The problem is that this ideology, like all ideologies, ossifies thought. It is an important contribution to human thinking about society, but it cannot be the Last Word about anything, any more than the words of, say, John Locke — or Adam Smith — can be.

There is another path to ending economic exploitation. It involves a new paradigm for money/income, not the abolition of private property. It would not involve taking anything anybody has from anyone. That makes it politically more viable.

A first step in that direction could be taken without affecting the incomes of people making more than the new (sufficient) minimum income — while taxes could be eliminated for all people. Surely that would make taking that step politically unassailable.

I, for one, am convinced that at this point the environmental threat requires going directly to the abolition of exploitation because within this paradigm that would do the most to reduce consumption. Even that could be accomplished without violence, coercion, or manipulation. It would also maximize justice in the economy.

If anyone reading this is curious enough, there are "Same Economy, Way Better Outcomes for Society" and (primarily for economists) "Paradigm Shift" for the intermediate proposal, and "Finding One Way Forward" (by turning Marx--and Locke--around) and "To Preserve What We Have, What We Have Must be Enough" to end exploitation and maximize sustainability. All are here in Medium, but not behind the paywall.