Theories of Capitalism, Programs for Transformation
To design the right program for capitalism’s legal transformation, we must begin with the right theory of capitalism.
To design the right program for capitalism’s legal transformation, we must begin with the right theory of capitalism.
What follows, politically, from the idea that law is constitutive of capitalism? What theories of social change does this view make available, where does it locate possibilities for political agency, and what kinds of political energies might it unleash?
If capitalism is a legal regime above all else, then legal reform is not only necessary but sufficient in order to achieve democratic self-governance, ecological sustainability, and equality. As the collapse of the WTO and the rise of China suggest, however, law alone does not decide who holds economic power.
When new constitutional orders came about in the 18th and 19th centuries, they left intact the private legal order that they inherited from feudalism, entrenching property rights and contracts as bulwarks against economic democracy. Reforming this system will require placing private law on a normative foundation that is compatible with democratic self-ordering.
According to a recent defense of law and economics, contemporary practitioners have abandoned the idea that law should maximize economic efficiency and wealth. To test this claim, three economists reviewed twelve major law and economics textbooks.
Law and economics offers a portable, teachable procedure that students can learn in a semester and apply across fields. Should LPE aim to develop a rival procedure of its own, or should it aspire to a different kind of methodological maturity?
In capitalism, social relations of production exert outsized force on all other domains, distorting and warping relations of reproduction, protection, and meaning-making without fully annihilating their internal capacity to structure relations in their distinct domains. This approach to understanding society, in which social relations are taken as the basic unit of analysis, helps clarify the place of “the state” in capitalism, the role of law in legitimating capitalism, and the relationship between culture, technology, and politics under capitalism.
Any program of transformative change must reckon with the fact that capitalists have largely succeeded in de-legitimizing existing institutions, including the state itself.
How much autonomy does politics have from the prevailing economic order? And what role does culture play in shaping politics? Answers to these questions will help determine law’s potential role in advancing democratic efforts to shape the terms of common life.
Where do profits come from? And how does law legitimate capitalism? To make progress on these questions, we must dig deeper into the nature of capital and the idea of the legal form.
Understanding law’s role in producing the imperatives of capitalism and the relative power of those who occupy different roles in production allows us to identify reforms capable of transforming the structure of those relations.
The Association of Law and Political Economy invites proposals for its second annual meeting, to be held on June 9-10, 2027, in Boston, MA.
Recent calls for mandatory retirement in academia are a reminder that class and other social hierarchies are something like mountains with increasingly dense fog toward their peaks: the higher up one is, the less one understands that upon which and above which one stands.
As Sam Moyn has recently argued, “class reductionism” fails to explain differentiation along the generational gradient — a pattern clearly visible in economics, politics, and ideology. Yet a clear picture of how age mediates class would reveal not gerontocracy, but capitalism and the fractionated class system it produces.
Contemporary proponents of law and economics claim to have abandoned the idea that law is an instrument for maximizing economic efficiency and wealth. Corporate law scholars haven’t yet heard the good news.