Capitalism, Development and Democracy, RSS (1992)

(2): capitalism is necessary, but not sufficient for democracy

(4): working to make sense of the cross-national finding that democracy is correlated to development, in specific, historically-robust terms (pg. 30—the veto of the empirical generalization)

(5): considering three balances of power

1. classes and class coalitions
2. the State and its relationship to civil society
3. impact of transnational power relations

(6): summary of argument—urban working class as most frequent proponent of the extension of democratic rights.

(6): capitalism does a few things to push this process forward—brings workers together, urbanization, improving means of communication increases literacy (tending towards a 'dense civil society')

(7): it is not the protagonists of capitalism (the market, and the capitalists) that are at the vanguard of the push toward democracy; rather, it is an unintended result of its contradictions (the working class and the middle class growing stronger, the landed elite being weakened)

(8): class profiles

1. working-class, most consistently democratic (except where co-opted by charismatic authoritarianism)
2. landed upper-class, most consistently anti-democratic
3. bourgeoisie, generally supportive of constitutional and representative gov't, but not the extension of suffrage
4. middle classes were ambiguous, pushed for their own inclusion but otherwise contingent on the threat they faced, and available alliances
5. peasantry also was variable—independent family farmers were pro-democratic, but where dominated by large landholdings they were more authoritarian

(8): note that in L. America, the middle-classes played the leading role, but democratization was consistently of a restricted form as a result.

(21): Weber on Russia—hangs bourgeois reform on 'ideals'.

(22): summary of O'Donnell's work on ISI, and dependent development/authoritarianism, which undercuts the modernization thesis

(23): critique of Moore for evacuating the working-class

(36-37): outline of the methodological strategy--'analytic induction'

(43): certainly, they are critical of democracy, but see in it the important role it plays in advancing the interests of the working-class—even the long-term interests, they think [this is being done via a misreading of the Marxist position, I would argue]

(46): central thesis is that democratization can be explained by class interest; fundamentally shaped by the balance of class power ('relative class power')

(54-55): the 'inherent ambiguity of collective action', re: the working class

(59): relative size and density of organization of working class are of critical importance (discussion of impact of uneven development, etc.)

(60): the more landowners rely on state-backed coercion, the more anti-democratic they will be

(61): the bourgeoisie is caught between the formal liberalism of bourgeois democracy, and the substantive demands made by subordinate classes.

(63-64): the thesis of potential, variable autonomy of the State [hmm...]

(66): not too much State dependence on dominant classes, but not so much autonomy that it can't be tamed.

(68): absolutism towards bureaucratic universalism?

(72): dependent capitalist development has two unfavorable effects: attenuates decline of large landowners, doesn't strengthen working-class as much as it should

(82): early vs. late industrialization—effects on position of bourgeoisie viz-a-viz the State

(83): argument is that other classes were prominent in the early phases, and even though the working class took the lead later in the game, it needed allies. Where the large landowners were available and politically powerful, this was a problem for democratization.

(87): Switzerland – no opposition from bourgeoisie to full democracy, because there was no developed labor movement. Demonstrates importance of small-holders.

(87-90): France – Moore neglects the continuing influence of agrarian elite into the 19^th century; key, of course, was that they were disenfranchised and not part of the State apparatus after the Revolution.

(91): WWI effect on democratization

(92): Sweden—exhibits German patterns, as late industrialization; but it had no large landed upper class that lorded over the peasantry. This meant that the Swedish bourgeoisie didn't have the option of allying with the landed elite, as its German counterpart did.

(96): summary of these cases, thus far

(96): Moore ignored the Chartist movement

(98): again, working class as dominant force

(105): Italian Fascism was not a mass electoral movement

(106): Key amendment to Moore's account of Germany—the bourgeoisie and the alleged 'weak impulse' (it was in their economic interest to do what they did, in other words)

(108): again, comparison with Sweden

(125): Comparing the US North and West with Switzerland—in both places, democratization pushed by small farmers. And the landlords, in the US—not worried about the political process.

(126): Tilly's critical amendment, to the question of State and labor control—it was not necessarily for control, it was for guaranteeing that the control wouldn't be challenged.