{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023770491803278688, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0020491803278688526, 'mean_word_length': 5.291237113402062, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparative Evidence and Historical Judgment

For Barrington Moore's generation the twin catastrophes of Nazi and Soviet totalitarianism have been the most powerful historical essons of their own lifetime. In one way or another his work has been a creative response to this experience. All of Moore's writings have focused on a combination of crucial moral and empirical questions: the role of political power in the accomplished, attempted, or abortive "great transformations" to modernity; the issue of historical inevitability and alternatives; the horrendous price exacted in human lives and happiness; the possibility and prospects of a more humane society. Any attempt to resolve such large questions forces a writer to transcend academic specialization. Moore went beyond the interdisciplinary program of the Department of Social Relations and of the Russian Research Center at Harvard and combined the roles of social historian, sociologist, moralist, and philosopher of history at a time when that was not the expected way of making a career. He set himself off from the majority of his generation, which embraced a positivist belief in science as the accumulation of specialized and formalized knowledge. After three decades the outcome is clear: the sociology lecturer at Harvard, like Simmel and Weber an academic outsider, has emerged as one of the most important figures of his generation. Moore's writings are major achievements in what is nowadays called macro sociology but historically has been the core of the sociological enterprise-the historical study of societies in an evolutionary or developmental vein. At the same time, however, his approach has been antireductionist, "antitheoretical," and averse to "sociological imperialism" (p. 157). Time and again he has warned against "undue theoretical elaboration" (p. 13). Instead, he has been interested in historical generalization, in historical synthesis, on both an empirical and a normative level. Philosophically, he is a truculent rationalist, politically a soft-spoken liberal, sociologically a sober adherent to the principle of social reality-witness his dislike of political romanticism and its theories of alienation and his defense of rational authority and a work ethic. He holds fast to an old-style notion of historical progress but is appalled by its human costs. This accounts in part for his ambivalence about Marxism and socialism. He cannot really