Leftist critique presupposes a social contract capital never accepted.

Evidence

One imputes this thinking to the contract of capital, but it doesn’t give a damn - it is a monstrous unprincipled enterprise, nothing more. It is “enlightened” thought that seeks to control it by imposing rules on it. And all the recrimination that replaces revolutionary thought today comes back to incriminate capital for not following the rules of the game. “Power is unjust, its justice is a class justice, capital exploits us, etc.” - as if capital were linked by a contract to the society it rules. It is the Left that holds out the mirror of equivalence to capital hoping that it will comply, comply with this phantasmagoria of the social contract and fulfill its obligations to the whole of society (by the same token, no need for revolution: it suffices that capital accommodate itself to the rational formula of exchange). — Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation, 58

Categorization

• XREF: Opposes the Marxist critique that Jameson’s framework retains — this is exactly the Jameson-vs-Baudrillard fault line the reader is charting. — connects to: The social contract idea persists despite centuries of influential critique. — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 486; Capitalism never achieved the coherence promised by an objective system
• QUESTION: Worth checking whether Baudrillard’s ‘capital never accepted a contract’ claim survives against actual corporate charter history and concession-based empire.

Broader Connections

• Capitalism never achieved the coherence promised by an objective system #complicates (0.75)
• The social contract idea persists despite centuries of influential critique. #complicates (0.72) — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 486