Is dialectical materialism teleological?

[Althusser]

Does the science of Marxism, historical materialism, hold that nature inherently tends toward finite ends? Is it deterministic? From my readings, I think I understand it in deterministic terms that seem very mechanical and metaphysical, which I am beginning to think is wrong.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Maurice Cornforth put it pretty well in that the dialectical materialist outlook is different from mechanical materialism in that you cannot take a snapshot of the universe, freeze it, and then from there on calculate every even that follows. unlike a billiards table.

radioactive decay, for example, gives particles energy and motion. that particle needs nothing but its own decay and transformation into another form of matter to give it motion. though, that motion also requires a relationship with another piece of matter.

its also like taking a snap shot of all of humanity, looking at everyones thoughts and actions at that moment and then determining the course of out species until its end. society builds up its own contradictions and individuals come and go and influence events but the mass of society moves because of its relationship with itself. not because one dude said 'go.'



probably not the best description or explanation though.

[Art Vandelay]

I really don't see how anyone with a working grasp of dialectical materialism could ever possibly say its deterministic. It proceeds from the premise that everything is constantly in motion, constantly changing, never static, with internal contradictions propelling it. Also a distinction needs to be made between historical materialism (ie: the materialist conception of history) and dialectical materialism. Dialectical materialism is perhaps the most comprehensive way to say the 'Marxist method,' where as historical materialism is a sociological theory which stems from the dialectical materialist paradigm. Historical materialism usually gets slandered as teleological and deterministic, but that simply follows from a lack of understanding of Marxism. Continually throughout our history, Marxists have stressed that socialism is certainly not inevitable. We proclaim that capitalism demise is intevitable, due to its internal contradictions, nothing more. As Rosa Luxembourg said, society has two choices, socialism or barbarism. Even if the proletariat does accomplish its historical task of abolishing itself, Marx never stated it would be the end of history, he stated that the establishment of communism would account for the end of 'pre-history,' with the birth of communism marking the begining of history itself.