# dialectic **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 22, 2001, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dialectic/58990 "2001-03-22T13:18:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![jwg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df788c/32.png) [@jwg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jwg)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2001, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dialectic/58990/1 "2001-03-22T13:18:20Z")
When the Commies talk about the “dialectic” what do they mean? And did it ever “prove” anything? ---
**Author:** ![capybara](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/capybara/32/202_2.png) [@capybara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capybara)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2001, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dialectic/58990/2 "2001-03-22T16:09:49Z")
It was/is a theory of historical progress, first set forth by Hegel but then Marx monkied with it a bit, so you hear either “Hegelian dialectic” or “Marxist dialectic” with slightly different connotations. In this view, precedent conditions, the thesis and antithesis, merge to form a new condition, the synthesis, which is a new thesis in a never-ending progression. That is the dialectic, and was an idealist proposition in Hegel. Marx develops a notion of “dialectical materialism,” which inverts the Hegelian dialectic (I’m fuzzy here-- many years since college philosophy-- these can be charted with pyramids, but don’t ask me to-- my Hegel is better than my Marx), and posits that in our present circumstances, Capitalism is a thesis which will merge with the revolution, the antithesis, with a synthesis result of Communism-- basically, revolution is a historical imperative. Is this a helpful start?