----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- Sam Bostaph wrote: "...the concept of the theft of something presupposes the concept of property rights in it as attributable or assigned in some way to someone or some group of someones. Otherwise the word "theft" would have no referent. The more important question concerns how property rights are vested and protected--and what constitutes 'theft.'" Thank you Sam for pointing this out. I am sorry my example of the clash between the pre- pastoral hunter and the pastoral investor in the cattle did not make it clear. I think that a central issue in this thread does involve the notion of theft. In the <purely economic> reconstruction of the Smithian perspective, the pursuit of self-interest <in a market economy> does not lead to harm to participants. This may simply mean that the self-interested baker and butcher do not steal from others, but indeed confer benefits, even though they may not intend to confer benefits. The trouble is that Smith relies on the benevolent assistance of the "invisible hand" to dovetail the interests and to deliver the "unintended but beneficial consequences." For Marx, the invisible hand is a sinister one. It does permit and even facilitate the capitalist to exploit the laborer. And the hand is not really invisible to Marx. He sees the deliberate actions of the capitalist class to institute a systematic exploitation of labor. In place of harmonious self- regulation of Smith, Marx sees a class struggle between the thieves and their victims. As theorists, it seems that we must clearly identify two different social instituions. The Smithian market can, in theory, operate harmoniously. But it cannot do so without the assuarnce of the state as the guardian and protector. As Sam insists, how property rights are vested and protected must be made clear. If a Marxian state were to exist to sanction and protect property rights, it ought to protect the laborer's property as well. Marx's own theory is that the state should monopolize all property and override the <capitalist> market and use <political power> to ensure fair distirbution. I have trouble with the monopoly part. My personal thinking is that a properly constituted state should be able to let individuals own their labor and capital, and engage in trade without fear of exploitation or exclusion. The state should prevent and punish economic crimes (of theft or fraud or monopoly). We probably all share Michael Perelman's sentiment when he reports the complaint of the Nigerian car-jacker. Does a truly Smithian market exist in Nigeria? It is seemingly not a truly competitive market, but merely a system of plunder and monopoly waiting to be transformed into a market. The car-jacker is not allowed to compete in the market, because the competitive market does not exist in Nigeria. Someday, we must clarify what the market must look like as an institution, vis-a-vis the state, to make sense of <property> and <theft>. I have some ideas, but this is not the thread for my ideas. As historians, we are curators of the properties of others. When are we going to have some of our own? Mohammad Gani ------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]