Having read Marx, it's important to understand that the political economy he discusses although founded on LTV, is substrate independent, ie: it could just as well be affixed on top of marginalism. The reason that no one has done so is that it doesn't matter and wouldn't change anyone's minds.
The interplay between social relations and economic relations are the entire point of the body of work and are entirely separate from any particular conceptualization of economics.
It's a much more mature and honest stance to say, yeah, he was wrong about this minutia, but right on these other things.
> he was wrong about this minutia, but right on these other things
I totally agree. And in a technical sense, his work is correct. If we didn't do wealth transfers or antitrust enforcement and had prolonged low or zero real growth, what he predicts would happen. (Same with Malthus.)
The point is those minutiae matter. Which is why, as a philosophy, Marxism holds its own. As an economic theory, it doesn't. Calling his theories on capital accumulation undisputed is simply wrong.
I guess it depends on what you think he predicts would happen. If it's workers revolting against capitalists, then sure, the trickle of bread works to diffuse this. If it's that economic relations would continue to define class relations, then he was absolutely spot on.
The interplay between social relations and economic relations are the entire point of the body of work and are entirely separate from any particular conceptualization of economics.
It's a much more mature and honest stance to say, yeah, he was wrong about this minutia, but right on these other things.