Change-Interpret and Prescribe-Describe

Despite his continued efforts to develop it as such, Marx's distinction between "change the world" and "interpret the world" is accurately represented by neither the Practice-Theory, nor the Materialism-Idealism, contrast.  In fact, 'change the world' itself mis-formulates his aim, which, more precisely, is 'change the world for the better'.  For, underlying his goal of a transformation of Capitalism into Socialism is not a principle of change for change's sake, but the judgment that Socialism is better than Capitalism.  Thus, the contrast that he has in mind is Prescription vs. Description, later expressed by Nietzsche as Legislation vs. Labor.  Now, missing that mark allows him to circumvent a more fundamental problem--justifying the preference without recourse to at least one descriptive proposition.  For example, the implicit justification for 'Socialism is better than Capitalism', i. e. 'Justice is better than injustice', is itself descriptive.  So, the Change-Interpret contrast is not quite as clear-cut as he takes it to be, as is implicit in his frequent reliance on Dialectical Materialism--an interpretation of History--to ground his calls for revolution.  Of course, the more immediate illustration of the problem is that his preference for Change over Interpretation is itself prescriptive, and is justified by his descriptive "the point is".