I have no fucking idea what the Dialectic is and I'm not in any hurry to learn.

its just cause and effect

you know how liberals like to argue as if things happen in a vacuum. the dialectic argues that no, we live on a continuum of cause and effect

Just cause and effect would be vulgar materialism

Dialectics means that all things are changing each other rather than one another, it can be idealistic or materialistic

Marxism is dialectics + materialism
- look i was keeping it simple
  
  i didnt think id need to explain the transformative properties of adding chocolate to milk makes the milk taste like chocolate and the chocolate taste milky because the milk and chocolate has been transformed. people understand that cause and effect in a complex system transforms the system itself give people some credit goddamn

Emergent phenomenon, chaos theory, feedback loops, interconnected dynamic systems interacting

An old word to describe a myriad of things that deal with emergence and Phase transition

Emergent phenomenon, chaos theory, feedback loops, interconnected dynamic systems interacting

You've just been hired at a marketing firm.
- Nah, these are real things, real theories for understanding complex systems. If @CyborgMarx@hexbear.net was in marketing they would have said the s word (synergies)

It's when a drug makes you need to pee a lot

No you are thinking of something else, a dialectic is a non-conductive material that can be polarized by an electric field.
- No, that’s a dielectric. A dialectic is somebody who can’t eat much sugar because their body doesn’t produce enough insulin.

You have a herbivore and a carnivore. If there is no carnivore, the herbivores eat themselves into starvation and cease to exist. If there is no herbivore, the carnivores starve and no longer exist. Both are interdependent on the other to sustain their relationship and the wider ecosystem of relationships they participate in. There are contradictions in that interdependence, places where resource scarcity and social conflict favour the needs of one group over the other. These contradictions will mount- drought driving waterway changes driving vegetation distribution driving caloric availability and shelter- until there's a catastrophic rupture. Suddenly the population of rabbits stalls and the foxes have nothing to eat. Either new relationships are formed to meet the needs of those former intertwined groups, the groups in their current state die out, or their relationship finds a new equilibrium. As you study how the natural resources drive those interconnected relationships in the ecosystem, you're doing dialectical materialism. As you study that change over time you're doing historical materialism.

Damn I'm gonna steal this
- "Nature is the proof of dialectics" - happybadger, 2024

[SPEECH 100] Nobody knows what the dialectic is really; but especially not Edward Sallow, who had to have gotten his knowledge of Hegel from fucking Jason Unruhe.

You don't need to worry about dialectics unless you have kidney failure.

I told someone I matched with that I like dialectical materialism. We're now discussing Palestine with historial materialism. That's dialectics

No fucking solidarity No hurry

mystery-emote The Dialectic

No Woman No Cry

since nobody knows for sure, I'm going to take this opportunity to say what I think it is but it's probably wrong so ignore this

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

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.
you have to take into account what has come before

Or sometimes people try to brush away all the context
- I mean yeah, she talks a good talk occasionally. But actions are what count.
That sounds smart and makes sense in as much as I have any idea what's happening in The Theory.