>>12201579>>12201596Marx concept of class is not arbitrary and neither are his class boundaries, it depend on your relationship towards production.
If you think the concept of class as defined as your relationship towards production and your shared economic interests thereof is bunk, or useless, you should ask literally any sociologist or anthropologist. They are very useful concepts, even if someone does things you think are bad using them.
As far as his theories, most of them were valuable contributions to sociology, even if many were incomplete or incorrect. That much goes for every single academic ever.
Marx's most fundamental contribution to social science in general, and certainly why he's one of the three fathers of social science, is that he is the first to actually attempt a purely materialist analysis of society, as opposed to the philosophers before him who analyzed society as a set of ideas first and foremost instead of as a material structure. This alone makes Marx more valuable for actually analyzing society than anyone before him, and is why social science is so indebted to him.
As far as what you call submitting to his theory, you have to clarify, which theory? Class analysis? Dialectical materialism? Historiography? The existence of capitalism as a distinct social organization? General social materialism? The Labour Theory of Value? The Primacy of class? Class struggle? The tendency of the rate of profit to fall? The inevitability of recession under a market economy? Or do you mean theory as his general political beliefs, which he himself said were not necessarily scientific and should not be dogma, instead seen as something that should evolve with the evolution of society?
You don't have to subscribe to all of his theories to recognize that many of them are literally true, or that others while not completely true are a valid alternative to competing theories that have similar problems. As for politics, see what I said above.
