Pre-Capitalist Iran: A Theoretical History

154 Pages·1993·13.75 MB·English

by  Abbas Vali

Pre-capitalist Iran
A Theoretical History
Abbas Vali
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY PRESS
Washington Square, New York
Copyright© Abbas Vali 1993 In memory of A. R. Ghassemlou
whose tragic murder set back the cause of
All rights reserved peace and democracy in Iran.
First published in the U.S.A. in 1993 by
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY PRESS
Washington Square
New York, N.Y. 10003
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Vali, Abbas.
Pre-capitalist Iran : a theoretical history I Abbas Vali.
p. em.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8147-8773-8
1. Iran-Economic conditions-Historiography.
2. Feudalism-Iran-Historiography.
3. Asiatic mode of production-Iran-Historiography.
4. Land tenure-Iran-Historiography.
HC474.V34 1993 93-23837
330.955-dcZO CIP
Manufactured in Great Britain
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ix
Preface xi
Part I
1 Marxism and the hl,storiography of pre-capitalist Iran 3
2 The concept of the Asiatic mode of production and
definitions of pre-capitalist Iran as an Asiatic society 21
3 The concept of the feudal mode of production and
definitions of pre-capitalist Iran as a feudal society 52
Part II
4 An economic concept of feudal rent 91
Part III
5 Landed property in pre-capitalist Iran 125
6 Political authority, sovereignty and property ownership in
medieval political discourse 162
7 The organization of agrarian production in pre-capitalist
Iran 193
Cotzclusion The concept of Iranian feudalism 227
References 235
Bibliography 261
Index 279
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was originally planned as a doctoral thesis on the problems
of the transition to capitalism and the emergence of the modern
nation-state in Iran. It has undergone many transformations since;
and my first thanks must go to Paul Hirst, who supervised it through
all its changes with unflagging patience and interest. The work, as will
be apparent, owes much to him. I also wish to thank Athar Hussein,
with whom the original idea was discussed, although a very long time
ago. Friends and colleagues in the Middle Eastern Study Group have
also offered support and encouragement; my thanks are due
particularly to Roger Owen and Sami Zubaida. I wish also to
remember with gratitude conversations with David Rosenberg, who
took an active interest both in pre-capitalist societies and in the
completion of this work; sadly he did not live to see it finished. I am
more than grateful to Anna Enayat, who has been an editor of
exemplary tolerance in the face of seemingly endless delay, as well as
an informed and intelligent commentator on the text. Thanks also to
Phyllis Roberts for the initial typing out, and to my friend Rose Gann,
who retyped and reorganised the final draft. In the last stages,
Katharine Hodgkin read through and revised the text; without her it
would have been far more difficult to read.
ix
PREFACE
This essay is neither an exercise in historiography, nor a case for the
necessity of theory in historical writing; rather, it is an argument for
the theoretical character of historical discourse. A consideration of
this issue involves a brief preliminary discussion of the object and the
nature of historical knowledge.
Iran is a key case in the social scientific literature on pre-capitalist
societies. Conceptual definitions of pre-capitalist Iran and character
izations of its economic structure, social relations and political
institutions are as old as the discipline of social theory. In the Iranian
context, it is the use of theory in historical argument which
distinguishes modern from traditional historiography, marking the
point of departure from the scholastic antiquarianism and chronolo
gism which dominated the field before the early decades of the
present century. This move towards the use of theory and conceptual
knowledge in Iranian historiography was neither an arbitrary choice
nor a purely scholastic undertaking; theory proved indispensable to
historical writing when a new generation of historians and social
scientists began to emphasize the contemporary value of historical
knowledge. The historical studies which subsequently appeared dur
ing the 1960s, especially those concerned with the pre-capitalist era,
assumed a specific form. They were genealogies of the present rather
than studies of the past, entailing conceptions of causality grounded in
specific philosophies of history, whether positivist, Marxist or
Weberian.
This emphasis on the contemporary value of historical knowledge,
which precipitated the use of theory in historical argument, arose out
of the prevailing political and ideological conditions. The introductory
chapter of this study shows that politics (rather than the subjective
interests of the historians and social scientists) determined the choice
xi
Xll PRE-CAPITALIST IRAN: A THEORETICAL HISTORY PREFACE xiii
of the object of investigation. The idea that definitions of the pre this essay refers to the common consequence of diverse theoretical
capitalist past and characterizations of its social relations and political and philosophical traditions which identity knowledge with the
institutions are essential to the analysis and understanding of the essence of the real as present in the fact, given and self-explanatory. It
capitalist present, its structural dynamics and developmental tenden is a methodological procedure for the production of knowledge: the
cies, was shared by different groups among the Iranian intelligentsia. knowledge of the real is abstracted from within given facts by
The prevailing historicism, despite its diverse philosophical bases, theoretical and conceptual means which facilitate the process without
thus affirmed the necessity of theory, and the revolution of 1979 gave affecting its outcome. This doctrine of method is the hallmark of the
a powerful impetus to this popular but still nascent trend in historical modern historical discourse on Iran, and diversity in the philosophical
writing. The spate of work which has followed this historic event has bases of the discourse does not invalidate its characterization as
further consolidated the tenuous link between theory and history: empiricist. The empiricist character of the modem historical dis
philosophies of history have proved indispensable to analyses which course on Iran will persist so long as it continues to insist on the
are primarily concerned with causal explanations of the demise of the unassailable status of the fact as both the object and the means of
Pahlavi autocracy and the rise of the Shii theocracy. evaluation of historical knowledge.
The practitioners of modem Iranian historiography, in Iran and in The empiricist tradition characteristically identifies history with the
the West, for the most part use conceptual frames and definitions past as signified in the body of the evidence available for investigation;
rather liberally, and often with no methodological restraint or regard historical knowledge is thus the knowledge of the past present in the
for their theoretical validity, either as ideal type models for compar evidence. The validity of the empiricist conception of history and
ison or as means for the analysis of concrete conditions. The historical knowledge is dependent on certain key assumptions: that
conceptual definitions of pre-capitalist Iran deployed in modem the fact is identical with the real signified in it; that the evidence of
historical writing signifY a real social totality which existed in the past the historical past is identical with it; and that the past, the object of
in a continuous manner, evolving in the course of time into different historical knowledge, exists as presence in discourse. Central to these
forms expressive of the modality of its uniform essence. This real assumptions is the concept of the fact as pre-given and self
social totality, be it feudal, Asiatic, patrimonial or traditional, is held explanatory.
to be present in the facts of Iranian history. The conceptual This essay rejects the central tenet of the empiricist tradition in
definitions of pre-capitalist Iran, whatever their theoretical found historical writing. The contention is that facts are not given, but
ations, constitute these facts as the object and the means of validation constructed in discourse; thus they are discursive constructs rather
of historical knowledge. The evidence, selected by the historian, is than autonomous objectivities. The constitution of the facts as objects
both the point of departure and the ultimate court of appeal in of knowledge is a conceptual process premised on determinate
historical enquiry. The theoretical forms from which the conceptual theoretical forms and conditions. The investigation of the evidence,
definitions of pre-capitalist Iran are derived remain external to the the process of production of knowledge, presupposes conceptual
process of the selection and investigation of the evidence; they are means and procedures which are informed by specific theoretical
means to knowledge, which enter and leave the process of its forms. These forms determine the conceptual structure and the order
production without influencing the result, in much the same way as a of the historical discourse in which the knowledge of the real signified
catalyst in natural scientific experiments. in the evidence is represented. Facts, therefore, are representations of
This particular relationship between fact and theory which under the real in discourse by specific conceptual means and determinate
pins the conceptual definitions of pre-capitalist Iran is not arbitrary, theoretical forms; they are not identical with the real signified in
but rooted in the epistemological assumptions of the modern his them. Contrary to the empiricist assumption, history is not identical
torical discourse on Iran; and these assumptions are empiricist. To with the past, nor is historical knowledge the essence of the past
characterize them as such is neither an unfounded assertion nor an present in given facts. History is the representation of the past in
unwarranted generalization. The concept of empiricism deployed in discourse, and the theoretical forms and conceptual means which
xiv PRE-CAPITALIST IRAN: A THEORETICAL HISTORY PREFACE XV
inform and facilitate the process of production of historical knowledge the evidence of Iranian history is frequently made in the course of the
have determinate effects on the order and the structure of historical enquiry; this invocation of the historical evidence serves a particular
discourse which is the order and the structure of historical know purpose, namely, to illustrate and substantiate the theoretical argu
ledge. ments developed in the course of the enquiry. It is not the means for
The constructive concept of the fact suggested by a critique of the the evaluation of historical knowledge. Chronology is not the
empiricist procedure of modern historical writing on pre-capitalist organizing principle of the enquiry, determining the order and the
Iran has wider implications for the project of this study. It implies sequence of analysis; the order of discourse in this enquiry is imposed
above all that the ontological distinction between fact and concept, by the concepts deployed in the analysis.
historical and theoretical knowledge, central to the empiricist tradition This essay is divided into three parts. The opening chapter
in history, can no longer be sustained. For this distinction rests on the explores the state of historiography in modern Iran, and discusses the
pre-given and auto-significatory attributes of the fact, attributes which political and ideological conditions which precipitated the surge of
underpin the empiricist identification of the evidence with the real interest in studies of pre-capitalist Iran, both within and outside the
signified in it; hence the characterization of the evidence as the raw country. It further surveys the contours of the controversy over the
material of historical knowledge, factual and objective, distinct from periodizations of Iranian history, and the characterizations of the
conceptual knowledge which belongs to the field of the subjective. Iranian social formation before the advent of the constitutional state
Empiricism absolutizes the distinction between facts and concepts in in the early twentieth century. This survey focuses on the political and
order to establish an exclusion zone around historiography, treating it ideological undercurrents of the controversy, which largely specify the
as a field of objective knowledge governed by its own rules of theoretical stance of the main contributors to the debate.
investigation, modes of proof and means of validation, which defy the The remaining chapters of Part I deal with the definitions of pre
theoretical forms of evaluation of discourse appropriate to other capitalist Iran as a feudal and an Asiatic society respectively. They
disciplines in human and social sciences. examine the theoretical status and validity of the most influential of
The rejection of the empiricist conception of the fact proposed by such definitions, tracing their inconsistencies to the Marxist concepts
this study undermines the privileged status assigned to historiography of the Asiatic and feudal modes of production, and in particular to the
in human and social sciences. Historical facts are no more given and anthropological concept of economic property and ownership on
self-explanatory than theoretical concepts. Both are discursive con which the political definitions of the relations of production associated
structs, although of different kinds; the difference between them is with them are grounded. Chapter 2 finds the concept of the Asiatic
conceptual rather than ontological. History is essentially a theoretical mode of production theoretically inconsistent and discursively inco
discipline; historical knowledge is no less conceptual than philosophy herent. Taxation as a political measure, it is argued, cannot by itself
or social theory. It requires theoretical forms of reasoning, proof, and constitute the relations of production; and the tax-rent couple,
evaluation of discourse, radically different from that prescribed by the emphasizing the state ownership of the land, can provide the basis for
empiricist tradition. There is no valid justification for itc; exemption these relations only if the forces of production entailed in the concept
from the theoretical forms of evaluation of discourse. The validity of of the Asiatic mode of production are radically modified to include
an argument depends on its discursive coherence and logical state power. Thus the theoretical inconsistency of the conceptof the
consistency. History is no exception to this rule. Asiatic mode of production could be rectified by a redefinition of the
This, then, is the argument behind the idea of a theoretical history, forces of production in which the state would be reconceptualized as
which forms the project of the present study. The project has two an economic force; but the conditions necessary for such a recon
aims: first, to examine the conceptual structure of the modern ceptualization-namely, large-scale, state-controlled, labour-intensive
historical discourse on pre-capitalist Iran; and second, to develop an public projects-did not exist in pre-capitalist Iran.
alternative theoretical frame for the conceptualization of its social Chapter 3 argues that the concepts of Iranian feudalism deployed
relations, economic structures and political institutions. Reference to by the Marxist historians are also theoretically inconsistent. These
xvi PRE-CA:PITALIST IRAN: A THEORETICAL HISTORY PREFACE xvii
historians attempt unsuccessfully to conceptualize Iranian feudalism Islamic conception of power, and the resultant structure of command
as a variant of the Marxist concept of the feudal mode of production; and obedience, prevented the formation of private property in land
a failure, it is further argued, which results not so much from the and the corresponding emergence of an autonomous land-owning
alleged structural differences between Iranian and European con class along West European lines. The political conception of the iqta,
ditions, as from the inconsistencies of th~ classical Marxist concept of it is argued in Chapter 5, presupposes specific juridico-political
the feudal mode of production serving as the frame of reference. This conditions of existence which were not present in medieval Iran. The
concept, which contlates the relations of production with their medieval state in Iran, exemplified by the Saljuq state, was a
juridico-political conditions of existence, regards the political as the particular articulation of the political and the economic, which
constitutive of the feudal mode of production, thus preventing the thwarted the development of conditions for territorial centralism,
conceptualization of its variants in terms of the specificity of the instituting instead a decentralized political and military structure
forces and relations of production on a local or regional level. The sustained by the exchange of military service for land revenue. This
chapter concludes with an argument for the reconceptualization of chapter further shows that the conditions of production of land
feudal rent as a necessary condition for the conceptualization of the revenue do not bear any relevance to the political definitions of the
economic structure of feudalism in Iran. iqta, which insist on the ownership of land by the Sultan or the State.
Part II, consisting of a single chapter (Chapter 4), thus begins with These conditions are treated as external to the processes of the
a critical evaluation of the political concept of feudal rent in Marxist formation and appropriation of landed property in medieval Iran.
discourse and of some authoritative accounts of it in contemporary Chapter 6 focuses on the concept of absolute ownership of the land
Marxist theory, identifYing the causes of its incoherence and the entailed in medieval political discourse, and also in recent statements
theoretical consequences thereof. Throughout the course of invest in the standard and authoritative social and economic histories of pre
igation, the mode of the conceptualization of capitalist relations of capitalist Iran. It is argued that the concept of absolute ownership
production in Capital serves as a point of reference as well as the basis does not have an autonomous discursive status, but is an adjunct of
for the construction of an economic concept of feudal rent. Feudal the ancient Persian (Sassanian) theory of government, which argues
rent as an economic category is structured by exchange relations for autocratic rule as prerequisite to order and stability. An
emanating from the possession of and separation from the means of examination of the conditions which precipitated the revival of the
production between the economic agents involved in the process of theory in medieval political discourse confirms this argument. In this
production. The crucial factor in this respect is a conception of case too, autocratic rule is considered as the condition of social stability
economic property which results from the subsumption of the and economic prosperity. The invocation of the concept of absolute
producer in the process of production, and which as such invariably ownership in contemporary historical writing, however, is rooted in
involves his separation from the means and the conditions of the popular but erroneous identification of autocratic rule with
production. The final section of this part uses the economic concept sovereign power. The autocratic state in pre-capitalist Iran lacked the
of feudal rent to outline the specificity of feudal economic structure. capacity to institute territorial centralism, and effective rule depended
This then serves as the frame of reference for the conceptualization in practice on a decentralized military power structure based on land
of the economic structure of Iranian feudalism, the constituent holding. In other words, the institutional conditions of existence of
elements of which are outlined in Part III. absolute ownership are given to the discourse, without being
Part III consists of three chapters, dealing with the conceptualiz theorized with reference to the specificity of the polity in medieval
ation of the processes of the formation and appropriation of economic Iran. In the final section of this chapter, the analysis argues for tl1e
property in land, and their juridico-political conditions of existence in importance of control over the land in the conceptualization of the
medieval Iran. This involves a critique of the political conception of process of the formation and appropriation of private property in land,
the iqta, by which it is maintained that the iqta, though a form of land and emphasizes the significance of the conditions of subsumption of
grant, did not constitute private property in land. The prevailing the direct producer which underpins this process. This issue is taken
xviii PRE-CAPITALIST IRAN: A THEORETICAL HISTORY
up and explored in Chapter 6, which involves a detailed analysis of
the organization of production, the forms and conditions of tenancy, PART I
and the modes of extraction and realization of surplus in pre-capitalist
Iran.
The last and concluding part of the essay is an attempt to construct
a concept of Iranian feudalism, drawing on the analyses in the
preceding parts. The concept of Iranian feudalism signifies a
structure of social relations specific to the Iranian social formation
from the Saljuq to the constitutional period. It is intended as a means
for historical enquiry, to enable students of Iranian history to outline
the general structural characteristics of the Iranian social formation at
various points during this long period. Feudal social relations are
conceptualized in terms of their economic, juridico-political and
ideological conditions of existence. But the concrete forms in which
these conditions existed historically-i.e. the specific form of the
state, the political and ideological processes and practices, and
cultural relations-in pre-capitalist Iran are not given in the concept
of Iranian feudalism. It follows that no definite form of state and
politics can be deduced from this concept. Such forms are included in
the concept of the Iranian social formation, and should be theorized
in terms of the concrete conditions of Iranian history in various
phases of its development in the feudal era. This is the task of
historical writing dealing with specific episodes of the feudal period. It
is hoped that this essay can assist such studies to avoid some obvious
pitfalls of the empiricist tradition in their quest to extract the truth
from the evidence.
1. MARXISM AND THE
HISTORIOGRAPHY OF
PRE-CAPITALIST IRAN
The land reform of 1962 and the ensuing social and economic
transformation in the Iranian countryside fundamentally altered the
political and intellectual scene in Iran. It revealed the striking
persistence and relative strength of pre-capitalist relations in agricul
ture, and the historical and political writings that followed this crucial
event assigned to them an unparalleled significance in the history of
modem Iran. 1 Social scientists, economic historians and political
activists began to reassess the conventional interpretations of contem
porary Iran in the light of new developments in the countryside. The
result was a revival of interest in the question of the transition to
capitalism, with a view to explaining the persistence of pre-capitalist
features and the underdeveloped state of capitalist relations in Iranian
agriculture. 2 Conceptual definitions of pre-capitalist relations, there
fore, became an indispensable part of the study of the dynamics and
direction of capitalist development in modem Iran.
Studies of the transition to capitalism in Iran focused, almost
invariably, on the Constitutionalist period, 1891-1912. Historians and
social scientists of different political and ideological persuasions
viewed this as a turning point in Iranian history, a historical landmark
separating the capitalist present from the pre-capitalist past.3 While
there was a general consensus on the predominantly transitional and
increasingly capitalist character of the post-Constitutionalist era,
opinions on the precise nature of pre-capitalist relations in the
preceding period were sharply divided. The opposing views on this
issue offered two distinct periodizations of Iranian history, both
associated, in different ways, with Marxist theory, which for reasons
of convenience will be termed the Soviet and the Asiatic periodiza
tions of Iranian history; that is, the periodizations and interpretations
3