsequent political outcomes. Principally, more concentrates on the emergence of democracy, fascism, and communism. Moore argues that each path to modernization is characterized by a certain level of revolution. The driving factor to the development of the political path is at which level in society does the revolution begin; the aristocracy (above), the bourgeoisie (middle), or the peasant (below)? As such, the dependent variable can be summed up as political systems, while the independent variables stem from class interactions (landed aristocracy, the state, bourgeoisie, and peasant). Of particular importance for Moore is the relationship between the landed aristocracy and the state. In situations where the aristocracy is weak, the potential for peasant revolution is great. In situations where the state is strong, it retains the coercive force to repress potential uprisings. These relationships, coupled with the relationship between agriculture and commerce - particularly whether or not the landed aristocracy has made a move towards the commercialization of agriculture.
Moore begins his work in discussing the capitalistic, democratic path to modernity as characterized by England, France, and the United States. In the case of England, the landed aristocracy moved towards the commercialization of agriculture. This essentially eliminated the wide peasant base from the equation, thus removing a potentially revolutionary class. Additionally, the move towards commercialized agriculture decreased the power of the absolutist Crown. Furthermore, the commercialization of agriculture leads to the development of towns and a trading class (bourgeoisie). Once combining forces, the landed aristocracy and the bourgeoisie were able to rebel against the Crown and demanded political recognition. Following a long civil war, a parliamentary (democratic) system of government was established. In this case, the emergence of the bourgeoisie was imperative for the democratic transition. This illustrates Moore's classic line "no bourgeoisies, no democracy."
In order to explain the path towards communism, Moore examines the case of Russia and China. In the case of Russia and China, the landed aristocracy failed to make the transition to commercialized agriculture. This failure led to the continued existence of massive peasant population. This massive peasant population created a tremendous barrier for the transition to democracy, and subsequently possessed a high revolutionary potential. With a weak state unable to function repressively, the environment was ripe for a revolution from below; a peasant revolution led to a communist government.
Moore's last path of modernization, fascism, is illustrated by case studies of Germany and Japan. Although Germany and Japan undertook a capitalist path to modernity, the outcome was drastically different from those nations achieving a democratic outcome. In Germany and Japan, the landed aristocracy formed a ready alliance with the burgeoning commercial and industrial classes. This allowed for the transition to commercial agriculture as well as an expansion in the industrial sphere. This transition, coupled with capacity of the state to repress rebellion and dissension allowed for the emergence of a fascist form of government.
In short, Moore seeks to explain the various paths to modernity; democracy, fascism, and communism. These paths to modernity are primarily driven by relations between class groups, and the type of transition to commercial agriculture.
 IS DEMOCRACY A `NATIONAL' PHENOMENON? April 25, 2007
Faruk Ekmekci
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
In an age where `democracy' is almost sanctified and nations lacking a democratic system are alienated by the international community, books like Barrington Moore's are of immeasurable value. In his Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Moore does a phenomenal job in tracing the emergence of democratic systems in the West back to the specific types of the relations between monarchs, landlords, bourgeoisie, and peasants. His using `method of agreement' and `method of difference' alike in his comparisons of the different societal relations in Europe and Asia gives the reader the chance to think beyond a national context and therefore strengthens the theoretical value of his arguments.
The main shortcoming of Moore's otherwise `classic' book is that the author pays very little attention to the international and systemic contexts that strongly effect the developments in national systems. This omission, which seems a deliberate attempt for the sake of theory-building, is likely to lead the readers to a flawed understanding of `democracy' as a `national' phenomenon. I personally think that the international/systemic context cannot be detached from the national ones and even argue that the former is to take precedence in our analysis, for it is the variable that renders certain developments possible and others not.
To understanding the rise of fascism to power in Germany and in Italy we have to take into account the late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century European context, in particular the balance of power among the major powers. In the German case, its being a `late-industrialized' country, its rivalry with Britain for the hegemony in the continental Europe, and its `dissatisfaction' with the existing status quo provided a favorable condition for the non-liberal/non-democratic forms of governments. After all, it was the same Germany whose `constitutional republicanism' circa 1890 was regarded by Woodrow Wilson as "the shining model of self-government" to be emulated by the United States. The Italian case is more interesting in that Italy before the World War I was among the few `stable' democracies in Europe. Yet only four years after the war, in1922, Mussolini regime managed to come to power in Italy (not due to the relations between different classes of the Italian community, but mostly because of the Italian dissatisfaction both with its development level and the European status quo. Thus, not ignoring the influence of societal factors, we may say that powerful states that are dissatisfied with the international status quo are more likely to establish non-democratic forms of government.
As for the development of communism in Russia and China, we have to include their `dependent' situation vis-a-vis Western powers. While the economic dependence of these countries (actually, almost all countries which are called `Third World' today) prevented them from following independent economic policies and having an indigenous capitalist class, their political dependence impeded the development of nationally-oriented regimes in these countries. The later rise of totalitarian regimes was therefore partly a response to the economic and political dependence of these countries. Thus, we may say that it was the combination of poverty, injustice, and dissatisfaction that `paved the way' to non-democratic forms of governments in Russia and China.
A brilliant tour de force whose significance is still not appreciated September 9, 2005
Roy S (Bangkok Thailand)
2 out of 4 found this review helpful
I read this book in the early 70's as a graduate student. It impressed me then as it still does as an example of a cogent analysis of the development of political systems of modern industrial states, solidly based on empirical grounds. Previous reviewers have provided much detail so I will content myself with the observation that how much better it would have been if the present US administration had absorbed the lessons of this book before embarking on the Mission (Impossible?) to bring democracy to Iraq.
 Poorly Written April 14, 2005
Sean (West Coast)
3 out of 29 found this review helpful
This is a seminal work, because it was the first work to take a comparative approach to political theory and it is the bane of many Poli Sci graduate students' existence.
I am a graduate student, who was forced to read this poorly written and very painful text. It attempts to cover too much material.
An interesting book, but.... November 6, 2003
2 out of 12 found this review helpful
There are a couple of quick points I'd like to add. First, these ambitious books often cover so much (and I think well in this case) that historical errors are bound to crop up. For example, Japanese historians have pointed out errors in the Japan chapter that should be considered. Second, the end of Adam's otherwise very informative review is simply incorrect. China with a GDP/capita of around $4500 has NOT outstripped Russia at $9000 GDP/capita. This , of course, does not reflect at all on the book, but too often those who eschew statistical based political science run the risk of being way off in evaluating success/failure or change. Certainly not everyone, but I have seen this strong tendancy.
|
