I'm referring to historical materialism mainly, a great example of such an analysis is Engel's Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State. I suppose some factual parts of it are outdated, but is his methodology?
Can history be explained by the class struggle and historical materialism? I'm not saying it would be factual, but is it accurate in explaining the changes in economic and political systems?
Thanks in advance for your answers
I would say of all the so-called "structuralists" (i.e., those who analyze history as a manifestation of a system, and in the field of history this is usually defined by conflict between identifiable concepts such as "class," "gender," "race," etc.,) that their interpretations are extremely useful in highlighting overlooked aspects of history and extending the narrative beyond the typical political histories that are closer to the kind of writing that I do. Keep in mind that you can analyze history through the lens of gender or class, contextualizing all of history through this lens, without arguing that the model literally existed as the guiding force behind all historical phenomena. In other words, it is perfectly reasonable to posit all of history as a struggle between class so long as you recognize that you are creating a work that fits into the existing historiography and contributes to it rather than replaces it.
With that being said, these models often fail in that they create adherents who begin to see the patterns of the model in anything they examine. When this happens, an adherent moves away from scholarship and towards polemics. Given the enormous amount of interpretation involved in the study of history, this is an easy trap to fall into. I'd strongly suggest that you keep this in mind when reading a work by a structuralist like Engels.
Historical materialism, in broad terms, argues that all systems (social, economic, political, etc.), beliefs and knowledge are some function of underlying economic conditions. Question: would the theory of historical materialism itself arise out of underlying economic conditions?
If so, then it can only be applied to certain periods where economic conditions allow it to be applied (in which case, it is not useless for all periods, just for some.
If not, then there is a contradiction.
To answer in a different way, theories which are logically valid are not ever "wrong" or "inaccurate", but rather have or do not have evidence supporting them.
Is historical materialism accurate 100% of the time? Eh...
Can historical materialism be useful, even if the analysis does not take into account every single factor? Yes. At times, there undoubtedly were class based conflicts. That does not mean there were class conflicts ALL the time.