Abstract:
This article tries to apply Barrington Moore's theory on the Iranian revolution. The main question of this article is whether Moore's theory can explain the Iranian revolution. To answer this question, first, the variables considered by Moore, i.e., the type of agricultural system, state/class relations, the revolutionary power of the peasants, and the motivation of the bourgeoisie for modernization, have been used in the case of the Iranian revolution. Then the possibility of revolutions from above, peasant and bourgeois in Iranian society has been investigated.
Machine summary:
"In order to answer this question, the variables considered by Moore, i.e., the type of agricultural system, state/class relations, the revolutionary power of the peasants and the motivation of the bourgeoisie for modernization, have been used in the case of the Iranian revolution. The societies of the countries in which such a transformation occurred (Germany and Japan) had these characteristics: as we saw, according to Moore's study, the motivation of the bourgeoisie in these countries for modernization was moderate.The form of the agricultural system was work-repression, and the peasants were exploited, and the revolutionary power of the peasants was low. So why did the bourgeois revolution not happen in Iran, but it happened in England and the United States? Table 2- The application of the variables of Moore's analysis about the Iranian revolution and its comparison with the examples of England and the United States. The power of the bourgeoisie to renew the revolutionary power of the peasants. Government/class relations. The type of agricultural system. Sample results. Bourgeois revolution, strong, less independent market of the United States, Bourgeois revolution, we have to find the answer in how the bourgeois class was formed in Iran and state-class relations.For this reason, although this class wanted economic modernization, it had protectionist (and not revolutionary) tendencies and wanted the continuation of the status quo, because the government provided the necessary privileges and monopolies to this class, and it was not under the influence of the zamindar aristocratic class. The bourgeoisie saw no reason to use violence against such a government.