Dialectics for Dummies

And don't worry. It doesn't have to turn you into a Marxist.

I used to poo poo Hegel as long-winded post-Kantian rationalist philosophy, mostly inscrutable to the Anglo-American mind. German to English translations help little. But I am itchier now, having lain down with a few Hegelian dogs. I am admittedly still a noob, but I have learned enough to see things differently.

So read this at your own risk.

You’re probably familiar with "thesis, antithesis, synthesis," but this cliché model often oversimplifies the process, reducing a dynamic process to a simple formula. Hegel’s method is more about the movement of thought through contradiction and sublation (Aufhebung), where oppositions are resolved and transformed into something new that preserves and transcends aspects of each opposing force.

To develop a set of heuristics for a slightly more subtle and penetrating approach to dialectics, we can focus on capturing the fluidity, relationality, membranics, and historical embeddedness of dialectical thinking. Below, I propose heuristics designed to guide one’s thinking without falling into reductive traps. I aim for these to be practical, open-ended, and faithful to the spirit of inquiry.

The Process

To engage dialectics, begin by identifying the relational core of a situation. Rather than isolating a single starting point, focus on the interdependencies—forces or ideas that define one another, perhaps in the “unity of opposites” sense. For example, in analyzing state capitalism, reverse engineer by considering how government authorities and corporate executives mutually constitute each other, as each shapes the other’s possibilities and constraints. This approach avoids reifying one element as primary and emphasizes that certain apparent oppositions are internally linked.

This sets the stage for a dynamic inquiry into their interplay.

Now, trace the contradictions within the relation, seeking to spot any tensions that arise from the internal structure rather than external conflicts. A concept or system often undermines itself through its own logic. We might call state capitalism dark dialectics, because it involves corporations and states forming unholy alliances (powerful elites). New tensions surface between the people and the powerful elites. Populists and libertarians make an uneasy alliance in counterpower, but this alliance also includes internal contradictions.

Consider another example related to the above. Representative democracy claims equal representation yet tends to concentrate power in ways that destabilize it. (Recall that it is a concatenation of prior forms: democracy and republic.) Focusing on contradictions reveals how instability is inherent to the relation, and shows a critique richer than simply pitting alternative systems, especially imagined ones, against representative democracy.

The movement of negation drives the dialectic forward, as tensions challenge and deconstruct existing arrangements. This is not about simple opposition but how one aspect negates another aspect. Such aspects and their negations open new possibility spaces.

Those called Yd Shml went straight until they encountered another iota. If Yd Shml encountered another Yd Shml, they bonded. If Yd Shml encountered a Yd Ymn, they bounced.

Those called Yd Ymn went straight until they encountered another iota. If Yd Ymn encountered another Yd Ymn, they bonded. If Yd Ymn encountered a Yd Shml, they bounced.

As more iotas bonded and bounced, newer, larger iotas formed and complexified.
(from New Stories of Old Stardust)

Historically, what we might call the first round of liberal ideals negated feudal hierarchies. But as free people organized corporate hierarchies, this afforded benefits to many but also came with dehumanizing tradeoffs. For example, questions about competing abstract rights—personal autonomy versus property rights—seemed contradictory when instantiated in Taylorite firms that too often treated workers as cogs. Yes, workers freely chose to contract with managing owners, but firm stratification assumed pliant workers should take orders from higher-ups who would issue commands like battlefield captains. Despite the welcome development of a middle class, feudal castes became corporate castes.

Of course, Marx cottoned on to this dynamic but drove his own dubious dialectics into a theoretical ditch. Instead of imposing a rationalist framework onto the future, Marx and his scions would have done better to become far more detached observers of microtrends, technological developments, and local syntheses playing out in a manner that would end up falsifying his conclusions. Following a humbler, more empirical approach keeps the process more iterative and fluid.

Now, instead of seeking a tidy resolution, aim for sublation—a process that negates, retains, and transforms aspects of the original relation.

In the case of the industrial firm, dialectics came with a dash of Darwinism, as managers learned that they could become more competitive by unlocking workers’ local knowledge and savoir-faire by empowering them to make decisions and/or rewarding them with more competitive wages or even fractional ownership. Delegative, even decentralized management philosophies emerged as firms scaled. Yet we saw neither the emergence of syndicalist anarchy nor a dictatorship of the proletariat. Instead, strongmen stoked revolutions to lead brutal, bureaucratic ruling classes in the name of Marxism.

When analog media gave way to digital, costs went down and access went up. One-to-many distribution remained, but many-to-many distribution expanded. Sublation respects the contexts and complexities of change, acknowledging that contradictions are not simply erased but reworked into something that carries forward elements of the past in forms that channel complexity.

Every dialectic must be situated in its historical and material context to remain concrete. For example, the tension between privacy and surveillance takes shape under our global digital infrastructure, which is distinct from earlier debates tied to physical spaces. Then, we see the cypherpunk rise of cryptography, including end-to-end private communications and censorship-resistant blockchains. These innovations have made decentralized organizations possible, and decentralized, hybrid mixes of common, club, and private ownership have become a reality.

Grounding one’s analysis in specific conditions prevents too many universalizing abstractions and ensures the dialectic speaks to the real forces shaping a moment. That means theory and observation work hand in hand.

But here comes the hard part.

Recognize that dialectical processes often involve multiple, overlapping contradictions rather than a single oppositional binary. Just look at the political landscape in the West. It’s not merely left versus right anymore—if it ever was—it’s also authoritarian versus free. Where shall the powerful compel the people?

Max Marty

of Practal Radicalism (great dialectical title) reminds us about the good ole days when the Left left Molotov cocktails burning in the streets of Seattle in the fight against NAFTA and global trade, policies now being realized by an unlikely avatar in Trump and a cadre of right-wing protectionists armed with a new American industrial policy that’s purportedly more worker-focused. When the protectionists move to cut costs and liberalize domestically, the left describes the change as *chaos* and resists, seeking to conserve the status quo.

Left turns right and right turns left.

Who Really Won the Battle of Seattle?

Dialectics comes alive through praxis. Insights get tested in actions to reveal new dimensions. Old binaries give way to new binaries, which bounce or bond.

Finally, remain open to reversal and recurrence, as transformed relations often generate new contradictions. The internet’s democratization of knowledge, while stymied at times by algorithmic gatekeeping, has reignited debates about expression, access, and control. AI reveals additional tensions. By anticipating such cycles, the dialectic stays dynamic, treating no outcome as final and keeping the process attuned to the constant of reality becoming.

For better or worse, you will find cycles of decoherence and then coherence.

Systems oscillate between moments of stability (coherence) and fragmentation (decoherence). Coherence refers to a state where system elements align to produce order, shared meaning, or functionality, while decoherence describes the unraveling of that alignment, leading to disorder, conflict, or dispersal. Coherence and decoherence offer a powerful way to regard systems—whether social, intellectual, ecological, or technological. By using dialectical logic, we can trace how these cycles emerge, transform, and regenerate, revealing the underlying dynamics of systems in constant flux.

---

Ways of Using Dialectical Heuristics

There are at least five ways to use dialectics:

• Analytically. Apply dialectics iteratively to a concept, system, or problem. Start by identifying relations. Trace any contradictions, following their movement through negation and sublation, staying grounded in context.

• Creatively. Use them to explore art, design, or problem-solving possibilities, where tensions (e.g., form vs. function) can generate novel outcomes.

• Critically. Deploy them to critique ideologies or systems by exposing their internal contradictions and historical limits.

• Practically. Guide decision-making or strategy by mapping tensions and anticipating how actions might transform them, as in organizing or policy-making.

• Predictively. Anticipate the contours of the future by testing or using speculative thought experiments rooted in real trends.

Like many other modes of reasoning, methodological dialectics doesn’t care much about ideology. That’s not to say you can’t use dialectics for ideological ends. You just have to admit that ideology can blind you in identifying countervailing processes as they unfold, challenging one’s worldview. Still, understanding the process can grant a strategic advantage to an ideologue, as long as she is open to good news and bad.

---

Whither Freedom

So, where does all this leave us on vital questions of freedom and consent? I argue that dialectics can help transform us into directional ideologues rather than absolutists. Dialectics can prompt you to see elements of the changing world around you in their decoherence. That means you can only ever imagine the world as ideal. Every step toward some ideological North Star—like human freedom— involves tradeoffs, opportunity costs, and evolutionary pressures. But in recognizing forces of decoherence and coherence, you can spot opportunities.

Does your newfound grasp of such insights necessitate abandoning your ideology?

Not at all. Instead, it requires you to integrate the pragmatism of next steps, including uneasy and potentially unsustainable alliances and fusionism.

In my deepest heart, I think we are better off applying the powers of dialectic reasoning in the context of innovative projects rather than just politics, policy, or punditry. In other words, is there an innovation—whether a device, drug, or attractive system—that brings more change leverage than an election cycle?

In other words, what is your next step once you have done the analysis?

Subversive innovation is the path of the dialectically informed wizards and warrior-monks.

Thanks go to Bard, Ebert, and Amarque, from whom I’m still learning.