The historical status of historical materialism is almost more interesting than its actual status in the present. The economic interpretation of history doesn’t really work because it is too limited in its scope and echoes the reductionist scientism of the post-hegelian era.
We have considered the model of the eonic effect in contrast, but that model is at first too strange for easy use. But it points to another strategy for the left: study world history empirically (and you can use the outline of the eonic effect very handily) wary of the issues of a science of history, which doesn’t exist. The eonic effect shows the stunning complexity of world history and the need to approach it in some kind of systematic way. The marxist stance carries a vital component of modern (futuristic) politics but that is not really helped by theoretical history. The basic issues of socialism are those of recipes rather than theories: praxis. The question of economic history can’t be studied until the actual economic histories known are studied. They don’t fall into simple categories that can be generalized. Consider the economic history of ancient egypt.
And in the end the proper economic system for a socialist society has as yet remained an enigma.
The legacy of historical materialism is already that of an antique and it would be more practical for socialists to adopt a new approach.