What criticisms have historians made of historical materialism?

Historians and philosophers have raised several significant criticisms of historical materialism, the theory that economic activity and the mode of production determine a society's institutional structure.12

• Empirical Challenges: Many critics argue that the collapse of the Soviet Union and communist regimes in eastern Europe in 1989–91 falsified the theory, as these events contradicted the prediction that capitalism would inevitably be replaced by a successful communist mode of production.13
• Reductionism and Determinism: The theory is frequently charged with being overly simplistic or "technological determinism." Opponents argue that the mode of production does not solely dictate a society's institutions. While some Marxists concede that other factors influence history, critics note that this admission undermines the core claim that economic activity is the primary "motor of history".1
• Lack of Falsifiability: Philosopher Karl Popper famously argued that historical materialism is not an empirical science because it fails the falsifiability criterion. He contended that the theory’s predictions are insufficiently precise, making it impossible to "disconfirm" through empirical evidence.34
• Interpretive Ambiguity: Scholars have questioned the consistency of the theory, noting that Marx never explicitly detailed it in a single definitive work, leading to reliance on brief, potentially misinterpreted texts.1