I am at a loss at how to deal with someone like Zizek. His dialectical materialism is a flawed genre but the classic legacy both affirms and defends it in principle. But we need to move on. We are not talking to other marxists, but to the public at large. Consider a NASA rocket scientist. If anyone at NASA tried analyze rocket science using dialectic he would be fired on the spot as a dangerous menace.
But the study of society is exempted here, in the name of Hegel, whose method isn’t even used, and where changes in ‘materialist’ study make an obscurity even worse.
I think that Hegel alone knew what he was doing, and in any case he brings into philosophy a response to ‘yes/no’ logic an attempted version of the ‘non-dual’. If that is true then we should set a definite time and place to conduct research on this question, keeping the scratchpad ruminations in quarantine from the crucial issues of rocket science, here ‘social praxis’ and theories of the social. But we may need to ‘meditate’ in the classic fashion to achieve states of consciousness that express the non-dual. The yogis who succeeded here often became silent, because language was not adequate. That shows the peril of dialectic.
We may not be able to treat the addiction to dialectic for this very reason. It expresses an unconscious hope in those who have rejected religion of a new material angle on the issues. But that has never materialized.
All we can do is make a ‘dialectical’ critique of dialectic standard procedure and keep the subject on the sidelines as a research project. This could subtract one of the delusive and egregiously unnecessary addons of the marxist canon which has succeeded in confusing almost its entire cadre.