I took down, then restored the posts critical of dialectic. It is hard to make headway against ‘established marxism’ but the issue is one of the things that is confusing the left in its analysis.
The question is hard to deal with: dialectic is so engrained it is almost impossible to take it on critically.
A new solution needs to be found. There are a number of venues here:
always use dialectic in the context of its history, without the confusing claim that if it is made ‘materialist’ we are finally on the right track. That starts with Plato…
distinguish dialectic dyads from dialectic triads. The former are easily defined, moderated and relatable to mathematical logic. It is a transparent glyph for ‘dialogue, debate, thesis/antithesis, contradiction’, etc… But the issue of dialectical triads is far more difficult, and the minute anyone, in the new age movement, objects, confused people will cite supposedly infallible guides (like Gurdjieff) to claim they are justified. Maybe they are, but the reality is that triads remain obscure to the human mind. But if marxists always made this distinction they could greatly clarify their confusion here, and would be forced to answer explicitly to a triadic dialectic. Here again there is a confusion: dyadic dialectic (debate) rapidly converges on a third perspective. But the assumption this a valid procedure is not so clear. But the jargon suggests it is: thesis, antithesis, ..synthesis. But the latter is mostly an abstraction with no connection to reality. People find the resolution of debates (dyadic dialectic) but that resolution is not a new thesis as synthesis, but a fuzzy pool of ideas of how to possibly proceed. It seems unlikely the synthesis is guaranteed in logic.
The point here is to free marxism from chronic confusion and stalled efforts. A way needs to be found to produce clear, logical (!) discussion of social and economic issues and debates. Here dialectic can confuse for the same reason that dialectic is forbidden in mathematical theorem deduction. It doesn’t have to be that way: if mathematicians took up the subject they could establish a branch in mathematical logic, perhaps. At the other end, non-dual yogis might consider the issue of ‘dialectical resolution’ as ‘synthesis’. But yogis would not debate this issue (although there are a huge number of ancient Jain sutras on such logics), they would meditate. The point, apparently, is that the mind is a ‘logic’ device in essence and this can’t resolve dialectical triads.