Dialectic is
two part; dialectical unity is something of an oxymoron. There never was a
requirement of a single reply to a thesis. There may be numerous counter-thesis
emergent whenever an idea makes it to the social realm.
Marxism in borrowing Hegel's paradigm of the
world spirit realizing itself tried to formalize his own application with
something of a pseudo-scientific-rigorous method for credibility's sake I
suppose. It was inefficient then and was rather terminally, permanently flawed.
Marx's fancy
way of saying that some political states and circumstances have opposition had
no implicit points in support of an ideal political state (such as Hegel
believed in Germany of his day to be (in error) when U.S. democracy was
actually the highest then extent political evolution). Dead reckoning and pure
intelligence have no necessary association with ways to inductively configure
some political formula.
Checks and
balances are something of a joke in an era where plutocracy has bi-partisan
support and the .1% own or control about everything in economics. Ordinary
people have no idea nor capability of realizing the way things are such that
they would chose good and appropriate policy for the day. That in my opinion would
be ecological economics.
Consider just
the issue of illegal immigration to the U.S.A. Millions of illegal workers take
labor jobs away from Americans and gut wage negotiations. Being largely from a
dry 2nd world nation they have few if any ecospheric economic education nor
tendencies. However leftist Democrats support them as do the rich for different
reasons. In the case of Democrats they fail to factor the extra environmental
costs of consumption of non-renewable resources by illegal aliens nor the effect
on the body politic in failing to add up the ecological economic calculus of
each individual. The illegal aliens are less well educated than Americans on
ecological economics who are in turn themselves rather dull to the point of
insensibility as they support cars, highways, sprawl and so forth.