With this backdrop in mind, it is easy to understand why all "critical" economy after Rousseau had to take on the form of a general theory of theft. Where thiefes are in power - even if they have affected a genteel demeanour for a long time - the only possible way for developing a realistic economic science has to be the cleptocracy of the wealthy. This theory tries to explain why the rich have always been the rulers: Those who are successful during the initial theft will be on the forefront when it comes to the distribution of power later on.
In a political perspective, the new science of the taking hand explains why the real existing oligarchy can only be vanquished by a retraction/withdrawl of the first taking. This is the most prominent political-economic thought of the 19th century, which codetermined the last century during 1917-1990 thanks to the soviet experiment. This thought articulated the quasi homeopathic idea, whereby the only measure that would work against the original theft of the few would be a morally justified countertheft of the many.
This critique of the aristocratic and bourgeoise cleptocracy, which had been formulated in Rousseau's ominous sounding, threatening theories, had been picked up by the radical wing of the french revolution with that grim ardour that often accompanies the dangerous liaison of idealism and resentment. Even the early socialists were soon proclaiming that property was theft. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was the anarchist who coined this titillating thesis. He called for the abolishment of the old order and wanted to turn it into "dominion free producer union" (that was tough to translate - herrschaftsfreie produzentenbünde). Marx fervently supported this approach, but altered his proudhonistic stance later on when he proclaimed to have understood the nature of the propertyproblem - and eo ipso of the theftproblem - on a deeper level.