Moore explained regime change through agricultural class relations and contention

Evidence

My great teacher Barrington Moore criticized the classic Marxist account but replaced it with another one located at almost precisely the same position on the Principle–History continuum (Moore 1966). A specialist in Russian politics and a close student of Russian history, Moore attributed more importance to class relations within agriculture than have most Marxists. While sharing with Marx the idea that parliamentary democracy resulted from bourgeois predominance, Moore argued that commercialization of agriculture, elimination of great landlords, and proletarianization of the peasantry (rather than the rise of industry itself) together opened the way toward bourgeois predominance. Yet for Moore, as for Marx, changing configurations of class generated regime transitions through struggle. Contention caused regimes. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 90

Categorization

• XREF: Moore’s social-origins thesis is directly relevant if reader weighs structuralist class accounts against Tilly’s political-process model. — connects to: Landowners’ tenure choices deliberately fragmented the peasantry into class allies — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 468; Regime change and contention mutually shape each other over long periods — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 549
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 90

Broader Connections

• Landowners’ tenure choices deliberately fragmented the peasantry into class allies #expands (0.82) — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 468
• Regime change and contention mutually shape each other over long periods #corroborates (0.78) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 549