Autoplectic wrote:
>
> in which case
> the use of the term exploitation is reduced to rhetoric which
> theorists and others are entirely free to ignore; i.e. KM isn't so
> much right or wrong as...........ignorable.
>
Yes. For a few years in the late '60s and early '70s he was less ignorable; social conditions, not arguments over propositions in economics, will determine when (or if) he again becomes unignorable.
Carrol