I think it's called "dialectic" because it's like a "dialog". Events, history and problems and such, unfold logically until they reach an impasse, a contradiction. To resolve this, you have to take into account what has come before; your response can't just be a non-sequitur. So, like, reactionaries look at a problem that exists and say, "We have to go back to before this problem existed and just do that" -- but it never works because what came before eventually became what is. Or sometimes people try to brush away all the context, find a clean slate to start over. That really doesn't work. Your still plugged into the same context, and in attempting to wipe away everything you've just made a whole bunch of new contradictions as well.

So to be dialectic, you gotta pay attention to what's going on and what's already happened. You gotta really study the context you are in, so that when you decide to respond you are prepared for how that in turn unfolds to the next contradiction.

...i think that's what it means, anyway

[–] ChicagoCommunist@hexbear.net 5 points 1 week ago

I like the way you describe it.

Better than the thesis/antithesis/synthesis model, which I think was a major roadblock in my attempts to actually understand hegel/marx.

load more comments (3 replies)