Long explanation incoming. The Hegelian Dialectic is a piece of extremely bad philosophy proposed by the German philosopher, Hegel. The idea of the "dialectic" - a means of knowing reality by comparison, rather than something like empiricism - goes back to Plato, but Hegel really formalized and modernized the idea. The basic idea is that you have two contradicting concepts, and instead of throwing at least one one out as false, you recognize that your understanding must be incomplete, and you find an underlying principle by which both can be true. The famous example is that of water. I propose one concept (the thesis): that water is a liquid. You propose an opposing concept (the antithesis): that water is a solid. These seem contradictory, but a deeper truth comes from understanding them both as true by combining them, to find the underlying principle (the synthesis): water changes its state depending on temperature, and so is wet at room temperature and solid below 32 degrees. Now, that type of thinking works if you're dealing with very basic concepts like the physical states of water, and if both your thesis and antithesis are undeniably true. However, it's terribly useless philosophy for finding the truth because reality is generally very complex, and because when you have two opposing ideas then it usually means they are logically inconsistent and at least one is false. But, because the Hegelian dialectic is a very academic way of justifying your ideas without relying on proof or logic or real-world testing, leftists flocked to it. Hegel was pretty famous and academically well-established in his day, so the Hegelian dialectic was long accepted in more moronic academic circles by the time Karl Marx came around. Hegel mostly applied his dialectic to philosophical and spiritual ideas, but Marx realized he could use it as a political tool. So you'll sometimes hear people refer to Marxist Dialectic or Material Dialectic (the term Marx used), but it's fundamentally the same idea of how to get around logic, now political. Into modern times, most philosophers have abandoned the Hegelian dialectic as a serious way to look at the world, since empiricism has given us things like the scientific revolution. Marxists, however, have plenty experience in duping idiots by using dialectic, and so continue to do so (although they are now usually smart enough not to call it that when they use it). This has manifested in a couple of different ways. One way is to merely hide a truth that would otherwise be obvious by looking at the evidence. For example - Thesis: Blacks get arrested and shot by cops at a far higher rate than anyone else. Antithesis: But blacks are just people no different from anyone else, except they're cooler and victimized more and they don't have a history of evil like white folks. How can these both be true? Synthesis: white cops are racist mass murderers, constantly hunting down blacks who dindunuffin. Of course, the synthesis is false because the antithesis was false. But before idiots, schoolchildren, or corporate TV viewers ever get around to looking up the data showing that blacks are consistently more criminal and violent in communities across the world, they've already got an explanation. Acceptance of the synthesis as an explanation already implies the truth of the antithesis without ever having to prove it. Another way leftists use dialectic is commonly referred to as "problem-reaction-solution", which is used to get people to consent to policies and power grabs they otherwise wouldn't. For example - Thesis: Redneck idiot conservatives are refusing to get the safe and effective vaccine against the horrible deadly pandemic for political reasons, thus turning them into terrorists who might kill your children, because we can't legally force them to get jabbed. Antithesis: Government is supposed to protect the safety of the citizenry, and we demand that they do so. Synthesis: the compassionate government will do everything they can to save little Suzy and Grandma by stopping the unvaccinated from spreading - by shutting down their small businesses, preventing them from interacting in normal society, tracking everyone and making everyone present papers, etc. As you can see, the thesis is the problem that the establishment caused (or simply pretended was real), and the antithesis is the reaction from the scared people who think the world should be in an oppositional state from the thesis. The synthesis of the two is always a solution where the establishment are "forced" to do things that the population would normally disagree with, because it's the only way to help the scared people.