As others have noted, you question is a bit hard to interpret. I believe the answer may be, yes.
In a materialist reading of history, the advent of Galileo's physics or Marx's manifesto would indeed change "the past," insofar as the past is always a bundle of present or actionable concepts.
The past becomes "rationalized" in relation to a present logic and understanding and goal. Marx's rather brutal and concise statement cast a new light on our understanding of history, quite startling in its day.
History is not, he asserts, god's will or the progress of reason or a series of physical accidents. He reframes in a way that "makes sense" for his readers and serves as an axiom for both predictions and political action.
Was he wrong? Class is a rather loose term. But it is not hard to recognize it historically as a division of societies (all societies with written histories) into identifiable groups that are hierarchical, "unequal," and contested.
I'd say, it holds up. Obviously, we can delve into myriad complexities. Race and gender and even meritocratic terms like "intelligence" are subordinated in Marx to economic social reproduction in the most general sense.
One can frame and explain human history in any number of ways.But I would say that Marx's idea of "class struggle" applies widely, has vivid historical examples, retains explanatory power, and is potentially actionable.