Uploaded June 2026 | Updated September 2026, 1 week ago
A talk in the John Austin Seminar Series
Speaker: Chiara Cordelli, Professor of Political Science (University of Chicago)
Chair: George Letsas, Professor of Philosophy of Law (UCL Laws)
About the Seminar:
Recently, political philosophy has witnessed a revival of debates about the wrong of capitalism and the point of socialism. Some argue that capitalism is unjustly exploitative, but only contingently on unjust distributions. The point of socialism is thus to achieve distributive justice. Others have objected that capitalism is intrinsically unjust, because dominating, regardless of the presence of distributive injustice. The point of socialism is to overcome the injustice of domination through workers’ collective control of the labor process. Professor Cordelli argues that both views provide an insufficient critique of capitalism, with regards to their site of analysis, as well as their account of the distinctive wrong of capitalism, the point of socialism, and its institutional demands. She proposes a normative critique of capitalism that (i) focuses on capitalism’s mode of investment and valuation, beyond the labor process, as its core site of analysis, (ii) reconceptualizes capitalism’s distinctive ill as one of social alienation, rather than exploitation or domination, and its wrong as a matter of legitimacy rather than justice, (iii) understands the point of socialism, beyond redistribution and nondomination, as one of reconciliation and, (iv) argues for a broader account of economic democracy, which includes the democratic planning of investment.
About the Speaker:
Chiara Cordelli is Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and affiliated faculty in Philosophy. Since 2025, she is also senior research fellow at the Centre for History and Economics at Sciences Po. Beyond her published articles, she is the author of The Privatized State (Princeton University Press, 2020), which was awarded the 2021 ECPR Political Theory Prize for best first book in political theory, as well as the editor of NOMOS. Cordelli has held visiting positions at Stanford, Princeton, Harvard and at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales.
A talk in the John Austin Seminar Series
Speaker: Chiara Cordelli, Professor of Political Science (University of Chicago)
Chair: George Letsas, Professor of Philosophy of Law (UCL Laws)
About the Seminar:
Recently, political philosophy has witnessed a revival of debates about the wrong of capitalism and the point of socialism. Some argue that capitalism is unjustly exploitative, but only contingently on unjust distributions. The point of socialism is thus to achieve distributive justice. Others have objected that capitalism is intrinsically unjust, because dominating, regardless of the presence of distributive injustice. The point of socialism is to overcome the injustice of domination through workers’ collective control of the labor process. Professor Cordelli argues that both views provide an insufficient critique of capitalism, with regards to their site of analysis, as well as their account of the distinctive wrong of capitalism, the point of socialism, and its institutional demands. She proposes a normative critique of capitalism that (i) focuses on capitalism’s mode of investment and valuation, beyond the labor process, as its core site of analysis, (ii) reconceptualizes capitalism’s distinctive ill as one of social alienation, rather than exploitation or domination, and its wrong as a matter of legitimacy rather than justice, (iii) understands the point of socialism, beyond redistribution and nondomination, as one of reconciliation and, (iv) argues for a broader account of economic democracy, which includes the democratic planning of investment.
About the Speaker:
Chiara Cordelli is Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and affiliated faculty in Philosophy. Since 2025, she is also senior research fellow at the Centre for History and Economics at Sciences Po. Beyond her published articles, she is the author of The Privatized State (Princeton University Press, 2020), which was awarded the 2021 ECPR Political Theory Prize for best first book in political theory, as well as the editor of NOMOS. Cordelli has held visiting positions at Stanford, Princeton, Harvard and at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales.




![Regulatory Models for Algorithmic Assessment: Robust Delegation or Kicking The Can?
A UCL Laws lecture recording from 25 April 2024.
Speakers: Prof. Margot Kaminski (University of Colorado Law School), Associate Prof. Michael Veale (UCL Laws) and Assistant Prof. Jennifer Cobbe (University of Cambridge).
Chair: Andrew Strait (Ada Lovelace Institute)
Recent years have seen a surge in regulation targeting algorithmic systems, including online platforms (Online Safety Act [UK], Digital Services Act [EU]), artificial intelligence (AI Act [EU], AI Executive Order [US]), and the application and extension of existing frameworks, such as data protection, to algorithmic challenges (UK and EU GDPR, California Consumer Privacy Act and Draft Automated Decisionmaking Technology Regulations [USA]). Much of the time, these instruments require regulated actors to undertake or outsource some form of assessment, such as a risk assessment, impact assessment or conformity assessment, to ensure the systems being deployed have desired characteristics. On first glance, all these assessments look like the same regulatory mode — but are they? What are policymakers and regulators actually doing when they outsource the analysis of such systems to actors or audit ecosystems, and under what conditions might it produce good regulatory results? Is the AI Acts conformity assessment really the same kind of beast as the Digital Services Act or Online Safety Acts risk assessment, or the GDPRs data protection impact assessment? Is this just kicking the can on value-laden issues, like fairness or transparency, representativeness or speech norms, down to other actors, because legislators dont want to do it?
In this discussion, three scholars of these systems will compare and contrast different regulatory regimes concerning AI with a focus on how actors within them can understand the systems around them. Does the outsourcing of the analysis of how AI systems work make sense, and is it given to actors with the position and analytic capacity to do it, or might it lead to regulatory arbitrage or even failure? Regulatory Models for Algorithmic Assessment: Robust Delegation or Kicking The Can?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lbVEgSLO3iY/mqdefault.jpg)





