Belated Feudalism: Labor, the Law, and Liberal Development in the United States

by Karen Orren

Contrary to the idea that the United States was liberal from its inception, Orren argues that both capitalism and constitutionalism proceeded upon a remnant of ancient feudalism. This was the common law of master and servant, embedded in the judiciary, cutting off the fundamental area of labor governance from democratic politics. The fully legislative polity that defines the modern liberal state was brought on through the industrial actions of trade unions in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and was established with the institutions of collective bargaining under the New Deal. The book represents a reinterpertation of American political development and of the role of the labor movement as a creator of liberalism, not a spoiler of socialism.

Genres: History, Law, Labor

252 pages, Hardcover

First published January 31, 1992

About the author

Karen Orren is Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Reviews

[Emily Ekins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent analysis for how the labour movement gained access to the coercive powers of government to serve their interests, just as business had. She makes a compelling argument that feudal England had allowed the dominant economic classes access to essentially statutory law and used this law to take away rights from labour, such as the right to just organize themselves separate from the gov. Then the judicial system imported from England to the United States using the common law judicial mechanism maintained these feudal arrangements. It wasn't until the New Deal and FDR's strongarming the Supreme Court which not only allowed labour freedom to organize on their own but granted them access to use the coercive powers of government to force business to do what they wanted, just as business had tried to do the same. However, Orren seems to conclude that this all was a good thing and this was part of "liberalization". I'm not sure how she defines liberalization, but it certainly does not sound as those this process promoted freedom. Instead of extended freedoms to include labour, it just allowed labour to use the same tricks as some business to use the government to force others to do what labour wants. This is corporatism. Instead, liberalization should prevent business and labour from using government to force others to do what they want. So the book is compelling in its historical analysis. However, the result should not be defined as liberalization, but instead corporatism which allowed for labour to have too much power, just as business, to use government for their own purposes rather than letting the market allocate on the basis of productivity and efficiency.