Indeed, and you make very good points--but why do you call this a critical theory?

The founders of Critical Theory went to some pains to explain that critical theories must not be expected to be testable, only lauded when they achieved their aims (Horkheimer: "But in regard to the essential kind of change at which the critical theory aims, there can be no concrete perception of it until it actually comes about."). And you also weren't to probe its theoretical soundness (Horkheimer: "There are no general criteria for judging the critical theory as a whole, for it is always based on the recurrence of events and thus on a self-reproducing totality."). The rationale was convincing if you like nihilism, or you're so deeply emotionally invested in the project that your entire self-worth is bound up in it (Horkheimer again: "If, however, the theoretician and his specific object are seen as forming a dynamic unity with the oppressed class [...] then his real function emerges.")

Indeed, it is the willingness to critique anything and everything, but paired with the unwillingness to consider failure or just being wrong as an option, which is one of the clearest distinguishing characteristics of critical theories.