of the argument is pretty much of an expansion of the way you understand the concept. The dialectic concerns a taoist confrontation of opposites.

As you correctly state the Marxian dialectic did mean the class struggle, in which the thesis was the capitalist owner of the means of production and the workers were the Hegelian antithesis. By definition this dynamic cannot continue to co-exist. The result is that something new would be born out of their clash. This something new would be called a synthesis. Marx called this synthesis communism in which the worker would own the means of production. This new Marxian society was a utopian ideal that nowhere was ever achieved.

My problem with construct was that according to Hegel, the process was ongoing. Each new synthesis, once established and defined became a new thesis. Which in turn would be confronted by a new antithesis. Which in turn became a new synthesis. Thus the process is never ending non teleological construct.

Hegel used the image of the immovable object being assaulted by the irresistable force. By definition when they collide neither can continue their existence. Thus they have to give rise to something new, or a synthesis of the two previous entities.

In the Taoist since there is neither "ideal" nor spiritual considerations here. There is merely an explanation of the concept of change--which could be change in any arena.

Publius