Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:46:27.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Historical Obstacles to the Development of a Bourgeoisie in Iran

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Ahmad Ashraf
Ahmad Ashraf*
Affiliation:
Institute for Social Research of Tehran University, Literacy Corps College of Education
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The processes of development in the “Third World” are of great concern to historical sociologists and economic historians. However, despite the great interest displayed by the founding fathers of sociology in the nineteenth century in similar questions, and despite their historical orientation and liking of historical periodization, present day sociologists tend to be uninterested in both this subject matter and this orientation. In this respect they have lagged behind economists interested in questions of development and economic historians.

Following in Marx & Weber's tradition of social-economic science the objective of this paper is to demonstrate the importance of historical analysis for a deeper understanding of the problem of economic development. From the outset tha basic question will be the proper use of history to construct the historical processes of development both in the past and the future.

Type
Research Article
Information
Iranian Studies , Volume 2 , Issue 2-3 , Spring-Summer 1969 , pp. 54 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Association For Iranian Studies, Inc 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This paper was presented to the Conference on Economic History of the Middle East at the University of London, School of Oriental and African studies in August, 1967. It will appear as a section of a forthcoming book: Studies on the Economic History of the Middle East, edited by M. A. Cook.

References

Notes

1. See for example Mills, C.W. Images of Man: The Classic Tradition In Sociological Thinking, N.Y. 1960Google Scholar; Sociological Imagination, N.Y. 1959, especially his article on “Uses of History,” pp. 143-64; The Marxists, N.Y. 1961; I.L. Horowitz, The New Sociology, N.Y. 1964; M. Stein and A. Vidich, Sociology on Trial, N.Y. 1964; M. Weber, Methodology of the Social Sciences, N.Y. 1949.

2. “All peoples travel what is basically the same path…The development of society proceeds through the consecutive replacement, according to definite laws, of one socio-economic formation by another.” Kunsined, O. Ed. Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, London, 1961, p. 153.Google Scholar

3. See Pigulevskaya, N.V. Yakubovsky, A.U. Petrushevski, I. Striyeva, L.V. Belnitski, A.M. Tārikh-e Irān az Dowre-ye Bāstān tā Pāyān-e Sadeye Hejdahom (The History of Iran from the Ancient Period to the End of Eighteenth Century), 2 Vols. translated by Keshāvarz, K. Tehran, 1346/1967, pp. 5-67Google Scholar (hereafter T.I.). See also Diakonov, I.M. Tārikh-e Mād (History of Media), translated by Keshāvarz, K. Tehran 1344/1965Google Scholar; Diakonov, M.M. Ashkāniyān (The Parthians) translated by Keshāvarz, K. Tehran, 1344/1965.Google Scholar

4. T.I., pp. 68-149.

5. Ibid., pp. 150-237.

6. Ibid., pp. 238-324.

7. Ibid., pp. 325-490; see also Vladimirtsov, B. Le Régime Social des Mongols: Le Féodalisme nomade, Paris, 1934Google Scholar; Barthold, V.V. Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion, London, 1928Google Scholar; Petrushevski, I.P. Keshāvarzi va Monāsebāt-e Arzi dar Iran-e Ahd-e Moghol, (Agriculture and Agrarian Relations in Iran; in the Mongol Period), translated by Keshāvarz, K. Tehran, 1345/1966.Google Scholar

8. T.I., pp. 491-596.

9. Ibid., pp. 597-664.

10. See for example M.A. Khonji, “Tārikh-e Mād va Mansha-e Nazariyeye Diakonov” (A Critique on Diakonov's “History of Media”), in Rāhnemā-ye Ketāb, Shahrivar-e 1346 (October 1967), appendix, pp. 1-36; also see A. Ashraf, “Nezām-c Asiā'i yā Nezām-e Feodāli” (Asiatic Society or Feudal System) in Jahān-e Now, 1946/1967, Nos. 5-12.

11. K. Marx, Pre-Capitalist Economic Formation, edited with an introduction by E. Hobsbawm, N.Y. 1964. p. 78.

12. K. Mrax, “British Rule in India,” New York Daily Tribune, June 15, 1852; also June 25 and August 8, 1853: See also Marx to Engels 2.6.53 and 14.6.53 and Engels to Marx 6.6.53.

13. Wittfogel, K. Oriental Despotism, New Haven, 1957.Google Scholar

14. See for example Herzfeld, E. Archaeological History of Iran, London, 1935Google Scholar; also Iran in the Ancient East, London, 1914; Adontz, N. L'aspect iranien du servage, Bruxelles, 1937.Google Scholar Christensen, A. L'Iran sous les sasanides, Copenhague, 1944Google Scholar; Cahen, C. “L'évolution de l'iqta IX au XIII siècle,” in Annales (Economies--Soci;ét;é's--Civilisations), No. 1, Paris, 1953Google Scholar; Shemesh, A. Ben Taxation in Islam, Vol. I, Leiden, 1958, pp. 62-64.Google Scholar

15. See for example Becker, C.H. Islam-studien, Vol. I. Leipzig, 1924Google Scholar; Lambton, A. K. S. Landlord and Peasant in Persia, London, 1953, pp. 53-74Google Scholar; see also her excellent reflections, “The Evolution of the lqtā in Medieval Irān,” Iran, Vol. V. 1967, pp. 41-50Google Scholar; A. Poliak, “La Féodalité islaraique,” Reveue des études islamiques, 1936, pp. 247-65; Løkkegaard, Fr. Islamic Taxation in the Classic Period, Copenhagen, 1950Google Scholar; see also B. Brandage, “Feudalism in Ancient Mesopotamia and Iran,” and Coulborn, R. “The case of Iran,” in Coulborn, R. editor. Feudalism in History, Princeton, 1956.Google Scholar

16. Marx, Pre-Capitalist Economic Formation, pp. 77-78.

17. Ibid., 33-34.

18. Ibid., p. 71.

19. Ibid., p. 38.

20. R. Bendix, Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait, N.Y. 1960. p. 359.

21. M. Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, N.Y. 1947, p. 355.

22. Ibid., p. 357.

23. Ibid., p. 355.

24. Ibid., p. 355. See also A. Ashraf “Jāme'e Shenāsi-ye Siāsi-ye Max Weber,” (Max Weber's Political Sociology) in Sokhan, Nos. 10-12, 1346/1968.

25. Minorsky, V. Tadhkirat al-Mulūk: A Manual of Safavid Administration, London, 1943Google Scholar, (hereafter T.M.), p. 12. T.I. pp. 500-3.

26. Ibid., p. 502.

27. T.M., p. 188; see also Lambton, op. cit., p. 106; T.I., pp. 507-8.

28. Ibid., p. 507; T.M. pp. 14-16.

29. Ibid., pp. 16-18.

30. The soyurqhāl, which was granted under the Mongols and their successors, was, to some extent, like the “fief.” However, the centralizing tendency already realized under Ghāzān Kāhn and Ahmad Aq-qoyunlu--the Safavid predecessors was contradictory to granting soyurqhāl and limited its practice. Minorsky says “In the article on Ahmad Aq-qoyunlu completed in January 1942, Professor Petrushevsky used practically the same sources as myself and came to the same conclusions on the purport of the centralizing tendency of the government directed against the fief-holders.” (Minorski, V. Iranica, Twenty Articles, Tehran, 1964, pp. 224-41Google Scholar); see also Petrushevsky, op. cit., pp. 72-74; Lambton, op. cit., pp. 197-211; T.I. pp. 469-75, 478-88.

31. T.I., pp. 510-11, 551, 557-59, 581; Lambton, op. cit., pp. 105-128.

32. For a good account on the despotic character of Shah Abbās I, see Falsafi, N. Zendegāni-ye Shah Abbās-e Avval (The Life of Shah Abbās I), Tehran, 1334/1955, Vol. 2, pp. 77-211. and Vol. 3, pp. 119-200.Google Scholar

33. T.I., pp. 543 and 556.

34. T.M., p. 16; T.I., pp. 551-6 & 581-96.

35. Chardin, Voyages du Chevalier Chardin, Paris, 1811, Vol. V., pp. 224-25Google Scholar, cited in T.M. p. 16.

36. Iskandar Monshi, Ālam Ārā-ye Abbāsi, 1314/1935, pp. 104-124 and 761-7.

37. Khold-e Barin, Appendix to the Ālam Ārā, 1317/1939.

38. T.M. p. 15; T.I. p. 507.

39. T.M. pp. 17-18.

40. Ibid., p. 18.

41. Ibid., p. 30.

42. See Ibid., pp. 30-6; T.I. pp. 544-6, 556; Chardin, Vol. V, pp. 292-332; P. Delia Valle, Viaggi, Brighton, 1843, pp. 476, 759-68; Hasan-i Rumlu, Ahsan al-Tavārikh, Sedon, 1931, p. 368.

43. Under Abbās I and his successors a bureaucratic landlordism developed. In the expanding state lands and crown lands opium, tobacco, barley and fruits were cultivated. According to the authors of Tadhkirat-al-Mulūk and Olearius, the shah possessed the best and most numerous cattle in the land. See T.I. pp. 564-70.

44. See for example. T.I., pp. 551-6; Safavi, R.Z. Iran-e Eqtesādi (Economy of Iran), Vol. 2, Tehran, 1309/1930, p. 78Google Scholar; B. pārizi, Jazr va Madd-e Siyāsat va Eqtesād dar Asr-e Safaviyye. (Fluctuations of Politics and Economy in the Safavid Period), in Yaqhmā, No. 2, 1346/1967, p. 62, and No. 3, pp. 121-2.

45. Safavi, Iran-e Eqtesādi, p. 61; T.M., pp. 19-20; Pārizi, op. cit., No. 2; T.I., pp. 551-6.

46. Chardin, Vol. IV, p. 64.

47. Ibid., p. 162; T.I., pp. 577-9.

48. Chardin, Vol. 4, pp. 162-6; Safavi, op. cit., pp. 70-3; T.I. pp. 579-80.

49. Chardin, Vol. IV, p. 64; Mohammad Mohsen, Zubdat al-tawārīkh, p. 208.

50. T.I., p. 551-2.

51. Ibid., p. 373; Safavi, op. cit., pp. 74-5.

52. Curzon, G. N. Persia and the Persian Question, London, 1892, Vol. 2, p. 13, hereafter P.Q.Google Scholar

53. Ibid., p. 13.

54. Ibid., p. 13; Narāqi, H. Tārikh-e Ejtemāi-ye Kāshān, Tehran, 1345/1966, p. 132.Google Scholar

55. P.Q., Vol. 2, p. 250; See also Minorski, V. Tārikh-e Tabriz, trans, by Kārang, A. Tehran, 1337/1958, pp. 55-7Google Scholar; Etemād al-Soltān, Mir”āt al-Buldān, Tehran 1294, Vol. 1, pp. 554-61.

56. Khosrow, Nāser Safar Name-ye Nāser Khosrow, Tehran, 1335/1956, p. 123.Google Scholar

57. T.I., p. 554.

58. T.M., pp. 12-23.

59. See for example, Du Mans, Estate de la Prese en 1660, Paris, 1890. pp. 195-211Google Scholar; Chardin, Vol. IV, pp. 95-151; T.I. p. 570; T.M., p. 20.

60. According to Tadhkirat al-Mulūk, “the Kalāntar appointed the Kadkhudās, contributed to the reportation of taxes among the quilds, formulated the desiderata of the latter.” (T.M., p. 148). See also Kaempfer, E. Amoenitatum exoticarum, Lemgoviae, 1712, p. 141Google Scholar; T.I., p. 571. In Weber's view “patrimonial rulers frequently resort to the organization of associations that are held collectively responsible for the performance of public duties…all village residents…guilds and other occupational associations are held jointly responsible…for the political and economic obligation of each.” Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait, op. cit., p. 337.

61. According to the author of Tadhkirat al-Mulūk, “the guilds held some professional meetings, but Chardin, IV, p. 93, asserts that the guilds never met and that their organization was quite loose.” (T.M. P. 148); the Soviet authors of Tārikh-e Iran are in agreement with the former view. See T.I., p. 571.

62. Ibid., pp. 571-2.

63. Ibid., p. 572. However, Minorsky maintains that “Most probably both had to be chosen from among the local notables, though we know nothing of the system of their election,” T.M., pp. 148-9.

64. T.I., p. 571.

65. T.M., p. 149.

66. Ibid., p. 20; Chardin, Vol. IV, p. 93.

67. Ibid., pp. 20-1; Chardin, Vol. VI, p. 119.

68. T.I. p. 551, 576.

69. Safavi, op. cit., p. 80.

70. Chardin says that ra'is al-tojjār existed in all the cities, (Chardin, Vol. V, p. 262 and T.M., p. 149). According to Minorsky “The T.M. says nothing about Malik at-tujjār who probably was elected by the merchants themselves.” (T.M., p. 149); Le Drun says “The chief of the merchants had to decide on mercantile proceedings and also inspected the weavers and the tailors of the court.” (Cited in T.M., p. 149).

71. See for example T.M., pp. 19-20; Chardin, Vol. IV, p. 167; Du Hans, op. cit., p. 183; T.I., p. 576.

72. Minorsky says “In the absence of capitalistic industry, Safavid Kings, similarly to their predecessors and contemporaries, had to secure production of certain necessaries and objects deluxe at the work-shops of their own household. Many of these buyūtāt were simply domestic departments, such as the kitchen, scullery, various stores, stables, kennels, etc.; there were, however, some buyūtāt which were run like real state-owned manufactories. Our source mentions a weaving nill, two tailoring departments, the Mint consisting of seven departments, the Arsenal, etc.” (T.M., p. 29).

73. Chardin counts 32 workshops, whereas the author of Tadhkirat al-Mulūk counts 33 workshops. See Chardin, Vol. VII pp. 329-34; and T.M., p. 30.

74. See for example Safavi, op. cit., pp. 73-4.

75. T.M., p. 14.

76. Ibid., p. 20.

77. Lambton, op. cit., p. 134; Sir John Malcolm, History of Persia, London, 1820, pp. 182-3.

78. See, for example, Curzon, Persia and Persian Question, Vol. 2, pp. 554-85Google Scholar; Greaves, R. Persia and the Defense of India, London, 1959Google Scholar; Cottam, R. Nationalism in Iran, Pittsburgh, 1964Google Scholar; Shuster, M. The Strangling of Persia, London, 1912Google Scholar; Khāterāt-e Colonel Kāsākowski, trans, by Jali, A. Tehran, 1344/1965.Google Scholar

79. Keddie, N. Religion and Rebellion in Iran, The Iranian Tobacco Protest of 1891-1892, London, 1966, p. 7.Google Scholar

80. Upton, J. The History of Modern Iran, Cambridge, 1961, p. 7.Google Scholar

81. See for example, Curzon, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 528-85; Greaves, op. cit.; Jamāl-Zāde, M. Ganje shāayegān, Tehran, 1335/1917, pp. 100-116Google Scholar; E. N. Yegānegi, Recent Financial and Monetary History of Persia, N.Y., 1934, Ch. II on “The History of Foreign Politico-Economic Influences in Persia,” pp. 15-46.

82. J. Fraser, Historical and Descriptive Account of Persia, N.Y., 1834, p. 2271

83. See “Correspondence Respecting the Issue of a Decree by Bis Majesty the Shah of Persia for the Protection of Rights of Property in Persia,” British Parliamentary Papers, CIX, 1888. (C. 5434).

84. See “Foreign Office to Treasury,” 2 July 1889: F.O. 60150.

85. R. Greaves, op. cit. p. 175; see also “Foreign Office to Law Officers of the Crown,” 7 Kay 1889 (F.O. 60/518), and Wolf to Salisbury, No. 3, Consular, 30. March 1889 (F.O. 60/518).

86. James Fraser estimated the total amount of exports and imports as about one million and a quarter sterling in the early Nineteenth Century, see J. Fraser, op. cit., p. 211.

87. Curzon, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 572.

88. Ibid., p. 580.

89. Jamāl-Zāde, op. cit., p. 9.

90. Safavi, op. cit., p. 159.

91. D'Allemagne, H. Safar Nāmeh-e Az Khorāssān tā Bakhtiāri, trans, by Farrah-Vashi, Tehran, 1335/1956, p. 102.Google Scholar

92. Sani’ al-Douleh, Ma'āser al-Āsār, Tehran, 1306/1888, p. 90.Google Scholar

93. Tārikhche-ye si Sāle-ye Bānk-e Melli-e Irān, Tehran, 1338/1959, P. 3.Google Scholar

94. Flandin, E. Safar Nāme-ye Eugene Flandin dar Iran, 1840-1841, trans, by Sādeqhi, second ed. Tehran 1324/1945, p. 107.Google Scholar

95. Curzon, op. cit., Vol. 2., p. 41.

96. Ibid., pp. 211-12.

97. Ibid., p. 245.

98. Jamāl-Zāde, op. cit., pp. 93-95.

99. Ibid., p. 99.

100. Ibid., p. 100; Tārikhche-ye Si Sāle-ye Bānk-e Melli-ye Irān, p. 54; “Bank Dāri dar Iran,” Bānk-e Markazi Bulletin, No. 1, 1340/1960, pp. 1-9.

101. Jamāl-Zāde, op. cit., pp. 98-9.

102. Curzon, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 573.

103. Ibid., p. 41.

104. Khosrovi, K. Bourgeoisie dar Iran, Tehran University, Memo. 1344/1965.Google Scholar

105. Shaji'i, Namāyandegān-e Majles-e Shorā-ye Melli dar Bisto Yek Dowre-ye Qānun Gozāri, Tehran, 1344/1965, pp. 185-189.Google Scholar

106. For an account on the collapse of state landlordism in this period see Keddie, N. “The Historical Obstacles to Aqrarian Change in Iran,” Claremont, 1960Google Scholar; See also Lambton, op. cit., pp. 152-6, 178.

107. See for example Banani, A. The Modernization of Iran 1921-1941, Stanford 1961.Google Scholar Lambton, op. cit., pp. 131-93; Makki, H. Tārikh-e Bist Sāle-ye Iran, 3 vols. Tehran, 1324-26/1945-47.Google Scholar

108. Bānk Melli Irān Bulletin, No. 9, December, 1936, p. 6.

109. As Professor Charles Issawi expounded on this matter in a session of the Conference we can understand the situation vertically and horizontally. He means by the former the historical forces at work and by the latter the contemporary necessities. The fact that the nature of political domination in this country has been the fusion of traditional patrimonialism and legal rational authority, since the Constitutional Revolution of 1905, may help us to understand the situation more deeply. However, I do believe that the forces of tradition have played an important part and consequently patrimonialism has assimilated the legal rational apparatus into its own frame work up to the present time. The fact that the government emphasizes 25 centuries of patrimonial domination for the legitimization of political authority is of utmost significance in understanding the situation from within.

110. Majmu'e-ye Qavānin-e Mowzu'e (8th Majles), pp. 171-93.

111. Ibid., 5th, pp. 316-23, 12tht pp. 528-33.

112. See for example Bānk Melli Irān Bulletin from 1933 to 1940.

113. Bānk Melli Irān Bulletin, July 1938, p. 211.

114. Ibid., p. 212.

115. Ibid., February 1933, p. 29.

116. Ibid., May 1940, pp. 82-91.

117. Surat-e Peymānkārān-e Sāzemān-e Barnāme Dar Barnāme-ye Sevvom, April 1967.

118. See for example Bānk Melli Irān Bulletins from 1933 to 1940.

119. The figures in this part are basically estimated from the following sources: Bānk Melli Irān Bulletins from 1933 to 1940; Āmār-e Amalkard-e Sanāye'e Omde-ye Keshvar, Vezārat-e Kār, 1326/1947; Persia, in Geographical Handbook Series, London, 1945, pp. 457-64.

120. See Keddie, N. “The Historical Obstacles to Agrarian Change in Iran,” Claremont, 1960Google Scholar; Lambton, op. cit., pp. 181-93; Shaji'i, op. cit., pp. 174-205.

121. H. Makki, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 395.

122. Shānzdah Karkhāne-ye Bozorq-e Keshvar, (16 large factories) Vezārate-e Eghtesād, Tehran, 1343/1964, p. 8.Google Scholar

123. Report on Commencement and Operation Permits for Industrial Establishments in 1965, Ministry of Economy, Tehran, p. 41.Google Scholar

124. Rāhnāma-ye Ma'āden va Kārgāh-hā-ye Bozorg-e San'ati-ye Irān, (A Guide to Mines and Large Factories) Vezārat-e Eghtesād, 1964, pp. 178-99.

125. Central Bank, Unpublished.

126. Ibid.

127. Surat-e Paymānkārān-e Sāzemān-e Barnāme, (The List of Contractors of Plan Organization), Tehran 1346/1967.Google Scholar

128. Interview with the authorities of the Union of Truck Holders.

129. A research project on the recent developments of Persian Bourgeoisie is being carryed out under the supervision of the author at the Institute for Social Research of Tehran University. The present paper is an historical backqround to this research.