While I understand and appreciate what you're saying, instead of addressing my argument directly you're merely offering rebuttals of my conclusions. Society isn't reducible wholly to the economic for Marx. That's revisionism and vulgar Marxism.
The one point I think you do make that is worth addressing is on power. I'm not talking about power in the mechanical sense. Rather, power dynamics exist as a material reality in the physical world. Some people are twice the size of others. Some armies have twice as many tanks as others. Some classes have the material wealth and authority to employ groups of armed men to force compliance with batons, tear gas, and guns. These are material realities. They aren't fictions.
Furthermore, the merit of an argument doesn't stand or fall based on the words of Marx any more than it does the words of Thomas Aquinas or Mohammed. You're engaged in dogmatism, which is why you claim that anything insufficiently Marxist, in your view, is idealism and not materialism. This is in spite of the face that I'm making clearly physicalist arguments.
I am a Marxist, but I also understand that exploitation is not wholly and exhaustively defined by economic exploitation of labour as defined by Karl Marx in CotGP.
Not only can you be a Marxist without treating Marx as infallible gospel, your assertion that Marx claimed that all exploitation is the exploitation of labor was never even ever made by Marx. If you have some citations where you can demonstrate otherwise, feel free to post them. Otherwise, I'm just going to have to disagree with your reading of Marx, since you haven't really explained how anything I've said is incorrect.
