-
Introduction: Money and Freedom in the Context of History
“Money and freedom” are two fundamental concepts in the history of human thought — one the instrument of exchange, the other the ultimate goal of emancipation. Yet, the relationship between them has never been simple or uniform. From ancient Greece to the Industrial Revolution, money has always been both a source of power and a means of possibility.
In Europe, the commercialization of agriculture and the emergence of a free market transformed money into a vehicle for achieving individual liberty. In the Middle East — particularly in Iran — the same process led instead to the concentration of power and the rise of an economic oligarchy.
What ultimately distinguished the fate of these two civilizations was not merely the amount of money or wealth they possessed, but rather how their economic and political institutions were organized around money.
In Europe, money gradually broke free from the domination of political authority and, within the framework of a free market, gave rise to the principles of choice and contract. In the Middle East, however, money remained trapped within networks of traditional, religious, and military relations; rather than fostering freedom, it became a tool of dependency and social control.
This article, by focusing on the key concept of “money and freedom,” compares the historical trajectories of these two worlds — from the commercialization of agriculture to the birth of economic oligarchy — to understand how a common phenomenon could yield two opposing outcomes in distinct cultural contexts.
-
The Commercialization of Agriculture and Liberation from Feudalism in Europe
The commercialization of agriculture marked a turning point in the historical relationship between money and freedom in Europe. Before the sixteenth century, agriculture was largely subsistence-based; peasants cultivated and harvested primarily for survival, and land was not considered private property but part of the natural and feudal order. In such a system, freedom had a narrow meaning: the peasant was bound to the land, and the land to the lord.
From the sixteenth century onward, however, the expansion of trade and the growth of commodity exchange transformed agriculture from subsistence production to commercial enterprise. The harvest was no longer for family consumption but a commodity destined for the market. This change was far more profound than it might first appear, for it placed money at the very center of economic life rather than at its margins.
2.1. The Separation of Humans from the Land: The Birth of the Economic Individual
The commercialization of agriculture separated the peasant from the land. He was no longer merely a serf but a producer who could sell his goods, live off his earnings, or purchase new property. For the first time, the European individual was confronted with the possibility of choice — the choice to stay, to migrate, or to invest. This was the moment when the free economic individual began to emerge.
As Karl Polanyi observed, this transformation represented the “separation of man from the natural means of production” — a process that was at once painful and liberating. Humanity was freed from its organic bond with the land, but in return had to define itself within the competitive market, either as a seller of labor or as an owner of goods. Thus, money replaced personal relationships, and a system of contractual exchange took shape.
2.2. The Role of Private Property and Law in Freedom
In Europe, this process was accompanied by profound legal transformations. Private property was formally recognized, and the transfer of land through purchase and sale became possible. This shift had two major consequences:
First, land changed from a static commodity into a dynamic form of capital; second, law replaced the arbitrary will of the feudal lord. From that point on, the relationship between humans and the land was defined not by lineage or power, but by contract and money.
For this reason, economic freedom in Europe gradually emerged from within the legal order. Human beings became free because the economic system was no longer dependent on inherited authority. A landowner could go bankrupt, and a peasant could become wealthy; the game of life was now governed by contract and competition, not by status or birth.
2.3. From the Free Peasant to the Urban Bourgeoisie
The liberated peasantry provided the human labor necessary for the growth of towns and industry. Seeking work and opportunity, they migrated to urban centers and formed a new class: the bourgeoisie.
Unlike the landed aristocracy, the bourgeois derived power not from bloodline, but from production and exchange. They demanded economic security, transparent contracts, and a law-governed state. Consequently, the expansion of markets naturally fostered demands for civil and political freedoms.
In fact, the commercialization of agriculture laid the groundwork for money to become not merely an instrument of exchange, but the foundation of individual social and political identity. Freedom from the land led, in turn, to freedom from political domination.
2.4. The Monetary Economy and the Formation of a New Work Ethic
The rise of a monetary economy transformed not only the system of production but also the moral fabric of society. In the feudal order, labor was viewed as a natural duty; in the commercial economy, it became a moral and even religious virtue.
Protestantism, as Max Weber famously argued, interpreted labor and the accumulation of capital as signs of divine election. Wealth was no longer seen as a source of sin, but as evidence of grace. This fundamental shift liberated money from the stigma of materialism and redefined it as a symbol of discipline, diligence, and progress.
As a result, Europe entered an era in which money and freedom ceased to stand in opposition and began to reinforce one another. Money enabled choice and independence, while freedom provided the moral legitimacy for economic activity.
-
The Birth of Industry and the Expansion of Economic Freedom in Europe
If the commercialization of agriculture marked humanity’s liberation from the land, the birth of industry represented the next stage — liberation from scarcity itself. The Industrial Revolution of the eighteenth century, through the transformation of tools and the division of labor, ushered money and freedom into a new phase. Humanity now sought not only freedom from feudal masters but freedom from natural necessity and the limits of time.
3.1. Mass Production and the Transformation of the Concept of Work
In the pre-industrial system, labor meant physical toil, bound by the rhythms of the seasons and nature. With the advent of machinery, however, time and space were detached from labor. People could now work in factories, independently of the natural cycles of land and weather.
Mass production of goods allowed basic human needs to be met at lower cost. In this sense, industry became the material condition of freedom: for the first time, large segments of the population could experience leisure and choice.
Under these circumstances, the relationship between money and freedom became dual in nature. Money was both the product of industrial labor and the instrument for realizing personal aspirations. Freedom, meanwhile, transcended its purely political meaning and found expression in consumption and lifestyle. People could now choose what to wear, what to buy, and how to live.
3.2. The Rise of the Working Class and the Emergence of Negative Freedom
Yet industry did not bring freedom to all equally. While the bourgeoisie enjoyed economic independence, the working class remained bound by contracts that were often deeply unequal. Karl Marx identified in this contradiction the essence of “negative freedom”: freedom from ownership, yet without ownership; freedom from the land, yet dependence on capital.
Even so, this form of negative freedom sowed the seeds of later reform. Workers gained the right to protest, trade unions were established, and welfare states began to take shape. In other words, despite its inequalities, industrialization produced a system in which political and economic freedom became subjects of negotiation and expansion.
3.3. The Market Institution and the Limitation of Political Power
The Industrial Revolution gave birth to institutions that balanced power between the state and society: banks, joint-stock companies, stock exchanges, and elected parliaments.
Money was no longer the exclusive domain of the royal court; it now rested in the hands of thousands of economic actors. This diffusion of wealth curtailed the reach of political authority.
From then on, governments had to listen to the demands of both investors and workers in order to maintain economic order. Thus, the monetary economy became a supporter of civil liberty.
3.4. The Link Between Industrial Progress and Personal Ethics
Nineteenth-century Europe witnessed a remarkable coexistence of capital and morality. Labor, thrift, investment, and personal discipline became values that held meaning both in the marketplace and in everyday life.
Freedom was no longer merely a political concept; it came to signify the individual’s capacity to shape his or her own life through effort and rationality.
In this context, money acquired symbolic meaning: it became a sign of human mastery over time itself. From this perspective, industry was not only a tool of production but also a means of self-formation.
The modern human, unlike the feudal subject, came to see himself reflected in his labor and income. Freedom was no longer an inherited privilege but an individual achievement.
By the end of this stage, Europe had become a society in which money and freedom were two sides of the same coin:
money became the instrument for realizing freedom, and freedom the moral foundation that legitimized money.
Yet, as we shall see, in the Middle East this trajectory was entirely different. There, commercialization and industrialization not only failed to bring freedom but instead reproduced traditional structures of power, giving rise to an economic oligarchy.
-
Money in the Middle East: From a Medium of Exchange to an Instrument of Power
In the Middle East, the historical trajectory of money was entirely different, and the experience of “money and freedom” took a fundamentally distinct form. Whereas in Europe the commercialization of agriculture and the emergence of a free market turned money into a vehicle for economic independence and individual liberty, in Iran and much of the Middle East, money became primarily a means for preserving and concentrating political and social power.
The roots of this divergence lay in a combination of factors: patterns of land ownership, the dominance of traditional institutions, and an economic culture that restricted individual autonomy and prevented money from becoming an agent of liberation. Three key forces shaped the fate of money in the Middle East: the structure of land ownership and the limits of economic individuality; a rent-based economy dependent on political power; and a cultural order that tied economic legitimacy to traditional institutions.
4.1. The Structure of Ownership and the Limits of Economic Individuality
One of the fundamental causes of this divergence was the nature of land and capital ownership in the Middle East. Unlike Europe, where private property was institutionalized and land could be freely bought and sold, in Iran land generally fell into three main categories:
- State Lands (Khalesa): Lands owned by the state or the monarch, whose revenues flowed directly to the royal court.
- Religious Endowments (Waqf): Lands administered under religious foundations, with revenues devoted to clerical or charitable purposes.
- Feudal Estates: Large hereditary properties belonging to landlords or tribal khans, whose ownership was based on loyalty to political power.
Within this system, there was little space for the independent peasant or producer. When money entered circulation, it was not a sign of freedom but a mechanism of dependence — binding individuals to landlords, the royal court, or the clergy. The peasant or small merchant could rarely accumulate capital or achieve economic autonomy, since no institutional framework for independent ownership existed.
4.2. A Rentier Economy and Dependence on Power
In Europe, money emerged as the product of labor and market-based production. In the Middle East, however, much of the wealth originated from access to political authority — through taxation, trade monopolies, and royal concessions.
In other words, in Iran, money was never simply a tool of individual independence. To become wealthy, one had to be connected to the traditional structures of power:
- The Monarchy and the Court: granting economic privileges and monopolies over foreign trade;
- The Clergy: providing religious legitimacy and controlling vast endowments;
- The Military: ensuring security and enforcing the system of exchange.
The result was that money did not generate freedom; it reproduced dependency and social control. Even the wealthiest individuals lacked genuine security and independence unless sanctioned by existing centers of power.
4.3. The Absence of an Independent Bourgeoisie
Another fundamental difference lay in the absence of an independent middle class. In Europe, the bourgeoisie emerged directly from the commercialization of agriculture and the rise of the free market. This class was able to exert pressure on the state and secure economic and political freedoms.
In Iran, however, the bazaar and commerce never became independent from the state and traditional power structures. Wealthy merchants and landowners were compelled to align themselves with the royal court, the clergy, or the military.
This dependency prevented the emergence of a class capable of building autonomous economic and civic institutions. In such an environment, money never became the foundation of freedom; instead, it turned into an instrument for the concentration and preservation of oligarchic power.
4.4. Economic Culture and the Ethics of Profit
In Europe, economic value was linked to the ethics of labor and personal discipline. Protestantism elevated profit and work to the status of moral virtues, making money a symbol of progress and self-determination.
In the Middle East, however, personal wealth accumulation was often viewed with suspicion — unless it was aligned with political or religious authority. Profit and income, without the sanction of legitimacy from those institutions, carried little social or moral value.
Thus, instead of fostering freedom, money became a means of enforcing obedience to traditional hierarchies, limiting individual independence and initiative.
4.6. The Rise of a Modern Oligarchy in Iran: From the Pahlavi Era to the Islamic Republic
Economic oligarchy in Iran has a long history, but its form and nature differed significantly between the Pahlavi period and the Islamic Republic. During the Pahlavi dynasty — particularly from Reza Shah to Mohammad Reza Shah — the economic elite largely emerged through proximity to the royal court and the central state. Major industrialists and wealthy entrepreneurs depended on personal and political connections with the monarchy and high-ranking officials for success.
As a result, economic achievement was rarely the outcome of innovation or investment alone; it was often the product of privilege, state concessions, and exclusive contracts. The middle class remained relatively small, and the national economy was dominated by elites closely tied to the government and a limited industrial-commercial minority dependent on state patronage. Economic freedom remained constrained, and money served not as a path to liberty, but as a pillar sustaining oligarchic stability.
After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the nature of Iran’s oligarchy transformed. A new class of nouveaux riches—quasi-capitalists with religious and political affiliations—emerged. Unlike Europe’s independent bourgeoisie, this new class accumulated wealth primarily through its ties to the political and religious institutions of the revolution.
These newly affluent groups gained economic standing by aligning with the Revolutionary Guard, religious foundations (bonyads), and state institutions. Their wealth did not stem from market freedom but from political privilege. The Iranian economy thus remained rentier in nature, though the locus of power shifted from the royal court to revolutionary and religious entities.
The defining feature of this new oligarchic class was the speed with which wealth and social mobility were achieved. Individuals of modest means before the revolution were able, within a few years, to amass immense fortunes and enter the ranks of the economic elite. Yet this transformation did not resemble the rise of the European bourgeoisie, for it lacked both economic autonomy and individual freedom. Wealth remained inseparably tied to political power, and new traditional institutions — such as the Revolutionary Guard, religious foundations, and state agencies — provided the legitimacy and security for that wealth.
In other words, the Islamic Republic demonstrates that economic oligarchy can reproduce itself without a genuine free market or institutional independence. The nouveau riche class, despite its vast fortunes, continues to depend on political structures, a dependence that prevents the emergence of true economic and individual freedom. Thus, post-revolutionary Iran represents a modern manifestation of a much older regional pattern: money and capital do not serve as instruments of personal liberation but as tools for the concentration of power and the entrenchment of state- and clergy-dependent elites.
-
The Alliance of Money with the Court, the Clergy, and the Military: The Formation and Consolidation of Economic Oligarchy in Iran and the Middle East
In the Middle East — and particularly in Iran — the experience of money and freedom took a distinct path from the very beginning, because money was always intertwined with traditional centers of power. Unlike Europe, where money and private property gradually separated from the control of the state and feudal lords to form a free market, in Iran every form of independent economic activity required a connection to the monarchy, the clergy, or the military. These three institutions constituted the pillars of political stability and the reproduction of economic oligarchy. Without them, neither wealth nor capitalism could achieve institutional independence.
5.1. The Court and the Rentier Economy
In pre-revolutionary Iran, the royal court and the central state apparatus were the primary distributors of economic privilege. The Shah and his officials could allocate commercial monopolies, grant access to export markets, and issue exclusive licenses, concentrating wealth and capital among elites loyal to the regime.
This system turned money into a mechanism for securing economic and social safety rather than a vehicle for personal freedom. Even the most successful entrepreneurs had to align their interests with those of the court and government officials; without such alignment, they risked confiscation, restriction, or economic downfall.
The rent-based economic model of the Pahlavi era vividly demonstrated that money and markets could not create genuine economic freedom when power remained centralized in the hands of the state.
5.2. The Clergy and the Question of Economic Legitimacy
The clergy also played a crucial role in consolidating the oligarchic order. Religious endowments (waqf lands), charitable foundations, and even control over certain markets and commercial activities served as instruments of clerical economic power. For investors and merchants to succeed, they needed to obtain religious legitimacy for their business activities — legitimacy that was often secured through donations, financial contributions, or support for religious institutions.
In this way, money and personal wealth were always embedded within a network of religious and social dependencies. This complex relationship ensured that even the wealthy could not detach themselves from the political and religious establishment. As a result, genuine individual economic freedom never fully materialized.
5.3. The Revolutionary Guard and the Military’s Role in the Economy
Another key factor was the growing economic role of the armed forces, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) after the 1979 Revolution. Control over security, roads, markets, and ports granted the IRGC direct leverage over the country’s economic activity, while simultaneously reinforcing its military authority in the distribution of resources.
Those who managed to cultivate close ties with the IRGC gained privileged access to lucrative markets and investment opportunities. By contrast, others—lacking military or security backing—remained vulnerable, even within local trade. Thus, throughout the Middle East, money has long been intertwined not with individual freedom or independent ownership, but with military power and institutional dependency.
5.4. The Reproduction of Oligarchy and the Weakness of the Middle Class
The alliance of money with the monarchy, the clergy, and the military concentrated wealth in the hands of a small elite, leaving little room for an autonomous middle class. Unlike Europe—where the commercialization of agriculture and the Industrial Revolution led to the emergence of a robust bourgeoisie and middle class—in Iran and other parts of the Middle East, money and capital were consistently embedded in webs of political and religious dependency.
These networks naturally inhibited the creation of independent economic institutions and a genuinely free market, thereby perpetuating the structure of economic oligarchy. Even the introduction of modern industry and technology failed to dismantle these dependencies, as traditional power institutions continued to control access to resources, capital, and markets.
5.5. The Islamic Republic and the Rise of a New Bourgeoisie
Following the Islamic Revolution, the alliance between money and power was not broken but rather reconfigured. A new class of capitalists emerged—often drawn from revolutionary elites, members of the IRGC, and religious foundations—who amassed vast wealth through direct affiliation with political and clerical institutions.
This nouveau riche class, unlike the European bourgeoisie, possessed no real economic independence; its success depended on the stability and political protection of the ruling institutions. The rapid accumulation of wealth and the dramatic upward mobility of this group demonstrate that even in a modern society, money without institutional autonomy and a free market does not lead to personal liberty. Instead, it reproduces the same oligarchic and power-concentrating structures that have characterized the region for centuries.
5.6. Sanctions as an Opportunity: The Growth of Economic Oligarchy in Contemporary Iran
International economic sanctions, though originally designed to curtail Iran’s political and economic power, paradoxically created fertile ground for the consolidation and expansion of the country’s economic oligarchy. Restricted access to global markets and modern technologies meant that only those directly connected to state institutions—those with access to government rents and domestic networks—were able to profit from the crisis. These groups exploited exclusive privileges, state contracts, and privileged access to key resources to amass immense wealth—at times exceeding, relative to the size of Iran’s economy and population, the fortunes accumulated in Europe during its advanced industrial phases.
Moreover, sanctions gave rise to gray markets and an extensive underground economy that allowed elites connected to power to bypass restrictions and engage in lucrative trade. The circumvention of sanctions through rent-seeking networks, black-market operations, and complex brokerage arrangements—both domestic and international—enabled the new rich (nouveaux riches) to accumulate vast fortunes and consolidate their economic positions. Contrary to the widespread assumption that sanctions would weaken the elite, in Iran they instead reinforced the concentration of wealth and power among those already linked to the state and its institutions.
From a historical and economic perspective, this experience demonstrates that crises and external constraints—without institutional reform or the development of an autonomous market—do not enhance economic freedom or create an independent middle class. Rather, they intensify the concentration of wealth and oligarchic control. In other words, sanctions provided the Iranian oligarchy with an opportunity to expand its wealth through state rents and exclusive access to niche markets, thereby strengthening its economic dominance even under adverse international conditions. This phenomenon represents a modern iteration of the long-standing historical pattern observed throughout the Middle East: money and wealth, in the absence of institutional independence and a free market, do not produce individual liberty but instead serve as instruments for consolidating power and perpetuating inequality.
5.7. Final Analysis of Section Five
In sum, the experience of Iran and the broader Middle East reveals that the relationship between money and freedom is neither direct nor automatic; it is conditioned by institutions, social structures, and economic culture. When money operates within the framework of independent markets and secure private property—such as in Europe—it can become a vehicle for individual freedom. But when money is entangled with the monarchy, the clergy, and the military, even the development of markets and industry cannot produce economic independence or civil liberty; it merely entrenches the dominance of economic oligarchy. This analysis underscores that the nature of power institutions is the key to understanding the historical relationship between money and freedom across different societies.
-
Conclusion: Money and Freedom—or Oligarchy—in Europe and the Middle East
Historical experience shows that the relationship between money and freedom is complex and conditional, never linear or self-evident. In Europe, the commercialization of agriculture, the expansion of markets, and the Industrial Revolution created conditions under which money could become a tool for economic and personal freedom. Yet this outcome was far from automatic: it depended on the prior establishment of legal institutions, secure private property, and an ethical-economic culture conducive to autonomy. Without these preconditions, even the broadest markets and most monetized economies can result in power concentration and inequality rather than liberty.
In the Middle East, including Iran, the commercialization of agriculture and the spread of money rarely led to genuine freedom. Capital and wealth remained embedded in networks of dependence on royal courts, religious institutions, and military forces. Economic development without institutional independence tended to reinforce oligarchic structures and centralize power. Even in the modern era, with the rise of a nouveau riche class under the Islamic Republic, we see that wealth—absent institutional autonomy and a free market—fails to yield personal liberty and merely reproduces economic oligarchy.
Thus, this article demonstrates that commercialization and the emergence of capitalism are potential instruments of freedom, but not its guarantees. The realization of economic and civil liberty requires appropriate institutional, political, and cultural conditions. The historical trajectories of Europe and the Middle East offer contrasting examples of how similar economic processes can produce both emancipatory and restrictive outcomes. In other words, money and markets do not inherently generate freedom; they provide the structural framework within which freedom may arise—if, and only if, supported by robust institutions, a culture of accountability, and above all, a political order that safeguards individual autonomy.
This cautious conclusion opens the path for further inquiry: to truly understand the relationship between money and freedom, one must also consider the concepts of positive liberty, institutional independence, and the active role of citizens. Future research may focus on these dimensions, examining how genuine freedom and individual capacity for participation—both economic and political—can emerge within or beyond existing systems of power.
