Major Controversies in Materialist Historiography Şebnem Oğuz Marxist historiography is dominated by the idea that the motor of historical change is the conflict between forces and relations of production. This idea, which was most clearly articulated in Karl Marx’s Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, has been widely used by Marxist historians to explain social transformations in general, and the transition to capitalism in particular. The major methodological implication of this understanding is the prioritization of forces of production over relations of production in explaining historical change. This understanding was first criticised by British Marxist historians in the 1950s, especially in the writings of E. P. Thompson. In recent years, the critique of this understanding came forcefully back to the agenda through the works of authors like Robert Brenner, Ellen Meiksins Wood and George Comninel, whose approach came to be collectively known as “political Marxism”. This paper aims to discuss the contributions of political Marxism to materialist historiography. It reaffirms the basic argument of political Marxism that the motor of historical change is not to be found in the conflict between forces and relations of production, which is a construct specific to capitalism, but class struggle itself, which is central to both pre-capitalist and capitalist societies.